Young Voices, Decisive Votes: A Comprehensive Review of Youth Participation in Democratic Elections

Young Voices, Decisive Votes: A Comprehensive Review of Youth Participation in Democratic Elections

Marhapizah Ismail¹, Nur Hidyati Zolhani^2*

¹Faculty Of Administrative Science and Policy Studies, University Technology MARA, Cawangan Kedah, Kampus Sungai Petani,Malaysia

²Academy of Language Studies, University Technology MARA, Cawangan Kedah, Kampus Sungai Petani, Malaysia

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000627

Received: 12 September 2025; Accepted: 20 September 2025; Published: 23 October 2025

ABSTRACT

Youth participation in democratic elections is widely regarded as essential for sustaining democratic governance, yet younger populations often demonstrate lower and inconsistent voter turnout compared to older groups, raising concerns about political disengagement and the legitimacy of democratic institutions. This study aims to provide a comprehensive review of the research landscape on youth participation in democratic elections by analyzing scholarly literature and expert insights using Scopus-AI Analytics. Employing a qualitative review method, the study identifies and synthesizes consistent, rising, and novel themes influencing youth political engagement. Findings indicate that while youth involvement in traditional electoral processes remains limited, their participation is increasingly expressed in non-traditional spaces such as social media, activism, and grassroots movements. Consistent themes, including civic education, institutional trust, and the interaction between digital and traditional political engagement, remain central to understanding electoral behavior. Rising themes reveal the growing role of digital platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter in shaping civic identity and facilitating political discourse, especially among first-time voters and marginalized groups. Novel themes highlight the importance of non-electoral activities as alternative pathways for political influence and democratic engagement. The study contributes theoretically by extending participatory and deliberative democracy frameworks to digital contexts, where online spaces act as new arenas of civic participation, while practically emphasizing the importance of strengthening civic education, fostering institutional trust, and leveraging non-traditional political practices to enhance youth engagement. Overall, the findings underscore the urgent need for targeted interventions to integrate youth voices more effectively into democratic processes and ensure the resilience of democratic systems.

 Keywords— Youth political participation, Democratic elections, Civic education, Social media engagement, Electoral behavior

INTRODUCTION

The role of youth in shaping democratic processes has long been acknowledged as a critical component of political development and societal transformation. Across both established and emerging democracies, young people represent not only a significant proportion of the electorate but also a driving force behind social movements, digital activism, and political innovation (Kuzio, 2006; Saud & Ashfaq, 2025). Their engagement, however, is often paradoxical—while youth have historically catalyzed democratic revolutions, voter turnout among young citizens has been declining in several contexts, raising concerns about the future legitimacy and inclusivity of democratic systems (Bennett, 2013).

Recent scholarship highlights the evolving nature of youth participation, shifting from traditional voting patterns to alternative modes of engagement such as digital mobilization, popular culture, and civic innovation (Chiumbu & Munoriyarwa, 2023; Duche-Pérez et al., 2024). For example, social media platforms have redefined political communication, enabling young people in Indonesia and Pakistan to cultivate political efficacy and participate in democratic discourse in ways that bypass conventional structures (Ida, Saud, & Mashud, 2020a, 2020b). Similarly, experimental educational interventions like the “Inverted Classroom” approach demonstrate how pedagogical innovation can strengthen democratic literacy and electoral participation (Alvarado Alquinga et al., 2024a, 2024b). Yet, barriers such as financial exclusion, institutional apathy, and lack of digital equity continue to hinder full participation, particularly in developing democracies such as Nigeria (Ikalewumi & Olaniran, 2021).

While these studies provide valuable insights, research on youth participation in democratic elections remains fragmented across disciplines, geographies, and thematic emphases. Prior works have examined isolated aspects such as historical mobilization (Kuzio, 2006), cultural shifts in political practices (Saud, Ida, & Mashud, 2020), or challenges of civic education (Levinson & Solomon, 2021). However, there remains a lack of integrative synthesis that maps out the conceptual terrain, identifies emerging themes, and contextualizes youth electoral participation within the broader transformations of contemporary democracies. This fragmentation has left a critical gap in understanding how young voters’ roles intersect with institutional reforms, digital innovations, and socio-political barriers.

Against this backdrop, the present review aims to comprehensively analyze existing scholarship on youth participation in democratic elections, drawing from multidisciplinary perspectives and global case studies. Specifically, this study employs a systematic review approach to (a) analyze the research area by collating and synthesizing published findings, (b) construct a concept map that visualizes key dimensions of youth electoral participation, (c) highlight contributions from leading topic experts, and (d) identify emerging themes shaping future research trajectories.

The contribution of this article is threefold. First, it advances theoretical understanding by integrating fragmented insights into a coherent framework of youth political participation. Second, it provides practical implications for policymakers, educators, and civil society actors aiming to strengthen youth electoral engagement through inclusive policies, digital literacy initiatives, and innovative educational models. Third, it lays the groundwork for future empirical studies by outlining underexplored domains and methodological approaches that could enrich the field.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the methodological approach used for the review, including database selection, keyword strategies, and inclusion criteria. Section 3 synthesizes findings under thematic clusters such as historical mobilization, digital engagement, educational innovation, and structural barriers. Section 4 discusses conceptual linkages and presents a visual concept map to illustrate the interconnectedness of the themes. Section 5 identifies research gaps and proposes a future research agenda. Finally, Section 6 concludes with key contributions, implications, and recommendations for enhancing youth participation in democratic elections.

