In Roman mythology, Jupiter is the sovereign of the gods, associated with supreme authority. At the outset of his mandate, Emmanuel Macron defended a “Jupiterian” presidency, capable of setting the course above the daily turmoil. The metaphor expressed a conception of power based on presidential centrality and distance. Its wear shows that at this point it has become isolation and disconnection. Macron’s fall, with popularity at historic lows, symbolizes the exhaustion of a vertical and authoritarian form of governance.
The demonstrations of October 17 in France against the cost of living and the deterioration of public services brought together diverse demands, while looting, arson and clashes occupied the center of attention. The fires in public buildings and neighborhood shops offer a particularly painful image, in which local institutions become targets of destruction.
“The fall of Macron, with popularity at historic lows, symbolizes the exhaustion of a vertical and authoritarian form of governance”
This discontent has a European dimension. In Milan, protests against the cost of living also ended in clashes. In Spain, the general strike planned for November 11 places wages and access to housing at the center of the debate. They are different contexts, but their proximity forces an examination of shared feelings: material insecurity, the loss of expectations, and the rupture of trust in institutions.
The electoral calendar amplifies the relevance of these tensions. Spain will hold its general elections on November 29, 2026; France, its presidential elections in spring 2027; Poland and Italy have scheduled legislative elections in 2027. Their results will shape Europe’s ability to cooperate on security, ecological transition, economic policy, and the defense of the rule of law.
What happened in France is a deep crisis of representation, with the failure of institutional politics to respond to growing social discontent. A society can tolerate intense disagreements when it has mechanisms to channel them and build compromises. The problem begins when those channels get clogged or seem useless. Confrontation begins to be perceived as the only way to be heard.
“What happened in France is a deep crisis of representation, with the failure of institutional politics to respond to growing social discontent”
The failure of traditional parties also lies in their weakened intermediary role. Representation requires actively listening, formulating shared proposals, and being transparent in fulfilling electoral commitments. When this work is replaced by competition and polarization among parties and their leaders, their role becomes irrelevant. Something similar happens with social dialogue: to delegitimize unions and civil society eliminates the possibilities for agreement. Consulting them when decisions are already taken only deepens frustration. The responsibility of power means accepting that negotiation modifies the initial project and that disagreement deserves proper interlocutors, time, and responses.
The French verticality accentuates this difficulty. The concentration of expectations in the presidency converts any conflict into a standoff with the head of state and weakens the intermediate spaces. The use of Article 49.3 to approve the pension reform in 2023 revealed the limits of a constitutionally possible decision but socially contested. A democracy needs institutional majorities, the capacity to build agreements, and to explain how the efforts are distributed.
A recent poll in France places trust in politics at 22% and trust in political parties at 15%, compared with 60% among mayors. At the same time, 82% retained their attachment to the democratic regime. That distance suggests there is room to rebuild the relationship with institutions. But beneath this political crisis a existential crisis emerges. France and Europe wonder what place they will occupy in a world transformed by artificial intelligence, geopolitical tensions, and the climate emergency. Fear of decline fuels the search for scapegoats and promises of an idealized past. When the future is seen as a threat, the discourse of closed identity finds fertile ground. The democratic response must offer belonging and protection to diverse societies, with a horizon that allows imagining shared improvements.
“A democracy needs institutional majorities, the capacity to build compromises, and to explain how the efforts are distributed”
The unraveling of the social order begins when the conviction that the rules apply to everyone and that effort will be rewarded weakens. A school that stops equalizing opportunities, unaffordable housing, or distant public services erode the reciprocity on which citizenship rests. Violence against those services worsens the loss and harms those who rely on them most. Understanding the causes of discontent requires simultaneously defending social justice, common institutions, and individual responsibility.
The ecological transition concentrates these tensions. Asking for mobility changes from those who depend on the car without offering affordable transport can turn a necessary policy into an experience of abandonment. Preparing the transformation requires investments, alternatives, and a fair distribution of costs. Decisions gain legitimacy when those who bear the consequences participate in their design and can recognize what protection they receive in return.
Rebuilding trust between citizens and public authorities is essential to address the political, social, and climatic shocks we already experience and those to come. That trust is built before emergencies: through reliable services, honest information, and authorities who explain their decisions and correct mistakes. OECD research on institutional trust underscores the weight of participation, equity, and responsiveness. Recognizing uncertainties and preparing scenarios enables credible action when a crisis requires cooperation and rapid change.
“Trust is built before the emergency: through reliable services, honest information, and authorities who explain their decisions and correct mistakes”
The preelectoral period increases the risk of instrumentalization. Images of violence and misinformation can turn concrete grievances into a generalized rejection of institutions. The discontent offers opportunities to those who present concentration of power and exclusion as simple solutions. Responding requires transparency, independent journalism, and informed public debate, as well as policies that improve living conditions. Invoking the threat of the far right or the far left is insufficient if those defending democracy do not deliver results or accept limits on their own power.
The renewal requires stable mechanisms for debate and decision. Citizens’ assemblies can bring together diverse experiences and deliberate with plural information. To function they need time, compensation that enables participation, and guarantees of independence. Their recommendations must receive a public response: what is accepted, what is rejected, and why. Without that commitment and verifiable follow-up, participation risks becoming another reason for frustration. When well designed, these assemblies enrich the work of parliaments and governments.
“Responding requires transparency, independent journalism, and informed public debate, as well as policies that improve living conditions”
Swiss referendums offer another path. Their experience combines instruments to submit laws to vote and popular initiatives. Adapting them to each national framework requires clear questions, accessible information, transparency, and safeguards for fundamental rights. Consulting on concrete issues can strengthen citizen accountability if the procedure avoids turning into a plebiscite on the person who governs.
Democratic learning must begin in schools through reasoned debate, critical thinking, and student involvement in school decisions. It should continue in the workplaces where much of our lives unfold, with dialogue with workers’ representatives, training on rights, and participation in decisions about organization, technologies, and the ecological transition. Listening, negotiating, and disagreeing without retaliation are habits learned by exercising them.
Europe must apply these demands to its own decisions. Citizen participation must connect with identifiable responsibilities and responses from the Commission, the Parliament, and the governments. The upcoming electoral results will influence the capacity to act jointly, sustain solidarity, and defend freedoms. The Union will gain legitimacy if its citizens perceive protection against risks and opportunities to steer the transformations. Its external strength will also depend on the trust it is able to build within.
“The Union will gain legitimacy if its citizens perceive protection against risks and opportunities to steer the transformations”
The fall of Jupiter reminds us that no authority can lead a society through systemic transformations alone. France and Europe need to build decisions, distribute efforts fairly, and restore the expectation of a common future. Trust is earned by everyday acts and kept commitments. From it will depend our capacity to face upcoming crises while preserving social cohesion and individual freedoms, essential pillars of our rule-of-law states.
