Positive Effect of Teenager Participation in Local Governance

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Ines Nelly Saltiel	--	2344	2023-11-06 17:14:06	\|
2	layout	Camila Xu	Meta information modification	2344	2023-11-07 02:02:59	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/socsci12110597

comparative politics decision-making governance local governance youth participation

1. Introduction

Teenagers have been changing the world since the beginning of history. At 13 years old, Joan of Arc led the French army. Barbara Johns initiated a strike at her segregated school. In more recent years, Malala Yousafzai won the Nobel Peace Prize at the age of 17, and Greta Thunberg challenged leaders to take immediate action against the climate crisis at 16. The democratic world is currently witnessing the rise of far-right movements, political oppression of marginalized groups, and an increase in authoritarian regimes; people have lost faith in the democratic system, and democracy is threatened as a result (Van Beek 2019; Schmitter 2019). Autocratic regimes are on the rise, while at the same time, in the last 10 years, democratic values such as freedom of expression, rule of law, quality of elections, government censorship, and government repression of civil society and organizations (V-Dem Institute 2023) have deteriorated globally. Additionally, the economic crisis has exacerbated democratic principles worldwide (Sklias and Maris 2013).

In relation to the issue of teenagers’ political participation, the average voting age today is 18, while some countries have lowered their voting age to 16 or 17 (Mańko 2023) Thus, the voting age in most countries is the same as it was in the Athens of Pericles approximately 2500 years ago (Mark 2012).1 While teenagers do not have the right to vote in most countries, they participate when given the chance. Moreover, the literature suggests that to elaborate on teenagers’ inclusion in democracy, there is a need for clarification of the true definition of democracy and democratic practice. Democracy “… is not a common philosophy but a system of ideas in permanent tension with each other. Democracy is not a single theory but a regular pattern of disagreement.” (DeWiel 2000, p. 149). Disagreement and tension arise from the debate on the nature of rights and the level of state involvement (Hall 1986). However, teenagers are excluded from decision-making. Teenagers’ trust in institutions is declining, putting democratic systems at risk (Kwak et al. 2020). However, this mistrust is often mislabeled as laziness and apathy (Cammaerts et al. 2014).

Is teenagers’ participation a threat to our current democracy or a breath of fresh air and a potential solution to an aging and weary system? Can the presentation of fresh ideas, radical thinking, and the challenging of the status quo bring about a more action-oriented approach to the discussion of pressing issues? Furthermore, could teenagers’ participation and the development of early civic engagement habits serve as a solution to the exclusion of youth from public discourse and the low voter turnout?

Despite the current research on Gen Z and millennials, there is an absence of empirical research regarding this cohort of teenagers in public policy; thus, there is a need for a closer investigation into the issue of teenagers who are currently deprived of their civil rights. With the increase in life expectancy, the younger generation is outnumbered (Ritchie 2019) by the older population. The notion that the future belongs to the youth is not true, as the decision-making power in both electoral and representative bodies lies with the older generations. Young people have fresh and radical ideas, which are shaped by an urgent desire to address issues such as climate change, equality, and inclusion, which are crucial concerns for our society (Tyson et al. 2021). As democracy is based on the representation of the people, it benefits from the inclusion of more diverse opinions. So why are teenagers excluded from voting and representation in decision-making bodies? The arguments used to justify the exclusion of teenagers from democratic participation and voting are very similar to those historically used to exclude women, Black people, the working class, and other minorities from such rights.

2. Positive Effect of Teenager Participation in Local Governance

Teenager participation in local governance is a critical aspect of ensuring that the voices and perspectives of young people are integrated into decision-making processes at the community level. The engagement of teenagers in local governance not only contributes to the development of more inclusive and representative policies but also fosters a sense of civic responsibility and empowerment among young citizens. Additionally, literature also makes reference to “the unique expertise that youth have on the adversities and assets that are present in their familiar systems, such as schools and the community” (Ellington et al. 2023).

2.1. Participation

Teenager participation in local governance is integral to the principles of democracy and civic engagement. It ensures that young people have a say in the decisions that directly affect their lives, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility within the community. Such participation is essential for the long-term sustainability of democratic systems, as it encourages the active involvement of the next generation in the political process. Local governments are more likely to make informed decisions when the perspectives of all demographic groups are considered. Young people often bring fresh ideas and innovative solutions to the table, which can lead to more comprehensive and inclusive policies. Engaging in local governance activities can provide young people with opportunities to develop critical skills such as leadership, communication, teamwork, and problem-solving. These skills are transferable to various aspects of their lives, including their education and future careers.

Participation—partaking in community actions—is defined as legal actions taken by citizens to influence a governmental body or its decisions (Verba and Nie 1972).