METHODS

This study employed a systematic literature review approach by utilizing Scopus AI Analytics, accessed on 11 September 2025, to examine the research landscape on youth participation in democratic elections. Scopus AI offers advanced bibliometric and text-mining tools that enable researchers to not only retrieve relevant publications but also analyze conceptual linkages, identify key scholars, and detect emerging thematic trends across disciplines. This methodological choice ensures a structured and transparent synthesis consistent with contemporary review standards (Page et al., 2021).

The aim of this study is as follows: “Analyzing the research landscape through Scopus-AI Analytics, this study aims to provide an in-depth ‘Young Voices, Decisive Votes: A Comprehensive Review of Youth Participation in Democratic Elections,’ identify key topic experts, and highlight emerging themes within the field.”

To operationalize this aim, a comprehensive search string was applied within the Scopus database:

(“youth” OR “young people” OR “adolescents” OR “teenagers”) AND (“participation” OR “involvement” OR “engagement” OR “contribution”) AND (“democratic” OR “elections” OR “voting” OR “political process”) AND (“civic education” OR “political awareness” OR “electoral behavior” OR “social activism”) AND (“barriers” OR “challenges” OR “facilitators” OR “incentives”).

This query captured a multidisciplinary corpus spanning political science, sociology, education, and communication studies.

The Summary generated by Scopus AI highlighted the centrality of youth as both a vulnerable and transformative demographic in democratic elections, with particular emphasis on their roles in digital activism, civic education, and institutional reform (Kuzio, 2006; Ida, Saud, & Mashud, 2020a). The Expanded Summary offered a more nuanced synthesis by mapping shifts from historical mobilizations—such as youth-led democratic movements in Eastern Europe—to contemporary challenges including voter apathy, barriers to candidacy, and declining trust in political institutions (Ikalewumi & Olaniran, 2021; Bennett, 2013).

The Concept Map created through Scopus AI visually represented five thematic clusters: (1) historical mobilization—youth movements driving regime change (Kuzio, 2006); (2) digital engagement—the growing reliance on social media and online platforms to foster political efficacy (Ida, Saud, & Mashud, 2020b); (3) educational innovation—pedagogical strategies like inverted classrooms to build civic competence (Alvarado Alquinga et al., 2024a, 2024b); (4) barriers to participation—structural, institutional, and financial obstacles limiting electoral involvement (Ikalewumi & Olaniran, 2021); and (5) inclusive policy interventions—efforts by states and civil society to re-engage youth electorates (Saud & Ashfaq, 2025).

The Topic Experts identified by Scopus AI included Taras Kuzio, whose foundational work on youth and democratic revolutions remains widely cited (Kuzio, 2006), and contemporary scholars such as R. Ida, M. Saud, and M. Mashud, who have produced multiple high-impact studies on digital political engagement and cross-country youth participation (Ida, Saud, & Mashud, 2020a, 2020b). Their contributions underscore both theoretical and practical dimensions of youth involvement in democratic contexts.

Finally, Scopus AI detected several Emerging Themes that are shaping current and future research directions. These include the increasing importance of digital literacy as a determinant of political engagement (Duche-Pérez et al., 2024), the integration of action civics and experiential learning in civic education (Levinson & Solomon, 2021), the redefinition of political identities among youth in contexts like Pakistan and Nigeria where traditional electoral alignments are eroding (Saud & Ashfaq, 2025; Ikalewumi & Olaniran, 2021), and the global concern regarding declining voter turnout in advanced democracies (Bennett, 2013).

Figure 1 : Step In Conducting Article Review

By combining advanced bibliometric analytics with systematic review methodology, this study ensures a holistic exploration of the conceptual terrain, offering both a structured synthesis of past research and a roadmap for future inquiry into youth participation in democratic elections. (refer figure 1)

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of the research landscape on youth participation in democratic elections, conducted through Scopus AI Analytics (11 September 2025), yielded a multifaceted set of insights that provide both breadth and depth to the current state of scholarship. The output comprising concept map, topic expert and emerging themes.

EXPENDED SUMMARY

The review of literature derived from the Summary and Expanded Summary highlights the multifaceted nature of youth participation in democratic elections. Several key factors have been consistently identified as shaping young people’s electoral behavior, including access to political knowledge, perceptions of electoral institutions, and the maturity of democratic systems. For instance, access to reliable political information is strongly associated with youth turnout and engagement, as better-informed individuals are more likely to perceive voting as meaningful and consequential (Resnick & Casale, 2014). Similarly, the perceived fairness of elections and the level of partisanship influence youths’ willingness to participate in the electoral process, underscoring the importance of institutional credibility in shaping democratic participation (Resnick & Casale, 2014). Moreover, variations in youth participation are evident across political contexts, with established democracies providing more favorable conditions for young people’s involvement compared to nascent or transitional systems (Kitanova, 2020).

