Democracy is dead. Or at least it’s dying.
The past few years have been challenging for many democratic countries worldwide. Since 2017, democratic resilience has been characterized as fragile due to the rise of populism, corruption, inequality, and erosion of political participation and civil liberties (Community of Democracies, 2018; de Haan, Finnegan, Sanzarello, and Were, 2021). According to the Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit, 2020 marked the most challenging period since 2006, primarily attributed to the pandemic-induced regression observed in 80 nations. The subsequent years, 2021 and 2022, have yet to witness a complete rebound; the trajectory has plateaued, showing signs of stagnation. Moreover, despite easing pandemic restrictions, state actors have continued to consolidate and abuse their power, thereby co-opting democratic and civic spaces. The convergence of these factors has resulted in the decline of opportunities for citizens to exercise their rights and a weakening of the institutions that uphold democratic principles and those that serve as watchdogs against abuses within democratic systems.
A particular trend in the erosion of democracy involves the supposed youth’s increasing distrust and disengagement from democratic governance and its processes. (Community of Democracies, 2018; de Haan et al., 2021). In the middle of the apparent erosion of democracy and its values, especially as perceived by the youth, we grapple with a critical question: Can we rekindle its fire, or are we witnessing the countdown to its irreversible decline?
Distrust, but not disengaged
To understand the impact of the youth on the future of democracy, we must first situate the youth in today’s context. According to the United Nations (n.d.), there are 1.2 billion people between the ages of 15 and 24, accounting for 16% of the world population. In Asia, the youth constitute a more significant number of its population, i.e., around 25 percent (Smith and Yamakawa, 2020). However, despite this demographic weight, a study by the Centre for the Future of Democracy (2020) reveals a paradoxical situation; that the youth’s confidence in democratic politics is notably lower than in any other age group. This sentiment stems from the perceived failure of democracy to uphold its promises of citizen representation toward delivering effective solutions to complex societal issues.
However, we should not equate this distrust with the youth’s apathy toward societal issues. Many social movements advocating for progressive policies have risen in response to repressive societal actors in Asia. For instance, Myanmar’s ongoing Civil Disobedience Movement not only opposes the 2021 coup but also advocates for women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, along with addressing inadequacies in handling the Rohingya crisis (Anand, 2022). Although a certain level of distrust prevails among youth concerning the current state of co-opted democratic governance, this skepticism does not automatically result in youth disengagement when confronted with oppression and coercion. Instead, what becomes evident is the youth’s proactive involvement in diverse social movements, employing strategies to rally support and solidarity in confronting various issues amidst suppressive state elements (de Haan et al., 2021; Horton and de Haan, 2019; Berthin, 2023; Council of Europe, n.d.; Mims, 2021; Booth, Medina, Siegel-Stechler, & Kiesa, 2023).
In my recent participation in the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation (TAEF)’s annual Southeast Asia-South Asia-Taiwan (SEASAT) Youth Camp in Taipei, Taiwan, last 26-28 July 2023, I saw that there is a healthy distrust among youth not with democracy per se, but rather how repressive and authoritarian actors co-opt democratic spaces and institutions. Many of my conversations with fellow delegates revealed similar and shared sentiments of how democracy has been rebranded to serve political and self-serving purposes rather than be a vehicle for inclusion, progress, and representation.
This shared sentiment concerning democracy bears both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, the discussions have shown that my fellow youth approach the current state of democracy with a discerning eye, aiming to critically evaluate rather than outright condemn it. However, the flip side unveils a disheartening reality—numerous actors within democratic systems, particularly those in positions of authority, have turned a blind eye to an unsettling truth: democracy has fallen victim to hijacking and manipulation by vested interests. This collective perspective resonates as a broader consensus transcending geographical boundaries and borders. It underscores a pivotal distinction, that the youth’s skepticism does not fundamentally question democracy as a construct but instead directs its focus toward the integrity of its undertaking. In fact, the youth still consider democracy and its fundamental principles as instruments for positive change, but at the same time, raises concerns about how such principles are eroded and exploited.
Reclaim; if not, create spaces
One of the insidious consequences stemming from the waning strength of democracy, or its perceived inability to uphold its lofty promises of prosperity for all, is the subtle confiscation of spaces where people can engage in dialogues about democracy and its core values. The everyday concerns of survival, grappling with putting food on the table, or pursuing education often force individuals to prioritize immediate needs, sometimes at the cost of compromising their principles, dignity, and self-worth. An illustration of this distressing phenomenon was vividly presented by a group of participants in the SEASAT Youth Camp, revealing the stark reality of college students entering the illicit sex trade to fund their education—a stark embodiment of how necessities clash with human dignity. These harsh realities have become the backdrop against which the youth are navigating or have already begun to navigate. This constricted space is what they are increasingly being constrained to occupy, a space molded by the very limitations and compromises that the current eroding and assimilated state of democracy seems to impose.