2.1.1. Conventional vs. Non-Conventional Participation

Milbrath and Goel’s (1977) definition of political participation encompasses both conventional and non-conventional forms of participation. Conventional political participation refers to continuous behavior that aims to influence decision-making through institutional channels. Non-conventional political participation includes every form of political action that challenges the government channels (Janda et al. 1992). While teenager participation has, for the most part, been associated with non-conventional participation due to the restrictions and lack of access to information, it is important to utilize conventional practices such as youth councils and civic education programs (Landemore 2020).

Cammaerts et al. (2014) study shows that young people’s voter turnout challenges the notion that the younger population is apathetic towards politics. His research, focusing on European youth, revealed that young people’s political appetite has been mischaracterized. Rather than being lazy, young people are highly critical of political candidates and do not feel that their concerns are taken seriously. This results in them expressing their anger by abstaining from the conventional system and engaging in non-conventional forms of participation, such as petitions and discussions on social media.. Youth participation in crisis times, especially in the case of Polish youth perceptions during the Ukrainian refugee crisis, has also been addressed, which can also serve as a guide for shaping future youth policies (Sengupta et al. 2023).

2.1.2. Non-Participation

The concept of non-participation is just as important as participation since both have an equal influence on decision-making. Non-participation is the lack of participation and, thus, the lack of influence over institutions (DeLuca 1995). Recently, there has been an increase in abstention from voting. Solijonov’s 2016 report shows that the global voter turnout was stable from the 1940s to the 1980s, decreasing to 66% in 2011–2015 (Solijonov 2016). Although voter turnout has decreased, Roker and Eden (2002) suggest that this does not mean people have no interest in politics. Electorate behavior and voting systems in conventional electorate systems and the impact on the potential of adopting long-term policies addressed to youth as a means to reduce non-participation have also been addressed (Miyake et al. 2023), as well as the strongest predictors of non-electoral political participation (Ehsan 2018).

2.1.3. Opening Up Participation

Our conventional participation models are currently restricted to teenagers and other ordinary citizens. On the topic of open participation, which can also apply to including teenagers in governance, Landemore (2020) introduces new ideas for the participation of citizens. She argues that, as elections were historically used to limit power to the aristocracy, a medium is needed to empower all citizens to make actual decisions leading to true democratic participation. She suggests a system of participation through three models. The first model is lottocratic representation, which involves randomly selecting citizens, as was implemented in the Citizen Convention on Climate Change and the Ostbelgium Citizen Council. The second, self-selected representation, comprises town meetings, such as those held by the Yellow Vests movement in France in 2018. The final model, liquid representation, includes selection from an open pool of other citizens rather than a closed party list. Farrell expanded upon this notion via the “Ireland Experiment,” which showed that the teenagers selected to participate did not take their selection lightly. In fact, the teenagers thoroughly researched the topic before participating (Farrell 2020).

2.2. Youth Participation and Democracy

The concept of teenagers’ voting rights dates back to the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The CRC recognizes children’s rights to enter into agreements, also known as participation rights. Article 12 of the convention affirms children’s right to express their views freely in all matters that affect them.

From the revivalist perspective of democracy, there are two key strands of democracy, the first being the traditional view based on the relations between the government and citizens, and the second being the civic-communitarian model, which focuses on democracy based on communities of active citizens (Hindess 1991). While these are different notions, they both focus on common rights and responsibilities that are equally applicable to all citizens. Therefore, the issue of youth participation concerns whether those under the voting age are considered citizens. This view informs Held’s (1987) theory of ‘developmental democracy’ as the relationship between citizens and government through the ability for development (Held 1987). Models of democracy, from direct democracy to the protective model (Macpherson 1977, pp. 23–29), focus on the voice of the people. The protective model focuses on the greatest happiness of the majority of citizens and managing a growing population.

2.3. Changes and Challenges in Youth Participation

2.3.1. Youth Participation and Social Networks

As Gen Z and teenagers are considered to be digital natives, the vast majority of their political participation is conducted through social networks. A study by Cortés-Ramos et al. (2021), entitled Activism and Social Media: Youth Participation and Communication, aimed to examine youth’s online experience in social activism, as well as their preferences, themes, and perceived impact. This study found that young people interpret social media as a platform that allows communication and self-expression. The participants in this study realized the power of online platforms as a tool for social change. Their motivation for social participation arose from the environment in which they grew up, mentioning the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as an area of interest. This study concluded that institutions should consider youth’s possible transformative power and digital civic engagement. Boulianne and Theocharis’ (2018) study on digital engagement supports the findings of Cortés-Ramos et al. (2021), as they found overwhelming evidence of the connection between social media engagement and offline engagement (such as demonstrations and petitions). These authors conclude that teenagers’ tendencies towards online participation are mirrored in their offline participation (Boulianne and Theocharis 2018). Youth engagement and participation through social media platforms has also been elaborated in the case of Jordanian society, “emphasizing the need to take differences in gender into account when developing effective tactics to engage young people in political processes” (Alodat et al. 2023).