Despite these enabling factors, multiple barriers continue to hinder youth electoral participation. A recurrent theme across studies is the prevalence of disinterest, political apathy, and limited access to adequate information, particularly in contexts with restrictive political environments (Musarurwa, 2018). Structural challenges such as insufficient civic education and informational gaps persist, even in countries that have enacted youth-inclusive reforms such as lowering the voting age. In Malaysia, for example, the Undi18 policy represented a progressive step toward youth enfranchisement; however, the absence of comprehensive political education limited the extent to which this reform translated into higher engagement (Saidin & Azrun, 2025). These findings highlight that institutional reforms must be complemented by educational and informational interventions to be effective.

The literature also suggests that targeted strategies and interventions may hold promise for improving youth participation in democratic elections. The role of digital technologies has been particularly emphasized, as e-participation initiatives such as online forums and interactive platforms provide novel avenues for engagement, especially among ICT-savvy youth (Phang & Kankanhalli, 2006). Beyond technological interventions, comprehensive political education emerges as a recurring recommendation, with scholars stressing the need to cultivate knowledge and critical thinking skills to empower young people as active democratic participants (Saidin & Azrun, 2025). Behavioral interventions, such as nudges to increase youth turnout, have also been tested; however, evidence from French elections suggests that their effectiveness is limited and highly context-dependent (Romaniuc et al., 2025). These mixed results imply that while innovative strategies can address some barriers, no single intervention offers a universal solution to youth electoral disengagement.

Importantly, the long-term implications of youth political participation extend beyond immediate electoral outcomes. National elections often function as critical socializing events that activate and sustain young people’s political engagement over time (Eckstein et al., 2024). Furthermore, early engagement in democratic processes has been shown to produce positive individual and community-level outcomes, including greater emotional regulation, empowerment, and sustained involvement in civic and political activities (Martini et al., 2023). These findings support the argument that youth participation in elections is not only vital for the legitimacy of democratic systems but also contributes to broader patterns of civic engagement and social justice.

Taken together, the evidence underscores the complexity of fostering youth electoral participation. While access to information, credible electoral systems, and democratic maturity serve as enabling conditions, barriers such as political apathy, insufficient education, and structural constraints persist. Interventions involving digital participation and comprehensive education show potential, though their impact remains contingent on broader contextual factors. Ultimately, sustained investment in both institutional reforms and civic education appears essential to translate youth enfranchisement into meaningful democratic engagement.

CONCEPT MAP

The concept map generated by Scopus AI (11 September 2025) provides a visual representation of the thematic landscape surrounding youth participation in democratic elections. At the center of the map lies the core construct, Youth Participation in Democratic Elections, which branches into four major thematic domains: social participation, civic education, political discourse, and democratic practices. Each of these domains further expands into sub-themes that illustrate the complexity and multidimensionality of youth engagement in democratic processes.

The first domain, social participation, emphasizes the broader societal context of youth involvement, connecting themes such as adolescence and young population. This indicates that demographic and developmental factors play a significant role in shaping electoral engagement. The second domain, civic education, highlights institutional and rights-based dimensions, branching into local government and children’s rights, which underscores the importance of early civic learning and institutional exposure.

The third domain, political discourse, reflects the interaction between familial, societal, and activist dynamics, represented through family politics and youth activism. This dimension stresses that political engagement is not only shaped by formal structures but also by informal networks and intergenerational influences. Finally, democratic practices encompass the operational side of political engagement, linking citizen participation with traditional political participation. This suggests a continuum where youth navigate both conventional and evolving modes of democratic involvement.

Overall, the concept map illustrates how youth participation in democratic elections is not confined to the act of voting alone, but is instead embedded in a wider network of social, educational, political, and democratic practices. This visualization provides a holistic framework that can guide deeper analysis of emerging research themes, key drivers, and barriers within the field.

A review of Youth Participation In Democratic Election

Youth participation in democratic elections has traditionally been assessed through voter turnout, yet recent evidence suggests a notable shift toward non-traditional forms of engagement. While voting remains an essential indicator of democratic involvement, many young people are increasingly participating in politics through alternative platforms such as digital technology, media, and popular culture. This indicates that disengagement from formal institutions does not necessarily reflect apathy toward politics but rather a reconfiguration of how young people interact with democratic processes (Chiumbu & Munoriyarwa, 2023). Such findings highlight the importance of adopting a broader perspective in assessing youth political participation, one that goes beyond ballot box statistics to include emerging spaces of engagement.

A key factor influencing this transformation is the rise of information and communication technologies (ICTs), which have opened new pathways for civic and political participation. ICT-savvy youth, in particular, are more likely to engage in online policy discussions, digital activism, and networked movements, which provide opportunities for their voices to be heard in ways that traditional political structures often fail to accommodate (Phang & Kankanhalli, 2006). Nevertheless, despite these opportunities, structural challenges remain. Many young people perceive voting as unimportant or ineffective, leading to lower participation in formal electoral processes. In contexts such as Tunisia’s nascent democracy, this disconnect manifests as a paradox: youth are active in street protests and civic demonstrations but remain apathetic at the ballot box (Dobbs, 2023).

