There are several different theoretical models of youth participation. A well-known one, Roger Hart’s “Ladder of Youth Involvement,” depicts participation on a continuum, from manipulation and tokenism, which do not constitute real participation, to higher levels of participation in which young people initiate, direct, and share decisions with adults. See Annex: Hart’s Ladder of Youth Involvement.

An example of participation at the lower end of the ladder would be adding young people to a program’s discussion panel without giving them any role in the management and administration of, or decision-making about, the program. If an EMB were to establish a voter education program targeting first-time voters, a lower-rung approach might be having a consultative meeting with young members of a youth CSO and including some photos of them in the voter education campaign posters, but not much beyond that. Examples of a higher-rung approach would be to partner with various members of youth CSOs (and other CSOs that may include young people, such as disability organizations) in conceptualizing, planning, implementing, and evaluating the entire first-time voter education program.

Many structures and processes claiming to be for the benefit of youth merely give the illusion of meaningful participation. Tokenistic, pseudo-participatory activities do not effectively give young people a voice and influence in decision-making. “Tokenism is when young people appear to have been given a voice, but really have little or no choice about how they participate. It is participation for participation’s sake or for a photo opportunity. Young participants lack knowledge and capacities and are rarely mandated by their peers.”[i]