Healthy democracies depend on active and informed citizen participation, yet many countries are experiencing declining trust in institutions and growing political polarization. For younger generations, traditional pathways of political engagement are evolving alongside new digital platforms and forms of civic participation. This issue area examines trends in youth voter turnout, changing attitudes toward democratic institutions, and the broader challenges posed by democratic backsliding. It also explores how digital tools are reshaping political participation and how reforms in civic education can strengthen democratic literacy among young people. Through comparative research and policy analysis, the Centre seeks to understand how democratic systems can better engage younger citizens and rebuild confidence in democratic governance.
24 articles found
Nepal swears in its youngest-ever cabinet — average age 38. What this means for youth governance, democratic incorporation, and the generation that refused to wait.
The conference worked through the most consequential question in democratic politics today: why are young people systematically excluded from the systems they will inherit, and what will it actually take to change that?
Can young people who topple governments actually win them? As Nepal heads to the polls on March 5th, Bangladesh offers a cautionary tale.
Standing at a fork in a road with nearly 60% of its population under the age of 30, the integration of young voices into the political process is not merely a matter of demographic representation for Jordan but a strategic imperative for national stability and future development. Therefore, at a surface level, the nation's response with reform; entailing the implementation of youth quotas in parliament, lowered the candidacy age, and introduction of pro-youth legal frameworks should receive appraisal. However, beneath this progressive rhetoric lies a complex reality shaped by deep-rooted structural challenges, economic pressures, and social attitudes that raise important questions: Do these reforms genuinely empower young Jordanians, or are they largely symbolic gestures designed to maintain the status quo?
Throughout South Africa’s history, young people have been central to the country’s struggles and transformations. Their courage and sacrifice marked a turning point in the liberation movement, demonstrating the power of youth as agents of change. In the democratic era, however, new challenges have emerged - mass unemployment, inequality, poor access to education, and social exclusion continue to undermine the promise of freedom for many young South Africans. To confront these persistent realities, the government introduced the National Youth Policy 2020–2030 (NYP 2030), a decade-long strategy aimed at empowering young people to lead the nation’s next phase of growth and transformation. When such a large stride has been taken by a government, how do we assess the success of such a policy? Is it in its progressive thought, or its effective change? We aim to answer this by analysing the NYP.
New Zealand is often praised as one of the world’s most progressive and liveable nations. Its international reputation is built on low corruption, political stability, and a high quality of life. To outsiders, it can seem like a near-perfect place to grow up. Yet in 2019, the government acknowledged that this image did not reflect the lived reality of many young people. With ~1.1 million children and youth under 18, the largest youth generation in the country’s history, New Zealand faced uncomfortable truths: stubborn child poverty rates, some of the highest youth suicide rates in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and systemic inequities affecting Māori and Pasifika youth.
India is the world’s youngest democracy but one of the oldest in leadership, with only 11% of MPs under 40. The Draft National Youth Policy (2024) treats youth largely as “human capital” for the labour market, sidelining their political agency. Barriers like high candidacy ages, campus restrictions, dynastic politics, and financial costs keep young people out of decision-making. Unlike global examples that integrate youth into governance, India’s approach remains tokenistic. A genuine youth policy must view young people not just as workers but as citizens with the right to govern.