Social media has played a pivotal role in bridging the gap between formal and informal political participation. Platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have become essential arenas where young people access political information, mobilize peers, and challenge political elites. In both Indonesia and Pakistan, for instance, social media has emerged as a powerful driver of political learning, civic awareness, and collective action among youth, reshaping the dynamics of political participation in these contexts (Ida et al., 2020). Importantly, digital activism does not simply complement traditional forms of engagement but often substitutes them, allowing young people to bypass formal political institutions that they perceive as ineffective or untrustworthy.

Beyond digital activism, youth movements such as Fridays for Future (FFF) illustrate the capacity of young people to mobilize at scale and demand accountability on urgent political issues. The FFF movement has galvanized millions of youths worldwide, demonstrating their potential to exert influence on political agendas outside conventional electoral pathways (Huttunen, 2021). However, findings also indicate that not all activists within such movements are motivated by revolutionary aims; many prefer non-participatory forms of activism or issue-specific mobilization, reflecting diverse orientations toward political change. This suggests that while youth activism is a significant force in contemporary politics, it is not homogenous, and its relationship with electoral participation remains complex.

Taken together, the findings highlight that youth participation in democratic elections cannot be understood solely through voter turnout rates. Instead, it must be viewed as a dynamic and multifaceted process shaped by structural barriers, digital opportunities, and collective mobilization. While apathy toward formal elections remains a challenge, the evidence suggests that young people are not disengaged but are redefining the spaces and strategies through which they participate in politics. For policymakers and democratic institutions, this underscores the need to recognize and legitimize non-traditional forms of youth engagement while simultaneously addressing the structural and educational barriers that inhibit youth electoral participation.

The Relationship between youth participation in democratic elections and social participation

The relationship between youth participation in democratic elections and social participation is increasingly evident in the evolving dynamics of political engagement. Young people today are not only voters but also active contributors to the broader social and political discourse, using both online and offline platforms to voice their concerns. Social media has emerged as a critical driver of this change, offering youth opportunities to engage in activism, mobilize peers, and challenge existing political narratives (Ida et al., 2020a). In this sense, social participation through digital spaces enhances political participation by lowering barriers to entry and making political discourse more accessible to younger generations.

A significant transformation in youth political behavior has been the shift from traditional hierarchical practices to more independent and dynamic forms of engagement. Historically, youth often followed the political preferences of elders in their communities, reinforcing entrenched patterns of ethnicity, caste, or sectarian affiliation. However, research suggests that these patterns are eroding as young people take on a more autonomous role in shaping political discourse and influencing electoral outcomes (Saud & Ashfaq, 2025). This change reflects a broader generational transition, where social participation is not confined to community structures but extends into national and global democratic debates.

The use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) further strengthens the connection between social and political participation. ICT-savvy youth are leveraging online platforms not only for social networking but also for deliberation on policy issues and democratic reforms (Phang & Kankanhalli, 2006). These platforms act as hybrid spaces where civic life intersects with political participation, blurring the boundaries between social and electoral engagement. Empirical studies from Indonesia and Pakistan confirm that social media usage correlates strongly with increased political learning and electoral involvement, suggesting that social participation is a critical gateway to democratic participation (Ida et al., 2020b).

Nevertheless, while social participation has grown, challenges remain in translating this energy into sustained electoral participation. Evidence from Malaysia indicates that although marginalized and mainstream youth show strong involvement in civic and social activities, their participation in electoral politics remains moderate (Salman et al., 2017). This finding highlights a potential gap between engagement in social causes and active participation in formal democratic processes such as voting. The challenge, therefore, lies in creating mechanisms that can channel social participation into institutionalized political practices without diluting the authenticity of youth voices.

Overall, the evidence underscores the symbiotic relationship between youth participation in democratic elections and broader social participation. Social engagement provides the foundation upon which political involvement can be built, while electoral participation ensures that youth voices are formally integrated into democratic decision-making. Recognizing this interdependence, policymakers and democratic institutions must design interventions that bridge civic and political engagement, such as civic education programs, digital literacy initiatives, and inclusive policy forums. By doing so, societies can transform youth social participation into meaningful contributions to democratic elections, thereby strengthening the legitimacy and resilience of democratic systems.

The Relationship between Youth Participation in Democratic Elections and Civic Education

Civic education has long been recognized as a cornerstone of democratic participation, particularly for young people navigating their first experiences with political systems. Postsecondary institutions, in particular, play an essential role in equipping youth with civic knowledge and democratic values, moving beyond the narrow function of preparing individuals for the labor market (Stewart, 2023). By instilling civic engagement skills, higher education environments can nurture young adults who are not only informed about political structures but also prepared to actively contribute to democratic processes such as voting, campaigning, and public deliberation. This establishes a clear link between structured civic education and youth electoral engagement.

Empirical research confirms that civic knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors cultivated through education are strongly correlated with future democratic participation. Cohen and Chaffee (2013) found that adolescents with higher civic literacy and positive civic attitudes were more likely to express intent to vote as adults. This suggests that civic education interventions during formative years can establish long-term patterns of political engagement. When education systems provide meaningful learning about citizenship, they not only prepare students for examinations but also foster democratic habits that extend into adulthood.

