Author: Kazi Altaf Mahmood
Picture this: You are scrolling through social media at 2 a.m., the majority of your feed is on memes roasting the political system, and protests led by the youth. That’s the pulse right now, from the streets of Kathmandu to Dhaka campuses. Gen Z is reviving and reshaping democracy; the youth have had enough of the system and its structure that sidelines them, promising change but delivering debt, inequality, and empty rhetoric. We have the example of Europe: the frustrated and disadvantaged youth in Ireland, Poland, and Spain openly voice their opinions about the many challenges they are facing, and they see their governments as power grabbers, not fixers. They certainly back democratic ideals, but have ‘0’ trust in their elected representatives, who continue to ignore the increasing youth unemployment, housing shortages, or climate meltdowns. These youth, instead, now prefer debates, street actions that force results. To a great extent, they have given up on their governments; why bother when their vote earns no improvement?
West of the Atlantic, the vibe is similar. A national poll of Gen Z voters uncovers three distinct attitudes towards democracy, underscoring that youth views defy uniformity. The largest group, encompassing 63 percent, exhibits passive appreciation: they support the core values of democracy – fair election and civil rights, but they show limited confidence in the system’s efficacy, with only 36 percent believing it addresses national issues and 16 percent feeling it serves young people well. Their rejection of political violence stands firm, yet low civic action beyond hints at complacency rooted in moderate trust in institutions. A second cohort, 31 percent, displays dismissive detachment – scoring low across all democratic facets, including bipartisanship and rights protection. Polarization runs high here, coupled with minimal media literacy and political efficacy, often linked to scarce access to civic resources. Finally, 7 percent harbor hostile dissatisfaction. Warm relationships foster transmission of views, while awareness of parental behaviors – voting habits or advocacy – strengthens matches. Without this, the affiliated youth drift, leaving them vulnerable. Jennings and Niemi, cited in Miller’s work, emphasize partisanship’s enduring grip, forged in adolescence and guiding lifelong voting.
Global examples show us how such foundations intersect with the systemic failures to trigger action or apathy. In the United States, Gen Z turnout lagged at 48 percent in 2020, the lowest among all age groups, reflecting the rising distrust, as only 37 percent of 18-29-year-olds trust the government. Freedom House attributes this to exclusion: with just 2.6 percent of parliamentarians under the age of 30 globally, 76 percent of youth feel ignored, exacerbating the already dwindling number of youth engagement in national politics.
Bangladesh’s recent upheaval highlights frustration boiling over. Student-led protests against job quotas favoring elites escalated nationwide, culminating in the prime minister’s abdication. Youth, facing unemployment rates near 40 percent, coordinated social media despite blackouts, demanding merit-based opportunities. This echoed the Arab youth-led movements, famous today as the ‘Arab Spring’, where apps tracked government pledges to combat corruption and inequality, channeling displeasure into accountability tools. Indonesia’s recent demonstrations against the labor laws and high inflation similarly mobilized youth workers, with digital campaigns amplifying calls for reform in a nation where youth unemployment stands at 14 percent.
Nepal’s turmoil, meanwhile, underscores Gen Z’s capacity for reinvention through the use of technology. Protests over corruption and a social media ban turned explosive with clashes breaking out, killing over 7,0 and forcing the Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s resignation. In the vacuum, over 10,000 youth convened on Discord – a platform typically for gamers – to debate the poll for an interim leader. Sushila Karki, former chief justice, emerged victorious with 7,713 votes; her name was advanced to the military chiefs for ratification. This digital election bypassed the traditional gatekeepers, offering real-time consensus amid chaos. As one moderator noted, it stimulated a mini-election to stabilize the nation until the March polls. Such innovation signals youth readiness to adapt tools for inclusion when the system fails.
There is an identical pattern from the above-mentioned cases; dissatisfaction arises from unmet needs, but youth possess agency to demand change, Freedom House ants that without addressing exclusion, democratic backsliding accelerates, as seen in the declining youth turnout at 47.7 percent worldwide.
To bridge this gap, innovative models must prioritize accessibility and impact. Nepal’s Discord poll exemplifies one: leveraging familiar apps for the practice of direct democracy, it empowered dispersed voices, including diaspora, in decision-making. Replicate this by integrating platforms like Discord into civic education, hosting moderated debates on policy that feed into official consultations.
Another potential approach can be from the U.S volunteer networks. Youth Service America mobilizes squads for national events, but expanding to virtual democratic sessions – open Zoom debating legislation and streaming publicly – could democratize discourse. These sessions, moderated by peers, pressure representatives while building skills like fact-checking and compromise. In Bangladesh, where protests forged a national coalition, similar forums could also prototype for job reforms, channeling street energy into a sustained input.
A third model, inspired by the Indonesian and Arab contexts, involves youth-led policy jams.; Digital squads converge online to brainstorm solutions – apps tracking inflation, aid, or government accountability – then pitch to officials. Post-Arab Spring, Tunisian youth developed promise-tracking tools; Indonesian activists could adapt for labor rights, fostering ownership over outcomes.
These strategies demand investment: governments must fund digital literacy, ensure broadband access in rural areas, and partner with civil society to amplify marginalized voices. Policymakers should embed youth quotas in consultation, as seen in European proposals for deliberative assemblies.
Ultimately, democracy thrives when youth see their stake in it. Ignoring their disillusionment risks erosion; embracing their innovation fortifies it. By addressing economic barriers and creating entry points, we can equip the next generation to lead, not withdraw.
References
Apau, Deborah, Sara Suzuki, Alberto Medina, and Ruby Belle Booth. How Does Gen Z Really Feel About Democracy? Insights from Three Profiles of Youth and Democracy. Washington, DC: Protect Democracy and CIRCLE, 2025.
Cohen, Shana, Matteo Dressler, and Gerry Mitchell. Youth and Democracy: How Young People Facing Disadvantage View Democracy in Europe. Policy Brief. Brussels: Foundation for European Progressive Studies, 2024.
Freedom House. “Why Are Youth Dissatisfied with Democracy?” Freedom House, 2023. https://freedomhouse.org/article/why-are-youth-dissatisfied-democracy.
Miller, Rachel. “Adolescent Political Development.” Senior thesis, Scripps College, 2018. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1156.
Mookerjee, Ishan. “Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka: Is South Asia Fertile for Gen Z Revolutions?” Al Jazeera, September 16, 2025. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/9/16/sri-lanka-bangladesh-nepal-is-south-asia-fertile-for-gen-z-revolutions.
Schiffrin, Anya. “The Arab Spring Gets a Reboot in Asia.” New York Times, September 19, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/opinion/asia-protest-youth-nepal-bangladesh.html.
