Why the youth is so angry
There are waves of protests sweeping across continents, from Asia to Africa to Europe to the Americas. The protesters predominantly are young; and their agendas varied—from regime change to high inflation. When one examines the agendas and the structure of protests worldwide, one broad picture emerges: these protests are informal by leadership and very much issue-based.
In Bangladesh, students staged protests in August to change the political regime; in India, the ongoing protests triggered by a doctor’s rape and murder in Kolkata demand women safety in health facilities; and in Kenya the “Gen Z” forced the government to withdraw new tax proposals.
These protests are not steered by any chosen leadership. Rather, these movements are being fuelled and sustained by various developmental issues and steered by the youths.
This seems obvious at a time when the world by far has the largest youth population in history. The US Agency for International Aid (USAID) estimates that the world is currently home to 2.4 billion young people between the ages of 10 and 29. One can term it as the largest generation ever.
A recent study by UNICEF on youth protests amid the polycrisis says that the proportion of people in general, willing to participate in demonstrations has “increased to its highest levels since the 1990s.” However, since the turn of the 21st century, the UNICEF study asserts, “new trends that distinguish recent protests from those of the past have become more evident. Young people have played an important role in defining some of these patterns.”
What are the issues that drive the youth to lead such massive movements? There have been massive protests against globalisation in the early 21st century followed by outrage against economic hardship and more recently for democracy and freedom. Climate justice is also slowly featuring as a trigger for global mobilisation. In recent years, particularly after the pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis seems to be the dominant trigger. As per an estimate, between November 2021 and October 2022, as many as 12,500 protests and riots were recorded in 150 countries.
Most of these protests or riots revolved around inflation, energy cost and food shortages, and youths played a key role in them.
Social scientists and policy makers are trying to understand why the youths are so angry. Most assessments, including the one by UNICEF, point towards a young world, asserting against lack of basic survival means and the ineffectiveness of the current political system to respond to their needs. The overarching issue of most protests is economic security—simply put, employment and livelihood.
Many treat this as a sign of the current development model not being able to meet the aspiration of the generation. So, the protests are for a new development model which has not been defined or developed till now.
Some years ago, the International Labour Organization (ILO) taking note of the increasing restless among the youth noted, “The youth employment crisis, in all its manifestations, is not merely a transitory development related to sluggish economic growth, but it may become a structural trend if no significant policy changes are put in place.”
Some interpret these protests as reflection of the youths' political profile or affiliation. A survey published in sage Open analysed data from 1 million people in 128 countries from the early 2000s up to 2017, and said, “Those under 40 were more likely to prefer informal political activities than those older than 40. Some believe this is because young people have greater interest in issue-based politics and action that requires no intermediaries, rather than in traditional, institutionalized politics.”
The UNICEF study supports this change in outlook and role of engagement between the old and new generations.
“Global analyses have shown in recent years that older and younger cohorts have different views on democracy as a platform for political engagement. Compared with older cohorts, the youth have become increasingly frustrated by the inadequate performance of democratic institutions,” it says