Despite its importance, the effectiveness of citizenship education remains inconsistent. Print (2007) noted that school-based civic education has been only marginally successful in improving democratic engagement among youth. The limited outcomes may reflect superficial approaches that prioritize knowledge transmission over experiential learning. For civic education to be transformative, it must move beyond textbooks and include participatory exercises, debates, simulations of democratic processes, and community-based initiatives that allow students to connect civic knowledge with real-world political practice.

Governments play a central role in preparing students to be responsible digital citizens. They can embed digital literacy by, curriculum integration via Embedding digital literacy as a cross-curricular skill (like reading and math), not just in ICT/Computer Studies and including modules on information verification, critical thinking, online ethics, privacy, cybersecurity, and responsible use of AI. Next, teacher training such as Providing professional development for teachers so they can model and teach digital literacy effectively and supplying lesson plans, toolkits, and classroom activities aligned with global standards (e.g., UNESCO’s Media and Information Literacy framework). Besides, by assessment and certification such as Incorporating digital literacy competencies into national exams or school-leaving assessments and Offering certifications (e.g., digital badges) to incentivize students’ mastery of digital skills. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2023).

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society actors have also demonstrated the potential to enhance civic education outside formal institutions. In Central and Eastern Europe, NGO-led programs have successfully promoted civic engagement and democratic behaviors among youth, providing evidence that external actors can complement formal education systems (Pospieszna & Galus, 2020). Such initiatives highlight the importance of creating multiple pathways for youth to encounter democratic values, particularly in contexts where schools may underemphasize civic education. This broadens the scope of democratic participation, making it accessible through both institutional and non-institutional settings.

Finally, civic education must also extend beyond classroom or NGO settings to engage youth in community life. Hart and Youniss (2017) argued that civic development requires young people to be provided with opportunities to practice democracy in their communities, such as volunteering, local activism, or youth councils. These experiences bridge the gap between civic learning and political action, ensuring that knowledge acquired through education translates into democratic participation. Ultimately, civic education is not simply about informing youth but about empowering them to act as active participants in democratic elections and beyond.

The Relationship between Youth Participation in Democratic Elections and   Political Discourse

Political discourse serves as a critical arena where youth can engage with democratic processes, express opinions, and influence public debate. Increasingly, young people are moving away from traditional political forums and instead embracing alternative spaces such as digital media and commercial platforms to articulate their political voices. For example, Chiumbu and Munoriyarwa (2023) demonstrate how youth radio stations provide accessible avenues for political discussion, enabling young people to connect politics with their lived realities. These platforms highlight that while youth may appear disengaged from formal institutions, they are actively participating in political discourse through unconventional channels that better reflect their social and cultural contexts.

The rise of social media, particularly platforms like Twitter, has further expanded youth participation in political discourse. Ida et al. (2020) found that digital platforms enhance political learning, shape civic attitudes, and improve political efficacy among young users in Indonesia and Pakistan. Similarly, Egbunike (2023) shows that Nigerian youth leverage social media networks not only to share opinions but also to mobilize peers for offline participation in elections. These findings suggest that digital discourse is not isolated from electoral politics; rather, it creates a bridge between online deliberation and tangible political participation.

Despite these opportunities, young people continue to face structural challenges in engaging with political discourse. Bessant (2004) argues that existing democratic practices often send “mixed messages,” whereby youth are rhetorically encouraged to participate but, in reality, excluded from meaningful decision-making processes. Such contradictions can fuel frustration and skepticism toward political institutions. Similarly, Cammaerts et al. (2014) highlight that young Europeans are not apathetic but rather critically engaged, often dissatisfied with how mainstream democratic discourse fails to address their interests and aspirations. This disconnect underscores the importance of rethinking how youth voices are integrated into public debate.

E-participation initiatives offer one way to bridge the gap between youth discourse and formal politics. Phang and Kankanhalli (2006) demonstrate how online policy forums can provide structured environments for youth engagement, enhancing their ability to deliberate on public issues and contribute to policymaking processes. These initiatives suggest that digital spaces can complement formal institutions by offering more inclusive, interactive, and participatory modes of engagement. When effectively integrated, they can transform political discourse from a peripheral activity into a central component of democratic participation.

In sum, the relationship between youth participation in democratic elections and political discourse reveals both challenges and opportunities. On the one hand, youth are increasingly active in digital and non-traditional forums that reshape the contours of political engagement. On the other, institutional barriers and exclusionary practices continue to limit their influence within formal discourse. Addressing these gaps requires not only strengthening youth-oriented civic education and digital participation programs but also reforming institutional frameworks to ensure that young people’s contributions to political discourse meaningfully influence democratic outcomes.

The Relationship between Youth Participation in Democratic Elections  and Democratic Practices

Youth participation in democratic elections plays a transformative role in shaping democratic practices, particularly in societies undergoing political change. In Pakistan, youth engagement has been identified as a catalyst for altering traditional political patterns that were previously influenced by family hierarchies, ethnicity, or patronage systems (Saud & Ashfaq, 2025). By actively participating in elections and political discourse, young people are challenging entrenched structures, reshaping political dynamics, and contributing to more inclusive democratic practices. This shift signals a move toward a more participatory model of democracy, where the voices of younger generations increasingly influence electoral outcomes and public policies.

