By Ihsanul Haq Ateed for Invisiblites – In Collaboration with Youth Democracy Cohort
Introduction
In recent years, the role of youth in shaping political and social landscapes has been a subject of intense debate. On one hand, young people are often seen as vulnerable individuals facing challenges such as displacement, unemployment, violence, and political instability. On the other hand, they are also recognized as powerful agents of change, capable of leading revolutions, driving democratization, and influencing global movements. Understanding the political engagement of youth is crucial for policymakers, scholars, and society at large. This article explores the complex relationship between youth and politics, examining whether young people are inherently radical, progressive, or indifferent. It also seeks to define who constitutes “youth” and analyze how their social, economic, and political conditions influence their engagement.
The concept of youth lacks a simple, universal definition. It can shift depending on broader contextual developments occurring within society. While childhood and youth are social constructs with often blurred and debated age boundaries, the youth period carries social meanings and characteristics beyond its physiological traits. It typically refers to a stage of personal and social development. This definition has evolved with the expansion of universal education and economic transformation in the 20th century, making youth a distinct social group with shared challenges and aspirations.
To understand various aspects of the relationship between youth and politics. First, there is a theoretical question about whether there is something called a youth social group. Many analysts, including a famous quote attributed to Bourdieu, suggest that “youth is nothing more than a word” because, in his view, youth are nothing more than the imagination and construction of different people.
Youth and Political Agency
A question that has been raised by many is what exactly is the relationship between youth and politics, and how should we understand their social reality and political agency? Academic studies have identified three main perspectives on this relationship. The first views youth primarily through a security lens, focusing on issues like youth bulge, extremism, radicalization, and child soldiers (A clash of generations? Youth bulges and political violence). The second perspective evaluates youth as advocates for reform, democracy, and free markets (Bayat, A. (2011). Life as Politics: How Ordinary People Change the Middle East). The third perspective examines youth as revolutionary social actors and agents of new social orders (Youth rising? The politics of youth in the global economy).
What is the true relationship between youth and politics? Are young people the “dangerous class” of our time, whose lives are characterized by instability, individualism, extremism, and deviance? Or are they truly democratic, revolutionary, and visionary agents of social order, or are they always passive, pessimistic, and indifferent?
The concept of youth is not merely an age-based classification but a sociological and political construct. Many analysts, including Pierre Bourdieu, argue that “youth is nothing more than a word,” emphasizing that its meaning is shaped by social and historical contexts. However, with the expansion of universal education and economic transformation in the 20th century, youth has emerged as a distinct social group with shared challenges and aspirations. Beyond biological age, youth can be defined by “relative independence” or “structural irresponsibility”, terms that capture their transitional position between dependence and full societal integration. This stage is characterized by educational experiences, limited economic opportunities, and fluctuating political engagement.
The economic conditions of youth play a crucial role in shaping their political behavior. Many young people today belong to what Guy Standing calls the “precariat“—a class of individuals facing job insecurity, low wages, and an uncertain future. This economic instability influences youth’s political actions, as they oscillate between dissatisfaction, radicalization, and accommodation with existing systems. For instance, under the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan or amidst economic struggles in Iran, youth face systemic barriers to achieving financial and social stability. While some may align with established powers for personal survival, others may turn to protest movements, activism, or even radical responses to express their frustration.
Identity is one of the key topics in discussions about youth and politics. It is natural that social groups like youth have multiple identities and often must manage them. For example, Muslim youth in Europe who enjoy individual and social freedoms are striving to realize their Muslim identity. In Muslim-majority countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others, where individual and social freedoms are limited by governments or social norms, youth are struggling to realize their identity and “youthful desires” which refer to the aspirations of young people to achieve independence, express their identity, and pursue personal and social ambitions in the face of economic, political, and cultural constraints. Meanwhile, in any type of society (whether Europe, the Middle East, or South Asia), youth also grapple with the difficult transition to adulthood and adult life.
The issue of identity and how youth understand their youthfulness is closely related to social media. According to Linda Herrera, new social media have created a new generation of youth, namely the “connected generation” or wired generation. This generation of youth constructs its identity not only in relation to its own country’s situation but also in relation to what is happening in the world and the youthfulness of young people in other countries.
Youth Politics v Youth in Politics
What is the true relationship between youth and politics? This question lies at the heart of our inquiry and directly informs our main argument that youth political engagement is context-dependent and fluctuating rather than fixed. Are young people the “dangerous class” of our time, characterized by instability and extremism? Or are they inherently democratic and revolutionary agents? Or might they be passive and indifferent?