In response, social media has emerged as a quasi-remedy—a makeshift platform, at the very least—affording a semblance of unity for the youth. It becomes the conduit for collective conversations, a gathering point to dissect shared experiences of a system that appears to have fallen short of its commitments. A case in point is the Milk Tea Alliance, an online coalition rallying the youth from Taiwan, Thailand, Hong Kong, and Myanmar, standing united to challenge authoritarian regimes (Potkin and Tanakasempipat, 2021). Through this virtual solidarity, the alliance symbolizes the power of shared concerns and the strength derived from a united voice, even spilling over from the online realm to physical spaces.
In the realm of democracy, the role of physical spaces is essential. These spaces serve as vital conduits for democratic spirit, playing a fundamental part in fostering an environment where the exchange of ideas can flourish. Neglecting their significance can be detrimental, potentially yielding deleterious effects on democratic frameworks (Parkinson, 2009). Such spaces not only facilitate discourse but also hold the crucial function of nurturing the marketplace of ideas among actors within the democratic space. Within such spaces, individuals can engage in healthy discussions, openly embracing the concept of “agreeing to disagree.”
One of the hallmark actions driven by the younger generation involves mainstreaming issues that have long been brushed aside or quietly endured by previous generations. Empowered by the generational strength to communicate, coupled with the facilitative role of social media, the youth are now championing dialogues that have historically been suppressed, such as issues about gender, work and labor, and corruption, as highlighted during the SEASAT Youth Camp. As former Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Teodor Meleşcanu underscored in a speech during the 73rd United Nations General Assembly, the youth’s capacity for curiosity, tolerance, and embracing diversity is paramount and that it is within the availability of such spaces and enabling environment that the youth advocate for their own rights while simultaneously upholding respect for the rights of others.
According to a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the success of the New Southbound Policy (NSP) lies in leveraging Taiwan’s advantages in soft power, i.e., actively promoting its unique identity as the world’s only culturally Chinese democracy and the promotion of three-way exchanges between think tanks, the youth, and academics (Glaser, Kennedy, Mitchell, and Funaiole, 2018). In this context, platforms like the SEASAT Youth Camp offer invaluable possibilities and potential for the flourishing of democracy, particularly from Taiwan’s best practices and expertise in democratization. These avenues create a safe haven where youth can engage with diverse perspectives and stakeholders such as government officials, think tanks, non-government organizations, and academics on various issues, each informed by unique perspectives. Through this kind of initiative, we are not only stuck at acknowledging the imperfections of our democratic realities, but we also take this as an opportunity to take a proactive stance in nurturing the seeds of progress, collaboration, and the sustained vitality of democracy itself.
In the modern age, physical and online spaces are crucial in reclaiming and creating environments where democracy can thrive. While physical spaces remain vital for fostering direct and organic interpersonal dialogues, online platforms amplify the reach and accessibility of these conversations, especially given geographic considerations and limitations of large-scale gatherings, as highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The interplay between the physical and virtual realms is a testament to the multifaceted nature of democratic engagement, highlighting the importance of embracing both arenas to ensure a comprehensive and robust democratic discourse that resonates with all segments of society, particularly for the marginalized, underrepresented, and underprivileged.
The significance of conferences such as the SEASAT youth camp goes beyond their immediate impact; their continued conduct is paramount for fostering a robust democratic narrative across generations. The mutual respect and acknowledgment of participants’ diverse cultures and viewpoints weave a narrative that transcends geographical boundaries. It shows that the issues, intertwined with democracy’s challenges are not confined to a specific location; instead, they serve as common ground for collective engagement. Recently, I attended an online meeting with fellow delegates from Indonesia and Thailand, wherein we discussed ways of crafting spaces where youth can interact with policymakers, contributing to the formulation of policies that genuinely address the needs of our respective communities. This highlights the expansive potential of sustained engagement through youth-oriented endeavors, demonstrating how the seeds sown in spaces such as SEASAT Youth Camp can bear transformative fruits across diverse settings.