Beyond altering political patterns, youth participation is also deeply intertwined with the strengthening of democratic practices at the community level. Saud, Ida, and Mashud (2020) show that young people’s involvement extends beyond the ballot box to broader democratic activities, such as community problem-solving, encouraging voter turnout, and engaging in civic discussions. These activities not only enhance the visibility of youth in democratic processes but also reinforce the participatory norms that sustain democratic governance. This indicates that youth are not passive actors in electoral politics; rather, they actively cultivate civic environments that reflect democratic ideals.

At the same time, the rise of non-traditional spaces for youth engagement is reshaping the way democratic practices evolve. Chiumbu and Munoriyarwa (2023) demonstrate that youth are increasingly engaging in politics through digital platforms and popular culture, which provide alternative spaces for political discourse and activism. While many young people may appear disenchanted with formal politics, these non-traditional spaces enable them to express political interests, mobilize peers, and challenge mainstream narratives. Such forms of engagement highlight the adaptability of democratic practices in response to generational shifts in political participation.

However, the exclusion of youth from democratic processes poses risks to the legitimacy and consolidation of democratic systems. Ikalewumi and Olaniran (2021) argue that the absence of youth participation undermines democratic legitimacy, particularly in contexts where young people make up a significant proportion of the population. Without their active involvement, democratic practices risk stagnation, weakening trust in institutions, and alienating new generations of voters. This underscores the necessity of creating institutional mechanisms that not only include youth in electoral processes but also empower them to shape broader democratic governance.

Taken together, the findings suggest that youth participation in democratic elections is both a driver and a reflection of democratic practices. While traditional voting remains central, the expansion of engagement into community action and digital platforms illustrates the multidimensional nature of youth involvement. The challenge for democratic systems lies in harnessing this energy and ensuring that institutional frameworks evolve to accommodate new forms of participation. By doing so, democracies can secure both their legitimacy and resilience in the face of generational change.

Topic Experts

The analysis of topic experts in the field of youth participation in democratic elections highlights the central role of scholars whose work bridges theory and practice in understanding young people’s civic engagement. Muhammad Saud has made substantial contributions by focusing on the transition from traditional to contemporary forms of political participation, particularly in the Indonesian context. His research underscores how youth are redefining engagement through social networks, moving away from hierarchical political traditions toward more fluid, network-based activism (Saud & Ashfaq, 2025). This shift provides insight into how social media and digital democracy platforms have become central arenas for youth to exercise political agency and challenge established political norms.

Complementing this perspective, John B. Holbein’s scholarship emphasizes the transformative power of civic education in fostering voter participation among young people. His work demonstrates that civic knowledge and structured interventions, such as targeted educational programs, can significantly influence youth turnout in democratic elections (Holbein & Hillygus, 2020). Importantly, Holbein also shows that early engagement—particularly within high school and postsecondary institutions—can establish lifelong civic habits, suggesting that education policy plays a critical role in equipping young people with the skills and confidence necessary for political participation. This body of work provides robust evidence for the connection between education and the long-term vitality of democratic systems.

Rachmah Ida brings an equally important perspective through her comparative research on youth political participation in Indonesia and Pakistan. Her work highlights the influence of democratic practices and social media platforms in shaping youth political learning and engagement (Ida, Saud, & Mashud, 2020). By situating youth participation within broader socio-cultural contexts, Ida emphasizes the variability of youth experiences across different democracies. For example, while Indonesian youth often engage through decentralized online activism, Pakistani youth face more constraints but still leverage social media to foster political discourse. This comparative angle underscores the need for context-sensitive approaches to understanding youth engagement globally.

Taken together, the contributions of these experts reveal an evolving landscape of youth participation that is both global and local. Saud’s emphasis on the reconfiguration of political patterns, Holbein’s evidence on the role of civic education, and Ida’s comparative insights converge to show that youth engagement is multidimensional, shaped simultaneously by institutional structures, technological affordances, and cultural dynamics. This multidimensionality suggests that no single strategy is sufficient to enhance youth participation; rather, a combination of educational reforms, digital engagement initiatives, and cultural sensitivity is necessary.

Overall, the scholarship of Saud, Holbein, and Ida illustrates the critical role of interdisciplinary expertise in shaping our understanding of youth political engagement. Their combined research provides a framework for identifying opportunities and challenges in strengthening youth participation in democratic elections. By examining both structural drivers, such as civic education, and contemporary tools, such as social networks, these experts contribute to a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of how the next generation is reshaping democratic discourse and practice worldwide.

Emerging Thems

The analysis of emerging themes reveals the multifaceted relationship between youth political engagement and democratic practices, particularly through the lens of social media, institutional trust, and diverse forms of participation. A notable rising theme is the growing reliance of young people on social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter to engage in political discourse. These digital spaces are not only reshaping how civic identities are formed but also creating inclusive avenues for political networking, particularly among marginalized youth and first-time voters (Ida, Saud, & Mashud, 2020; Egbunike, 2023). Social media provides interactive and accessible opportunities for expression, enabling youth to overcome traditional barriers to participation such as socioeconomic status or geographic location. This demonstrates how digital technologies are redefining political engagement by lowering entry costs and expanding opportunities for participation.