The actual dynamics between youth and politics are complex and multidimensional and depend on an array of social, economic, and political circumstances and not some intrinsic or ontological characteristic of youth. Political involvement by the youth is hardly monolithic but is context-bound and oscillates between radicalism and reformism, passivity and disillusionment. This sort of diversity eludes reductionist typology and calls for a consideration of the youth in terms of the specific contexts in which they exist.
Neither Fixed Nor Singular: A Spectrum of Political Behavior
They are neither the “dangerous class” of the mark of instability and extremism, nor simply revolutionary and democratic forces, nor by definition necessarily idle and indifferent. They are rather their political activity is a utilitarian solution to the situation into which they find themselves. Consider the following cases:
Economic Precarity: For some young adults, restricted career opportunity and economic insecurity—otherwise referred to as the “precariat” class—are bound to drive political engagement. The Arab Spring, at least in part sponsored by youths dissatisfied with economic stagnation, and European youth protest that responded to austerity measures illustrate how economic disadvantage can drive young people toward reformist or extremist movements.
Identity Crises: Young people experiencing cultural or personal identity crises use politics as a means to reclaim their rights. Young people in dictatorial regimes like Iran and Afghanistan fighting against despotic governments illustrate how identity could be the force driving political mobilization.
Systemic Reactions: Political systems influence youth behavior as well. In Russia or North Korea, for instance, where governments use co-optive or paternalistic tactics, youths become disillusioned
and apathetic about politics—or join what there is.
There is a basic distinction between “youth politics” and “youth in politics.” “Youth politics” is activism among youth for the sake of regaining and defining their youth—thoroughly typically within identity or situational movements. Conversely, “youth in politics” is their participation within political institutions as a whole, by ballot, activist engagement, and the like. The double connotation makes clear that political participation on the part of youth is not a monolithic problem but instead is a spectrum of intent and activity.
This article suggests that youth do not follow any particular politics; they are not necessarily radical, conservative, revolutionary, active, or indifferent. However, youth can experience all these positions at certain moments and under certain conditions. In fact, the type of politics youth engage in is always fluctuating in response to political, economic, ethical, and identity limitations in their interaction with political elites or the government, and in relation to adults.
The political involvement of young people is dynamic and is conditioned through a variety of political, economic, ethical, and identity concerns. This points to how valuable it is to grasp the contexts in which young people are operating.
Political Aspects: Disillusionment with Democratic Processes: Most Generation Z, according to UK studies, think that drastic reforms need to be undertaken in the political system, and some of them even support authoritarian means. This sentiment reflects frustration with traditional democratic institutions. The Guardian
Precarity in the Economy and Activism:
Economic concerns such as housing affordability and labor market problems have been attributed to eroding government trust among young Americans. Various degrees of political participation, ranging from activism to disengagement, are affected by the aforementioned socioeconomic issues. The Financial Times
Aspects of Ethics: Value-Driven Participation: Youth political participation often indicates youth moral concerns. Global warming and social justice are two issues that have spurred youth movements, indicating political participation can be driven by morality.
Identity Factors: Social Class Influence: Cross-European studies have observed significant class differences in adolescent political participation with the suggestion that class and social identity influence the modes and intensity of engagement. SAGE Journals
Engagement with Adults and Political Elites:
Perception of Political Elites: Young German citizens have voted for anti-system parties because they feel that the traditional parties are unaware of their concerns. This shows how political participation among the youth is driven by their perception of political elites. Breaking headlines and latest news
These examples demonstrate that youth political participation is dynamic and shifts based on a variety of external factors, which suggests the necessity for advanced techniques to understand and facilitate youth political participation.
Ting’s article shows that the struggle of Hong Kong youth is not just about fulfilling their own youthfulness but also part of political citizens engaging in broader struggles. The “Umbrella Movement” was initiated by young people in Hong Kong against the Chinese government’s anti-democratic policies. Ting demonstrates that young people during this movement were fighting for their future and the future of democracy in Hong Kong.
Such politics is somewhat similar to events that occurred during the Arab Spring uprisings in the Arab world. As previously noted, youth participation in the Arab Spring revolutions was very extensive. The high level of participation by Tunisian youth in the 2011 revolution (28% of the total population) was unprecedented globally. However, a significant portion of these same Tunisian youth, after becoming disillusioned with the new government and their revolution, turned to ISIS’s violent operations. An example of youth radicalization and violence can also be seen in the experience of the Red Guards in China during the 1960s. This radicalism in China was driven from above by the Communist Party, which previously had insignificant youth important roles and status (as discussed in Guobin Yang’s book). In contrast, youth radicalism in England during the 1970s emerged from below against the political and economic structure (as discussed in Stanley Cohen’s article). In Cohen’s study, the violence and property destruction by some working-class youth was related to anger stemming from unequal opportunities in the education, employment, and welfare structure. From Cohen’s perspective, this was not “politics,” but ultimately something these protesting youth resorted to.