To this end, I have recently founded “Keep the Change: Youth Policy Lab”, a collaborative space where Filipino youth and other stakeholders can go together and understand and participate in the Philippine policy environment and develop innovative solutions to solve complex public issues. As changemakers, it provides avenues for Filipino youth to learn practical skills related to policymaking, lobbying, monitoring, and evaluation through innovative and engaging initiatives, ultimately contributing to developing more genuine civic spaces and deepening democratic institutions. In the upcoming months, I aim to collaborate with my fellow delegates from SEASAT Youth Camp and invite them to share their experiences in engaging policymakers in making policies work for our communities.
So, is democracy a noun or a verb?
In an interview concerning the contemporary state and future trajectory of democracy, American historian Timothy Snyder (2022) highlighted the initial step in addressing the challenges inherent in democracy: reevaluating our perception of the term “democracy.” Rather than perceiving democracy solely as a static noun or an entity apart from us, Snyder advocated for a paradigm shift. He suggested that viewing democracy as an active verb, a collective action, transforms our engagement. Embracing democracy as a process we participate in translates into shared responsibility, allowing us to shed the notion that democracy is solely an outcome governed by uncontrollable external forces.
Therefore, democracy might be dying, but as long as there are spaces wherein, we can do democracy, such as SEASAT Youth Camp, its fire and spirit continue to be alive. As tomorrow’s leaders, these conversations and mutual understanding significantly imply what we aspire to achieve. Therefore, it is a demand to our existing leaders and democratic institutions to collectively address our calls, thereby reestablishing our faith in the democratic process by aligning their actions with the values they profess to uphold. The essence of this demand lies in their capacity to not merely hear but to actively respond; rekindling the dwindling flames of trust in democracy. Through dialogue, education, and proactive reform, an opportunity exists to co-create and reshape the narrative, allowing democracy to fulfill its promise as a force for progress, inclusion, and development for everyone.
_________
References
Anand, A. (2022, April 1). Youth politics in east and southeast asia. Lowy Institute. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/...
Berthin, G. (2023, September 14). Why are youth dissatisfied with democracy? Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/artic...
Booth, R., Medina, A., Siegel-Stechler, K., Kiesa, A. (2023). Youth are interested in political action, but lack support and opportunities. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. https://circle.tufts.edu/lates...
Community of Democracies. (2018). Summary report: The role of youth in democratic resilience side-event held in the margins of the 73rd unga organized by the cod and hosted by romania. https://community-democracies....
Council of Europe. (n.d.) Meaningful youth participation. https://www.coe.int/en/web/dem...
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2020). Democracy index 2020: In sickness and in health? https://www.eiu.com/n/campaign...
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2022). Democracy index 2022. https://www.eiu.com/n/campaign...
Glaser, B., Kennedy, S., Mitchell, D., & Funaiole, M. (2018). The new southbound policy: Deepening taiwan’s regional integration. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://csis-website-prod.s3.a...
de Haan, L., Finnegan, J., Sanzarello, L., & Were, N. (2021). How young people can prevent democratic backsliding. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2...
Horton, B. & de Haan, L. (2019). Common futures conversation: Youth survey 2019. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2...
Mims, R. (2021, June 22). Speak youth to power: Inspiring a new social contract. National Democratic Institute. https://www.ndi.org/our-storie...
Parkinson, J. R. (2009). Does Democracy Require Physical Public Space?. In: Geenens, R., Tinnevelt, R. (eds) Does Truth Matter?. Springer,
Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-...
Potkin, F., & Tanakasempipat, P. (2021, February 9). “Power in solidarity”: Myanmar protesters inspired by Hong Kong and Thailand. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Smith, T. & Yamakawa, N. (2020). Asia’s generation z comes of age. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/med...
Snyder, T. (2022, October). Is democracy doomed? The global fight for our future. [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/timo...
United Nations. (n.d.). Youth. https://www.un.org/en/global-i..
__________
About the Author
Gerald John C. Guillermo is a Juris Doctor student at the University of the Philippines College of Law. He received his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science, Minor in Development Management at the Ateneo de Manila University in 2019. GJ’s professional career includes roles in academia, government, and non-governmental organizations, and is currently a Political Analyst at the Royal Thai Embassy, Manila. GJ has been an active volunteer in youth and civil society organizations, both within the Philippines and internationally. His extensive involvement extends to various programs in tackling current and emerging issues, youth engagement, and international collaboration.
His skills and interests include public policy, international relations, governance, and law.
GJ can be reached at:
Website: https://linktr.ee/gjguillermo
Personal Email: [email protected]
Work Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ge..