A consistent theme across the literature concerns youth trust in institutions and the role of civic knowledge as drivers of political participation. Research consistently demonstrates that youth who exhibit higher trust in democratic institutions, coupled with stronger civic knowledge, are more likely to engage in elections and political activities (Cohen & Chaffee, 2013; Holbein & Hillygus, 2020). This pattern underscores the importance of strengthening civic education to build trust in institutions and enhance political efficacy. Without trust, even technologically mediated engagement risks being superficial, as skepticism toward institutions can undermine electoral participation. This theme has remained stable in scholarly inquiry, reflecting its enduring importance in understanding youth political behavior.

Another consistent theme is the interplay between digital and traditional forms of political participation. While young people are increasingly active on digital platforms, research indicates that online engagement often complements rather than replaces traditional participation such as voting or campaigning (Chiumbu & Munoriyarwa, 2023; Saud & Ashfaq, 2025). Campaign strategies now integrate social media outreach with traditional mobilization efforts, showing that hybrid participation models can effectively increase youth turnout and long-term political involvement. This indicates that democratic systems must adapt by recognizing digital platforms as legitimate sites of political action while maintaining the integrity of electoral institutions.

A further consistent theme lies in understanding the determinants of youth voter turnout and electoral participation. Studies highlight the importance of behavioral nudges, perceptions of political efficacy, and civic education in motivating young voters to participate in elections (Holbein, 2017; Print, 2007). Interventions that target these factors, such as voter registration drives or gamified civic education programs, have shown promise in boosting youth electoral engagement. This underscores the fact that while interest in politics may be high among youth, structural supports are critical to translating that interest into actual voter turnout.

Finally, a rising theme is the expansion of youth political engagement beyond electoral activities into non-electoral forms such as activism, advocacy, and community organizing. This reflects a shift toward broader and more issue-oriented modes of participation, with young people increasingly using advocacy to influence policy and raise awareness about pressing social issues (Hart & Youniss, 2017; Pospieszna & Galus, 2020). Such non-electoral activities allow youth to express their political voice in contexts where institutional politics may seem unresponsive. This diversification of political participation points to a novel trajectory of democratic engagement, where non-traditional forms of activism are recognized as equally important in shaping democratic outcomes.

Together, these emerging themes demonstrate the evolving nature of youth political engagement, where digital tools, civic knowledge, institutional trust, and non-electoral participation collectively shape democratic practices. They highlight not only the enduring importance of institutional and educational foundations but also the transformative potential of digital technologies and activism in reimagining how youth interact with democracy.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the evolving nature of youth participation in democratic elections, emphasizing the interplay between traditional and non-traditional modes of engagement. Key findings indicate that social media platforms have become rising spaces for political discourse, allowing young people, especially first-time voters and marginalized groups, to overcome traditional barriers to participation. Consistent themes such as trust in institutions, civic education, and the link between digital and traditional political engagement remain critical in shaping electoral participation. Moreover, the expansion of youth involvement in non-electoral activities, such as activism and advocacy, represents a novel direction that reflects the diversification of democratic participation beyond voting. Collectively, these findings suggest that youth engagement is not declining but rather transforming in ways that require rethinking how democracies interact with younger generations.

From a theoretical perspective, the study reinforces deliberative and participatory democratic theories by demonstrating how digital spaces act as new public spheres that enable broader political involvement. The consistent importance of civic education and institutional trust aligns with theories of political socialization, underscoring that democratic participation is both learned and contextual. Rising themes such as social media engagement and non-electoral activism expand these frameworks by showing how informal political participation can complement or even challenge traditional democratic practices.

In terms of practical implications, the findings suggest that policymakers, educators, and civil society organizations should invest in strengthening civic education and enhancing institutional trust to ensure sustainable youth engagement. Political actors should recognize the potential of social media platforms not merely as campaign tools but as genuine arenas for dialogue and empowerment. Furthermore, acknowledging non-electoral activities as legitimate forms of participation can help governments and institutions better integrate youth voices into decision-making processes, thus fostering inclusive democratic practices.

However, this study is not without limitations. The reliance on secondary literature and thematic synthesis means that the findings may not capture the full diversity of youth political experiences across different cultural and political contexts. Additionally, while the role of digital engagement is emphasized, the long-term effects of online political participation on sustained democratic involvement remain unclear. The intersection of socio-economic inequalities with digital access also raises concerns about whether digital platforms can truly democratize political participation.

Future research should explore comparative analyses across regions to better understand how cultural, economic, and political systems mediate youth engagement in democratic processes. Longitudinal studies are particularly needed to assess whether digital participation translates into sustained electoral involvement over time. Furthermore, exploring the relationship between non-electoral activism and institutional politics could provide new insights into how democracies might adapt to the increasingly diverse forms of youth participation. By addressing these gaps, future scholarship can advance both theoretical debates and practical solutions for enhancing youth roles in democratic life.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Kedah State Research Committee, UiTM Kedah Branch, for the generous funding provided under the Tabung Penyelidikan Am. This support was crucial in facilitating the research and ensuring the successful publication of this article.