2.3.2. Challenges in Youth Participation

Boldt’s (2017) paper explores the concept of “youth-friendly” participation and how to achieve it while maintaining seriousness. Morrow (2001) describes the challenge of reaching youth with methods that are not childish but do not require in-depth knowledge of other methods of participation. Likewise, Rebok et al. (2004, p. 86) propose several methods that can be used to determine the opinions of the youth. However, due to the presence of condescending language, when carried out incorrectly, youth-friendly approaches may be counterproductive. For example, in Boldt’s paper, the city of Helsinki youth department chose a youth-friendly approach, but this only resulted in further issues as the young people involved saw it as demeaning (Boldt 2017).

As the interaction between elected adults and teenagers is crucial to this study, it is important to note the impact adultism may have on its results (William T. Grant Commission 1988). Adultism is a central threat to collaboration between adults and young people (Delgado and Staples 2008). Bell (1995) defined adultism as the idea that adults are superior to children and teenagers. Checkoway (1996) furthers that definition by defining the term as “all of the behaviors and attitudes that flow from the assumption that adults are better than young people." Adultism is at the root of (and subsequently undermines) all collaboration between teenagers and adults. As HoSang (2005) states, young people are often disrespected because of their age. Adultism can be manifested in both obvious and subconscious ways through statements such as “You are smart for your age” and “You are not old enough to understand” (Delgado and Staples 2008).

A major argument against children’s participation rights is that they lack the ability to make appropriate political judgments. However, adults also make political decisions without understanding the complexity of the issues at hand, for example, when they are influenced by propaganda and misinformation (Achen and Bartels 2017).

Summing up, the above literature review assumes that teenager participation in local governance is a fundamental aspect of a thriving democracy, fostering inclusivity, skill development, and a sense of civic responsibility among young citizens. While challenges like lack of awareness, institutional barriers, and adultism exist, there are various strategies to promote teenager engagement, such as the use of social networks and party openness.

It is in this framework that it will be argued that it is imperative that local governments and societies recognize the importance of involving young people in governance and take proactive steps to ensure their voices are heard and valued in the community. As the future leaders of our societies, the engagement of young people in local governance is not just an option but a necessity for building sustainable and inclusive communities.