In fact, this type of political engagement is something many governments, conservative groups, and elites have exploited; they often label any contentious youth movements (such as the Jina Mahsa Amini uprising in Iran) as “youthful” or disruptive and strip them of their association with freedom-seeking or justice-oriented politics. Current governments often attempt to integrate youth into their systems, turning them into patriots and entrepreneurs (as discussed in Julie Hemment’s book). This approach is observable in Putin’s Russia and Egypt under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. However, such governments, even those that emerged from revolutions, never take youth seriously. They always adopt a paternalistic attitude toward youth, do not trust them, and consequently keep youth on the margins of power.
Youth reactions to paternalistic treatment often lead to deep pessimism and disillusionment; disillusionment with politicians, political parties, and elections, and even at times with the revolution in which they played a significant role. The current student protests in Serbia, sparked by the November 2024 collapse of a train station roof in Novi Sad that killed 15 people due to alleged corruption and negligence, have evolved into a nationwide movement demanding government accountability and transparency. Students are calling for the disclosure of all documents related to the construction project, punishment for those responsible, increased education funding, and an end to authoritarian practices under President Aleksandar Vučić. The decentralized movement, organized through student assemblies rather than formal leadership structures, has spread across urban and rural areas with tens of thousands participating in marches and demonstrations. Despite government attempts to discredit the protests as foreign-backed and limited concessions including ministerial resignations and increased education spending, students continue to push for full transparency and constitutional accountability, representing a significant political awakening among Serbian youth.
Conclusion
The exploration of youth and politics captures a rich and multifaceted relationship that resists simplistic categorization. The underlying question—whether youth tend to be radical, progressive, or indifferent—is still context-dependent and nuanced. Rather than conforming to a single political identity, youths move through multiple political behaviors that are determined by their social, economic, and political contexts. This article has proved that young people’s political participation is neither monolithic nor fixed but evolves depending on environmental factors such as economic insecurity, identity confusion, disillusionment with democratic institutions, and encounters with political elites.
One of the most important findings is the differentiation between “youth politics” and “youth in politics.” “Youth politics” is activism that arises from identity or situational movements—like the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong or the Arab Spring—while “youth in politics” is wider participation within existing political systems. These two dimensions encapsulate young political behavior heterogeneity, ranging from reformism to passivity, and underscore the imperative to consider the particular situations through which youth behave.
Economic circumstances hold a central role in determining the political conduct of the young. As an example, the “precariat” class—youth with unstable jobs, poverty-level wages, and uncertain prospects—tend to direct their frustrations to protest movements or, alternatively, to radicalization. Likewise, identity or cultural crises can provoke political mobilization, as with the situation of Muslim youth in Europe or Iranian and Afghan opposition to regimes.
A second essential observation is that young people’s political engagement is highly value-driven. It is matters such as climate change, social justice, and official accountability that speak to the younger generation and resonate with their sense of morality and imaginations of a more human future. However, such idealism is usually complemented by disillusionment with mainstream democratic institutions, as attested by Generation Z’s increasing suspicion of traditional modes of politics and occasional support for authoritarian means.
It also identifies how governments and elites in the past have co-opted or exploited youth movements. Whether labeling them as troublemakers or co-opting them into state-sponsored programs, these are never long-term policies that address youths’ fundamental grievances.
Finally, political activism by young people is characterized by creativity, flexibility, and a dose of youth energy into their causes. As change agents, they introduce innovative ideas and unconventional strategies to political battles and stamp their mark in history. Their ability to be agents of good change is then dependent on space and opportunities availed to them. In order to actualize this potential, policymakers, scholars, and society need to shatter reductionist caricatures and embrace sophisticated tactics that are attuned to diversity and fluidity of youth politics.
Summarily, youths are not single monolithic radical, progressive, or neutral categories. Rather, they are politically complex individuals with political habits, which are consequences of the crossing economic, social, moral, and identity determinants. Understanding such determinants as well as in responding to these determinants, we may act more fruitfully for the youths in pursuit of a more egalitarian and egalitarian world.
Ihsanul Haq Ateed is a graduate of Political Science and International Relations from the University of Lahore. His focus is on gender issues, human rights, and international affairs, and beyond. With experience in civil society organizations and a passion for exploring issues of governance, democracy, and youth empowerment, he frequently writes on topics related to human rights, conflict resolution, and identity politics. His recent work delves into the challenges faced by Afghanistan’s youth in navigating the intersection of tradition and modernity.
Photo credits: Creative Commons and Unsplash