France is in a rage. A nation that prides itself on reason and the republican ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity is confronting deep fissures between its promises and its people’s daily lives. Hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets to demand something more basic than lofty ideals: schools that teach, public services that function and a living they can afford.
The nationwide protests on Oct. 17 alone drew 550,000 people by the government’s count and 800,000 by the unions’ estimate. Most demonstrated peacefully, although arson and looting scarred several cities. Beneath the disorder lay grievances that had been accumulating long before the first window was broken.
For Korea, the most telling detail is where the movement began: in schools. Students protesting teacher shortages and deteriorating facilities were joined by workers and households struggling with living costs. What began as a demand for better classrooms became a broader indictment of the state’s ability to provide the services its citizens expect.
The French government has little room to maneuver. Energy prices rose 21.3 percent in September from a year earlier. Public debt is projected to reach 119.3 percent of gross domestic product this year. Its proposed 2027 budget seeks €54 billion in fiscal improvements, including €43 billion in new measures. The pressure to repair public finances is colliding with demands for relief from households that already feel stretched.
Violence deserves no indulgence. Freedom of assembly does not confer a right to burn buildings, loot shops or destroy public property. But enforcing the law and answering legitimate grievances are distinct obligations. Restoring order cannot substitute for restoring confidence.
Korea should not dismiss France’s turmoil as a distant European problem. The two countries differ in their economic structures, welfare systems and fiscal circumstances. Korea is not destined to follow France. It does, however, face the same fundamental test: whether it can sustain public services, prepare the next generation and secure consent for difficult reforms before its choices become narrower and more painful.
The work must begin with public finances. Debt is a legitimate instrument of government. Borrowing can cushion a recession, meet an emergency or finance investments whose benefits endure for decades. Fiscal responsibility lies in knowing what that borrowing achieves, whether it can be sustained and how fairly its costs are shared.
In its June outlook, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development projected that Korea’s public debt would exceed 50 percent of GDP in 2027. Forecasts change, and Korea’s debt burden remains well below France’s. The deeper concern is the direction of its demographic pressures. Rapid aging and very low fertility will leave a smaller working population supporting greater demand for pensions, healthcare and care services.
Today’s borrowing decisions will therefore shape both tomorrow’s tax bills and the freedom of future governments to respond to crises.
A credible fiscal strategy must account for the pace of debt accumulation, interest costs and the value obtained from public spending. Government debt, public enterprise liabilities and long-term pension obligations need to be disclosed clearly, with their different definitions and risks preserved.
Fiscal rules should allow room to respond to genuine emergencies while restraining borrowing in ordinary times. Discipline that disappears whenever it becomes politically inconvenient is no discipline at all.
Education belongs at the heart of that strategy. It is one of the principal ways a country equips the next generation to carry the responsibilities being passed to it.
Korea’s shrinking student population presents an opportunity to improve education, but also a temptation to take shortcuts. Cutting budgets mechanically as enrollment falls would overlook the needs of disadvantaged students and communities. Preserving every existing allocation would be equally misguided.
The question should be what children need to learn well—and whether the money reaches them. That requires better teacher deployment, sound school facilities and a determined effort to narrow regional disparities. It also requires confronting the burdens of private tutoring and the difficult restructuring of universities as their student base contracts.
Preparing students for the AI age adds urgency, but buying devices and software is only a beginning. Digital literacy needs strong foundations in mathematics, science and the humanities. Students must learn to question an answer as well as generate one, to exercise judgment and to understand the human consequences of technological change.
A school is also an early encounter with the state. When it fails to provide the basics, young people learn a lesson about public institutions that can be difficult to unlearn.
Protecting education and other essential services will require choices elsewhere. Fiscal reform cannot command lasting support if vulnerable households bear the heaviest burden while ineffective subsidies, overlapping programs and poorly justified tax concessions survive untouched.
These should be among the first areas examined. Support for energy bills, housing and education should be judged by whom it reaches and whether it meaningfully eases hardship. Broad promises of assistance may be politically attractive, but scarce resources must be directed where they do the most good.
The same standard should apply to industrial policy. Investment in semiconductors, AI, biotechnology, energy and advanced manufacturing can strengthen Korea’s growth prospects. Calling a project a future growth engine, however, does not establish its economic value.
Public funding should rest on credible assessments of technical feasibility, commercial prospects and the ability to draw in private investment. Projects that fail to deliver should be revised or closed. Continuing to finance them to spare political embarrassment makes future taxpayers pay for present-day unwillingness to admit a mistake.
None of this can be sustained without political agreement. France’s difficulties show how financial pressures intensify when a divided legislature cannot produce a durable compromise. Korea’s pension, healthcare, education and fiscal challenges will outlast any single administration. Treating them chiefly as opportunities to defeat an opponent ensures that the underlying problems survive each political victory.
The government must explain who will bear the costs of reform, who will benefit and why the distribution is fair. The National Assembly must scrutinize those choices and offer workable alternatives. Agreement need not erase political differences. It must be strong enough to keep essential reforms from being undone whenever power changes hands.
France’s anger poses a question that Korea should answer before it is shouted in the streets.
Is the state using the resources entrusted to it to provide a decent life today and a fair chance tomorrow, and that requires sound finances, capable schools and public services people can rely on. It also requires a political system willing to make difficult choices while there is still time to make them fairly.
The duty of government begins long before the crowds gather. It begins with fixing the failures that bring them there.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.