REFERENCES

1. Bessant, J. (2004). Mixed messages: Youth participation and democratic practice. Australian Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/1036114042000238573
2. Bogard, C. J., Sheinheit, I., & Clarke, R. P. (2008). Information they can trust: Increasing youth voter turnout at the university. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(3), 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096508080724
3. Cammaerts, B., Bruter, M., Banaji, S., Harrison, S., & Anstead, N. (2014). The myth of youth apathy: Young Europeans’ critical attitudes toward democratic life. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(5), 645–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213515992
4. Chiumbu, S., & Munoriyarwa, A. (2023). Mis(understanding) youth engagement: Role of commercial youth radio in promoting political engagement in South Africa. In Converged radio, youth and urbanity in Africa: Emerging trends and perspectives (pp. 93–107). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19417-7_6
5. Cohen, A. K., & Chaffee, B. W. (2013). The relationship between adolescents’ civic knowledge, civic attitude, and civic behavior and their self-reported future likelihood of voting. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 8(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197912456339
6. Dobbs, K. L. (2023). Active on the street but apathetic at the ballot box? Explaining youth voter behaviour in Tunisia’s new democracy. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 50(2), 240–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2021.1962243
7. Eckstein, K., Miklikowska, M., Šerek, J., Noack, P., & Koerner, A. (2024). Activating effects of elections: Changes in young voters’ political engagement over the course of an election year. Frontiers in Political Science, 6, 1302686. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2024.1302686
8. Egbunike, N. A. (2023). Political participation and the social media network of young Nigerians. Journal of African Media Studies, 15(3), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1386/jams_00110_1
9. Hart, D., & Youniss, J. (2017). Renewing democracy in young America (pp. 1–167). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190641481.001.0001
10. Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks (pp. 1–249). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617102
11. Huttunen, J. (2024). Youth support for direct versus talk-centric democratic processes in Finland. Scandinavian Political Studies, 47(1), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12264
12. Ida, R., Saud, M., & Mashud, M. (2020a). An empirical analysis of social media usage, political learning and participation among youth: A comparative study of Indonesia and Pakistan. Quality & Quantity, 54(4), 1285–1297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-00985-9
13. Ida, R., Saud, M., & Mashud, M. (2020b). Persistence of social media on political activism and engagement among Indonesian and Pakistani youths. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 16(4), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijwbc.2020.111377
14. Kitanova, M. (2020). Youth political participation in the EU: Evidence from a cross-national analysis. Journal of Youth Studies, 23(7), 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2019.1636951
15. Martini, M., Rollero, C., Rizzo, M., Di Carlo, S., De Piccoli, N., & Fedi, A. (2023). Educating youth to civic engagement for social justice: Evaluation of a secondary school project. Behavioral Sciences, 13(8), 650. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13080650
16. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2023). Digital Education Policy Framework (Kerangka Dasar Pendidikan Digital). Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
17. Musarurwa, H. J. (2018). Closed spaces or (in)competent citizens? A study of youth preparedness for participation in elections in Zimbabwe. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 56(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2017.1401419
18. Phang, C. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2006). Engaging youths via e-participation initiatives: An investigation into the context of online policy discussion forums. In T. Bynum & S. Rogerson (Eds.), IFIP International Federation for Information Processing (Vol. 208, pp. 105–121). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34588-4_8
19. Pospieszna, P., & Galus, A. (2020). Promoting active youth: Evidence from Polish NGOs’ civic education programme in Eastern Europe. Journal of International Relations and Development, 23(1), 210–236. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0134-4
20. Print, M. (2007). Citizenship education and youth participation in democracy. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(3), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00382.x
21. Resnick, D., & Casale, D. (2014). Young populations in young democracies: Generational voting behaviour in sub-Saharan Africa. Democratization, 21(6), 1172–1194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.793673
22. Romaniuc, R., Guido, A., Baudry, P., Bazart, C., Berger, L., Berlin, N., … Dubois, D. (2025). The limits of behavioral nudges to increase youth turnout: Experimental evidence from two French elections. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 236, 107098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107098
23. Saidin, M. I. S., & Azrun, N. (2025). Barriers to youth political participation: Insights from Malaysia’s lowered voting age policy (Undi18) in the 15th General Election. Cogent Social Sciences, 11(1), 2491710. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2491710
24. Saud, M., Ashfaq, A. (2025). Shift from traditional to contemporary political patterns: Knowing the youth perspectives on political participation. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 60(6), 3474–3494. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096241235292
25. Saud, M., Ida, R., & Mashud, M. (2020). Democratic practices and youth in political participation: A doctoral study. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 800–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2020.1746676
26. Stewart, D.-L. (2023). Civic engagement and resisting “docile bodies” in postsecondary education. Teachers College Record, 125(5), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681231181795
27. Timmerman, G. (2009). Youth policy and participation: An analysis of pedagogical ideals in municipal youth policy in the Netherlands. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(5), 572–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.10.015
28. Utter, G. H. (2011). Youth and political participation: A reference handbook (pp. 1–285). ABC-CLIO.
29. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002237
30. Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2011). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen (pp. 1–270). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183177.001.0001