The resignation of the president of the Louvre this Tuesday is not just a governance mishap but reveals the failure of ministerial leadership to engage in structural reforms, says cultural policy consultant Marguerite Frison-Roche.
On January 11, 2024, Rachida Dati joined the Ministry of Culture. On February 23, 2026, the president of the Louvre announced her resignation. Over twenty-five months passed between these dates. During this period, four Prime Ministers took office while the head of state continued his actions for nine years.
These figures are not just for show. They indicate both a duration sufficient to make an impact and political instability that undermines any long-term ambition. Governance in a temporary situation is difficult. Governing culture without a clear horizon is even more challenging. The Louvre is not an ordinary administration. With over nine million visitors per year, it remains the world’s leading museum institution. Its budget amounts to hundreds of millions of euros, a significant portion of which comes from its own resources. It embodies a significant part of French influence.
However, this institution, once thought to be sturdy, is now facing a profound crisis. Chronic overcrowding in certain areas, excessive focus on a few works, internal tensions, warnings about building conditions, and the need for a multi-year modernization plan make up a well-known diagnosis. A reorganization mission was announced but then halted. Strategic direction remains uncertain. It would be easy to attribute the failures to one leadership’s shortcomings, but that would miss the bigger picture. The Ministry of Culture cannot be accused of budget neglect. Its budget is around 4.5 billion euros in recent financial laws, with an additional 4 billion euros allocated annually to public broadcasting. The state’s total cultural expenditure amounts to 8 billion euros per year. France allocates about 1.6% of its gross domestic product to culture, a higher proportion compared to many European countries.
According to Marguerite Frison-Roche, the exact scope of cultural strategy has not been clarified. Decision-making remains vague despite attempts at management. The issue is not lack of financial resources but rather the inadequacy of a strong political vision. Governing culture requires the ability to make decisions, clarify what the state prioritizes for protection, promotion, and what it should no longer directly manage. Without this clarity, prestigious institutions face slow erosion. Despite a rare nine-year presidential continuity in France, no significant cultural overhaul has been initiated. This raises questions about the dependence of cultural policy on successive reshufflings and current circumstances, rather than a clear and lasting ambition.
The resignation at the Louvre may be just one episode, but it sheds light on a longstanding weakness at the ministry – a reluctance to make decisive choices despite substantial funding. As long as culture is treated as a balancing act rather than a realm of decision-making, crises will continue. For decades, France has upheld its culture as a heritage that will endure on its own. However, no civilization can sustain itself solely on the memory of its greatness. The fragility of the Louvre is not due to lack of funds but rather the absence of state leadership.
