France is in turmoil. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have taken to the streets, protesting against rising living costs and fuel prices. On October 17, government estimates indicated that 550,000 people participated in nationwide demonstrations, while labor unions claimed the number reached 800,000. Major cities like Paris, Marseille, and Lyon witnessed incidents of arson and looting, reflecting long-standing economic instability and political distrust within French society.
Notably, the protests were sparked by grievances originating in schools. Complaints about teacher shortages, outdated facilities, and poor educational environments have merged with broader discontent over living costs among workers and the lower class. This distrust in education has intertwined with concerns over livelihoods, escalating into a broader critique of national governance.
The economic situation in France is challenging. In September, energy prices surged by 21.3% compared to the same month last year. The government has proposed a fiscal improvement plan for 2027 amounting to €43 billion. National debt is projected to reach 119.3% of this year's GDP. Political compromise between a government needing to reduce deficits and citizens demanding stability has proven elusive.
While the protests in France cannot be wholly justified, peaceful assembly and freedom of expression must be upheld in a democratic society. However, acts of arson, looting, and destruction of public property are unacceptable. It is crucial to distinguish between legal accountability for violent actions and citizens' legitimate policy demands. Merely penalizing illegal activities will not resolve the structural issues in education and livelihoods.
South Korea should not view this situation as merely a European political crisis. The economic structures, welfare systems, and fiscal conditions of France and South Korea differ significantly. However, the fundamental principles of governance remain the same. Sustainable national finances are essential for maintaining welfare, a solid education system is vital for securing the future, and political trust is necessary for successful reforms.
First, national debt must be managed rigorously. Debt is not inherently bad, nor should it be increased indiscriminately. Fiscal investments are necessary to respond to recessions and disasters while securing future growth. The key issue lies in how debt is utilized and who bears the burden.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) projects that South Korea's public debt will exceed 50% of GDP by 2027. Although this is lower than France's level, it is not a cause for complacency. South Korea faces rapid aging, low birth rates, and declining potential growth rates. Long-term financial expenditures for pensions, healthcare, and caregiving will inevitably rise. Current fiscal decisions will shape the tax burdens and policy choices for future generations.
The government must manage not only the total amount of national debt but also its growth rate, interest burden, and the productivity of expenditures. It is essential to transparently disclose the long-term financial burdens of national debt, public institution debt, and pensions, incorporating them into medium- to long-term fiscal plans. Fiscal rules should allow for flexibility in responding to economic conditions while effectively controlling debt growth during normal times.
Second, education financing should be viewed not merely as an expenditure item but as an investment that determines the nation's future. As the protests in France illustrate, when the fundamental functions of education are compromised, youth trust in the state diminishes. South Korea is no exception.
The education system faces complex challenges, including declining school-age populations, regional extinction, burdens of private education, and restructuring of universities. Education budgets should not be mechanically reduced simply because student numbers are falling. Conversely, maintaining past budget allocation methods is also not a solution.
The focus of education financing should shift from simple distribution based on student numbers to quality and equity in education. It is necessary to improve the imbalance in teacher placement, renovate aging school facilities, and reduce educational disparities between regions. In particular, it is crucial to enhance digital literacy and balanced education in science, mathematics, and humanities, especially in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Understanding human dignity, freedom, and critical thinking is as important as the ability to utilize AI.
Third, fiscal reforms that protect livelihoods are necessary. Under the pretext of ensuring fiscal soundness, burdens should not be disproportionately placed on vulnerable groups, nor should essential education, healthcare, and caregiving services be weakened. However, expanding financial support to all classes is also not sustainable.
The government should review ineffective subsidies, overlapping projects, and insufficient tax reductions. At the same time, policies aimed at reducing energy costs, housing expenses, and education fees for the lower class must be carefully analyzed for their target audience and effectiveness. Using limited resources where they are most needed is a fundamental principle of finance.
Fourth, national reforms require political consensus. The deepening fiscal crisis in France is attributed not only to economic factors but also to a divided parliament and a fragile political compromise structure. South Korea must also address pension, healthcare, education, labor, and fiscal issues beyond partisan interests.
The National Assembly must fulfill its constitutional responsibility to review and oversee the government's budget. The government should not only present the need for reforms in numerical terms but also transparently communicate the burdens and benefits to the public. Both ruling and opposition parties must cooperate on issues that reduce the burdens on future generations and maintain essential public services.
Finally, national fiscal policies should be designed to balance growth and distribution, as well as present and future needs. Investments in semiconductors, AI, biotechnology, energy, and advanced manufacturing are crucial for enhancing South Korea's growth potential. However, not all projects labeled as future industries are good investments. Economic viability, technical feasibility, and the potential for private investment must be rigorously verified. Continuously funneling taxpayer money into unproductive projects does not constitute an investment in the future but rather exacerbates future burdens.
The anger resonating in the streets of France cannot be interpreted solely as a demand for lower taxes and increased welfare. It also questions how faithfully the state is providing the basic living conditions promised to its citizens and how equitably the burdens of reform are being shared.
The lessons for South Korea are clear: welfare cannot be sustained without sound finances, growth cannot endure without quality education, and reforms are unlikely to succeed without public trust.
National debt must be managed responsibly, education must be innovated as an investment for the future, and livelihoods must be closely protected. The political sphere must foster the necessary social consensus throughout this process.
The greatness of a nation lies not in how much money it spends but in how responsibly it uses taxpayer money. It also depends on whether it can protect today's citizens while providing better opportunities for future generations.
South Korea must view France's anger as an opportunity to reflect on its own future. Crises do not begin suddenly in the streets; they deepen when long-standing issues are neglected and the voices of the people are ignored. The responsibility of politics is not merely to manage the aftermath of an explosion of anger but to proactively address the structural problems that give rise to such anger.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.