French rioters have ballot-box representation; English rioters have no leader.
Watching the recent riots in England from France has been an eerie experience. The parallels between the violence erupting in England’s provincial streets and the anger that engulfed France just over a year ago are striking. On the surface, the patterns behind both disorders appear remarkably similar: both followed highly charged emotional incidents—such as the murder of three young girls in Southport, England, and the police shooting of an innocent 17-year-old in France—igniting fury that spiraled into widespread violence. Both riots saw attacks on public buildings, with mosques and libraries targeted in England and libraries and schools in France. Finally, in both countries, political leaders were left stunned, impotent, and unable to respond effectively.
This comparison has not gone unnoticed by the French media, with Le Figaro commenting that the riots carried a “whiff of civil war.” However, commentators are puzzled by several aspects of the unrest. They are asking where the violence is coming from and whether the English riots are merely a British version of French discontent or if there is something distinctly Anglo-Saxon about their character. Some are also questioning whether this unrest signals a larger, post-Brexit crisis in England’s political and social fabric.
Despite the similar patterns, a key difference remains: in France, rioters have a political voice through their representation in parliament, primarily through left-wing parties such as Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise. In contrast, English rioters lack a clear political leader or movement that speaks to their grievances. This absence of leadership may make the unrest in England harder to define, both politically and socially, than the violence in France. The comparison of both nations’ struggles reveals deep social rifts, but also significant differences in how those rifts are voiced and represented.
