[The Shock of Zero Votes in Favor: French Politics Abandons Fiscal Surgery]

France has fallen into the trap of populism. While its national debt has surpassed 115% of gross domestic product (GDP), the government’s austerity budget aimed at curbing the fiscal deficit was rejected by parliament in a staggering outcome: zero votes in favor. In the streets, hundreds of thousands are demanding wage and pension hikes alongside expanded public services, while the political establishment, acutely mindful of next year's presidential election, fails to persuade the public of the painful reforms required. Welfare, once distributed, is difficult to roll back, and politics that burns through future fiscal resources for immediate votes ultimately paralyzes a nation's capacity for reform. In this light, France’s reality serves as a stark warning of just how dangerous populism can be.

Reuters reported on the 6th that trade unions and student groups staged massive demonstrations across France, pushing the Macron administration into a severe political crisis, and noted that while the French government is attempting to narrow its fiscal deficit, protesters are demanding higher wages and pensions as well as improved public services.

What stands out most in this turmoil is the rejection of the budget bill in the French National Assembly on the 4th, the day prior to the protests. According to Reuters, the revenue portion of the 2027 draft budget submitted by the government led by Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu was rejected with 0 votes in favor, 458 against, and 2 abstentions. Despite universal awareness that state finances are in perilous shape, not a single lawmaker voted for the bill designed to address that crisis.

The draft budget originally submitted by the government targeted narrowing the fiscal deficit from 5.4% of GDP down to 5%. To achieve this, it proposed curtailing tax deductions for pensioners, extending special corporate surtaxes on major enterprises, freezing civil service salaries, and adjusting select welfare outlays. Yet, facing an upcoming presidential election next year, political factions across the spectrum systematically stripped out or amended the austerity measures to avert backlash from their respective voter bases.

The measure scaling back tax deductions for pensioners was axed following resistance not only from the left, but also from the hard-right National Rally (RN) and the center-right Republicans. The proposed extension of the special corporate tax on conglomerates was similarly derailed by opposition from the right and the ruling camp. Meanwhile, the left pushed for fresh taxes, and the National Rally proposed zero-interest loans of up to 100,000 euros for young couples, with debt forgiveness upon the birth of a third child.

As a result, rather than narrowing the deficit, the government's bill was distorted into an instrument that would widen it further. Through parliamentary revisions, the deficit was estimated to deteriorate to 5.9% of GDP, with the central government budget shortfall expected to climb to 177.1 billion euros—20.7 billion euros higher than originally planned. And yet, the political establishment voted down the very budget it had rewritten.

This captures the present state of French politics. The left refuses to cut welfare, while the right opposes tax increases. All the while, every party promises fresh benefits to voters. In the end, the political establishment tasked with managing state finances has become the single biggest barrier to fiscal reform.

[600,000 Pour into the Streets: The Public Demands More Welfare]

On the 5th, the day after the French parliament rejected the austerity budget, massive demonstrations erupted in Paris and major cities across the country. According to the Associated Press, the French Interior Ministry estimated nationwide turnout at around 600,000 demonstrators, whereas the left-leaning labor union CGT claimed participation reached 1.6 million. The Eiffel Tower in Paris was shut down, and rail transport, schools, and public services were severely disrupted. Around 70,000 police officers were mobilized across France, with clashes breaking out between protesters and law enforcement in several cities.

The demands of the demonstrators were clear: raise wages and pensions to keep pace with inflation, and channel more public funds into education, healthcare, railways, and other public services. In truth, the public's grievances are real: living costs are mounting, and frustration over healthcare staff shortages and deteriorating educational environments has been accumulating.

The core issue is where the money will come from to fulfill these demands. For the government to increase public sector compensation and expand pension and welfare spending, substantial funds are required. Taxes must be raised, or other spending must be slashed. Failing both, the state has no choice but to accumulate more debt.

Yet French politicians oppose tax hikes, resist welfare cuts, and continue pledging more entitlements. They speak as if a painless solution exists, when in reality they are merely kicking the cost to future generations. This is the most dangerous vicious cycle engineered by populism.

[Once Handed Out, Candy Cannot Be Taken Back: The Structural Trap Left by Left-Wing Welfare Politics]

The most insidious feature of populism is that handing out benefits is easy, while taking them back is extraordinarily difficult. When politicians expand welfare and raise pensions, the public perceives immediate benefits. Politicians gain popularity and improve their electoral prospects.

However, the bill does not always arrive right away. Covering shortfalls by issuing sovereign bonds allows current voters to enjoy the benefits while shifting the financial burden onto future taxpayers. The history of the French welfare state clearly illustrates this dynamic of perverse political incentives.

After taking power in 1981, Socialist President François Mitterrand pursued welfare expansion and reduced working hours. Notably in 1982, his administration lowered the retirement age from 65 to 60 for workers meeting certain contribution criteria. While celebrated as social progress at the time, subsequent population aging sparked recurring debates over the financial sustainability of the pension system.

To be sure, France’s current fiscal woes cannot be pinned solely on the policies of the Mitterrand administration. Subsequent tax cuts by right-wing and centrist governments, stimulus spending, slowing economic growth, and demographic aging all contributed to the accumulation of sovereign debt. Still, the underlying political mechanism remains clear: promising welfare expansion wins votes, while pursuing welfare contraction loses them.

The Macron administration sought to address this in 2023 by gradually raising the legal retirement age from 62 to 64 to safeguard the pension fund's solvency, triggering nationwide strikes and demonstrations. It served as a stark case study of the fierce political resistance unleashed when trying to scale back benefits already conferred upon the public.

[The Warning of a 115% Debt Ratio: Future Generations Bear the Populist Bill]

France’s fiscal crisis has already drawn warnings from international financial markets. Reuters reported on October 30 that international credit rating agency Fitch pointed out how slowing growth, rising borrowing costs, widening fiscal deficits, and political fragmentation are complicating the stabilization of national debt. According to Fitch, France's general government debt is projected to rise from 115.7% of GDP in 2025 to roughly 124% by 2028, with debt interest payments climbing from 2.5% of GDP in 2025 to 3.3% by 2028.

This is not simply a matter of having more debt. When a state spends more on servicing interest, its fiscal room to invest in education, research and development, defense, and future industries narrows. Compounded by rising pension and healthcare liabilities from population aging, the policy options available to the government shrink further. In effect, expanding welfare today risks cannibalizing tomorrow's growth and investment opportunities. For a nation like France, where tax burdens are already elevated, raising taxes further is exceedingly difficult. At the same time, any attempt to rein in spending meets entrenched political resistance.

Consequently, politicians face the temptation to defer difficult choices by borrowing more to bypass immediate friction. Sovereign debt, however, does not vanish. The benefits enjoyed by voters today will ultimately be paid for by future generations through higher taxes, reduced public investment, and constrained policy choices.

The most grave challenge confronting France is not merely that its national debt exceeds 115% of GDP. It is that while everyone recognizes the urgent need to restore fiscal health, the political consensus required to act has disintegrated. The nation is losing its political capacity to persuade citizens of necessary reforms long before it loses its technical capacity to balance the books.

[Why Times Insight | Populism Is the Politics of Buying Today's Votes with Invoices Sent to Tomorrow]

What France's reality demonstrates is not the failure of welfare itself. It is the failure of a brand of politics that pledges handouts without considering what state finances can sustain, while staying silent on how those bills will be paid. Populism hands sweet candy to the public; the public cheers, and politicians harvest votes. But that candy is never free. Someone must ultimately foot the bill.

What makes it even more frightening is that the moment an attempt is made to reduce the handouts, political resistance erupts. Politicians abandon reform out of fear of defeat at the ballot box, while citizens take to the streets to defend the benefits they already possess. Consequently, the state is paralyzed, unable to act even while fully aware that deficits must be tamed.

The zero votes in favor within the French parliament symbolize this political impotence. The left asserts that welfare cannot be touched; the right insists that taxes cannot be raised. Yet both continue to promise new benefits to the electorate. The political class, responsible for safeguarding the nation's future, has instead entered a bidding war using that future as collateral to capture the votes of the present.

The real tragedy of France is not that the state has run out of money, but that while everyone acknowledges the patient urgently requires surgery to survive, no one is willing to pick up the scalp

el.