References

Van Beek, Ursula. 2019. Democracy Under Threat: A Crisis of Legitimacy. London: Palgrave.
Schmitter, Philippe C. 2019. ‘Real-Existing’ Democracy and Its Discontents: Sources, Conditions, Causes, Symptoms, and Prospects. Chinese Political Science Review 4: 149–63.
V-Dem Institute. 2023. Defiance in the Face of Autocratization: Democracy Report 2023. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem Institute). Available online: https://www.v-dem.net/documents/29/V-dem_democracyreport2023_lowres.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2023).
Sklias, Pantelis, and Georgios Maris. 2013. The political dimension of the Greek financial crisis. Perspectives on European Politics and Society 14: 144–64.
Mańko, Rafał. 2023. “Voting Age for European Elections: Think Tank: European Parliament.” Think Tank | European Parliament, At a Glance, Think Tank European Parliament. Available online: www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_ATA(2023)749767 (accessed on 28 August 2023).
Mark, Joshua J. 2012. “Athenian Democracy”. World History Encyclopedia, World History Encyclopedia. September 18. Available online: https://www.worldhistory.org/Athenian_DMalpasmocracy/ (accessed on 2 February 2023).
DeWiel, Boris. 2000. Democracy: A History of Ideas. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Hall, Peter A. 1986. Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kwak, Joonghyun, Irina Tomescu-Dubrow, Kazimierz M. Slomczynski, and Joshua K. Dubrow. 2020. Youth, Institutional Trust, and Democratic Backsliding. American Behavioral Scientist 64: 1366–90.
Cammaerts, Bart, Michael Bruter, Shakuntala Banaji, Sarah Harrison, and Nick Anstead. 2014. The Myth of Youth Apathy Young Europeans’ Critical Attitudes toward Democratic Life. American Behavioral Scientist 58: 645–64.
Ritchie, Hannah. 2019. The World Population Is Changing: For the First Time There Are More People over 64 than Children Younger than 5. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/population-aged-65-outnumber-children (accessed on 15 March 2023).
Tyson, Alec, Brian Kennedy, and Cary Funk. 2021. Gen Z, Millennials Stand Out for Climate Change Activism, Social Media Engagement with Issue. Pew Research Center, May 26. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/05/26/gen-z-millennials-stand-out-for-climate-change-activism-social-media-engagement-with-issue/ (accessed on 19 June 2023).
Ellington, Alycia, Theresa Hice-Fromille, Rebecca A. London, Theresa M. Cariño, and Lynda Otero. 2023. Las Voces de Mujercitas Empoderadas: Documenting Support for Youth with Youth Participatory Action Research. Social Sciences 12: 483.
Verba, Sidney, and Norman H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.
Milbrath, Lester W., and M. Goel. 1977. Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? 2nd ed. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Janda, Kenneth, Jeffrey M. Berry, and Jerry Goldman. 1992. The Challenge of Democracy. Government in America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Landemore, Hélène. 2020. Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sengupta, Debashish, Aniisu K. Verghese, and Maciej Rys. 2023. Motivations of Volunteering during Crises—Perspectives of Polish Youths during the Ukrainian Refugee Crisis. Administrative Sciences 13: 53.
DeLuca, Thomas. 1995. The Two Phases of Political Apathy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Solijonov, A. 2016. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance . Voter Turnout Trends around the World. Available online: https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/voter-turnout-trends-around-the-world.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2023).
Roker, D., and K. Eden. 2002. ‘… Doing Something’: Young People as Social Actors. Leicester: National Youth Agency.
Miyake, Kentaro, Yoichi Hizen, and Tatsuyoshi Saijo. 2023. Proxy Voting for Future Generations: A Laboratory Experiment Using the General Public. Sustainability 15: 14310.
Ehsan, Muhammad Rakib. 2018. What Matters? Non-Electoral Youth Political Participation in Austerity Britain. Societies 8: 101.
Farrell, David. 2020. The Ireland Experiment in Deliberative Democracy. Paper presented at the PEriTiA Inaugural Symposium, Dublin, Germany, May 14. Speech.
Hindess, Barry. 1991. Imaginary presuppositions of democracy. Economy and Society 20: 173–95.
Held, David. 1987. Models of Democracy. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Macpherson, Crawford Brough. 1977. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cortés-Ramos, Antonio, Juan Antonio Torrecilla García, Miguel Landa-Blanco, Francisco Javier Poleo Gutiérrez, and María Teresa Castilla Mesa. 2021. Activism and Social Media: Youth Participation and Communication. Sustainability 13: 10485.
Boulianne, Shelley, and Yiannis Theocharis. 2018. Young People, Digital Media and Engagement: A Meta-Analysis of Research. December. ResearchGate. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329445702_Young_People_Digital_Media_and_Engagement_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Research (accessed on 18 May 2023).
Alodat, Abdelsalam M., Lamis F. Al-Qora’n, and Muwafaq Abu Hamoud. 2023. Social Media Platforms and Political Participation: A Study of Jordanian Youth Engagement. Social Sciences 12: 402.
Boldt, Georg. 2017. Condescension or Co-decisions: A Case of Institutional Youth Participation. Young 26: 108–25.
Morrow, Virginia. 2001. Using qualitative methods to elicit young people’s perspectives on their environments: Some ideas for community health initiatives. Health Education Research 16: 255–68.
Rebok, George W., Michelle C. Carlson, Thomas A. Glass, Sylvia McGill, Joel Hill, Barbara A. Wasik, Nicholas Ialongo, Kevin D. Frick, Linda P. Fried, and Meghan D. Rasmussen. 2004. Short-term impact of experience Corps® participation on children and schools: Results from a pilot randomized trial. Journal of Urban Health 81: 79–93.
William T. Grant Commission. 1988. William T. Grant Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship, The Forgotten Half: Pathways to Success for America’s Youth and Families. Washington, DC: Youth and America’s Future.
Delgado, Melvin, and Lee Staples. 2008. Youth-Led Community Organizing: Theory and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Bell, John. 1995. Understanding Adultism. YouthBuild. USA. Available online: http://actioncivics.scoe.net/pdf/Understanding_Adultism.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2023).
Checkoway, Barry. 1996. Adults as Allies. Partnerships/Community. 38. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcepartnerships/38 (accessed on 13 April 2023).
HoSang, Daniel. 2005. Traditions and Innovations: Youth Organizing in the Southwest. New York: Funders’ Collaborative on Youth Organizing.
Achen, Christopher, and Larry Bartels. 2017. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Political Science

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Ines Nelly Saltiel

Pantelis Sklias

View Times: 171

Update Date: 07 Nov 2023

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm