The United Nations established the International Day of Democracy as an “opportunity to review the state of Democracy in the world.”i In keeping with this opportunity, scholars and practitioners of electoral systems critically reflect on how electoral institutions contribute to democracy. Electoral institutions lay the foundation for democratic development, and the process of electoral participation links notions of inclusivity, accountability, and sustainable development. In 2016, the International Day of Democracy focused on the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the UN in 2015. Goal 16 centers its agenda on promoting peace through inclusivity and creating effective and accountable institutions.ii

Electoral institutions serve as an accountability mechanism. Theoretically, through casting a ballot, constituents can sanction “bad” politicians who enact poor policies and fail to promote sustainable development. In a thriving democracy, the process of casting a ballot should empower citizens, regardless of their age and sociodemographic background. However, electoral institutions lose this ability when certain segments of the electorate fail to participate. Elections risk serving as an ineffective link between citizens, political institutions, and sustainable development when they suffer from poor turnout rates, or when a particular demographic is marginalized. 

Every democracy, new and old, faces its own unique obstacles in promoting electoral participation. There is one group, however, that is becoming increasingly absent from the ballot box across the globe: youth. Youth turnout globally declined starting in the 1980s. For example, youth turnout in Great Britain’s parliamentary elections fell from 82% in 1974 to 39% in 2001, and in Japan youth turnout fell from 81% in the late 1960s to 39% in 2011.iii Currently, young people in Israel are two times less likely to turnout than older generations, and this age gap persists in Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and the United States, among other places.iv

Youth aversion to the ballot box is a problem in new democracies as well. One of the newest democracies in the world is Tunisia. Famously dubbed the “beacon of hope” for democracy in the Arab World, Tunisia successfully held two rounds of democratic elections after its revolution in 2011. During the “Jasmine” revolution, young Tunisians protested government corruption in a context where socioeconomic advancement for many of the country’s marginalized youth was impossible.

Once change had been achieved, however, youth did not capitalize on this event by voting in subsequent democratic elections. Per a report published by Reuters, about 4.1 million people (over half of the country) registered to vote in the National Constituent Assembly elections of 2011, but only about 17% of Tunisians aged 18-25 registered.v In the 2014 elections, youth under the age of 21 represented only 4.59% of registered voters, and youth under 30 represented barely 20%.^vi

In short, youth are often forerunners of social movements and protests, but are generally less attracted to the routine of casting a ballot. This global trend matters because of its implications for sustainable democracy. Youth abstention in the present could greatly undermine the legitimacy of elections in the future. Scholars argue that voting is habit forming, and young people who do not vote during  their 20s are unlikely to vote in the future.vii This has important ramifications for the future of democracy in a country like Tunisia where over 42% of the population is under the age of 25, and 54% is under the age of 30.viii If this pattern of behavior continues, then the overall turnout rate for elections is likely to decline, possibly resulting in a weak democracy where citizens no longer sanction bad officials when their interests are not being met.  Tunisia is not the only country with a youth bulge; over half the world population is under the age of 25, and 85% of youth live in developing countries.ix

Scholars often explain that young people do not vote because they lack socioeconomic resources like education and income at this point in their life cycle. However, a more nuanced understanding of youth and political participation potentially shows that framing youth as an apathetic citizenry misses the mark.

The Brookings Institute published an article comparing the youth turnout in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections to that in the presidential elections following the Tunisian revolution. The U.S. case was puzzling as youth came out in unprecedented numbers during the 2016 primaries.x However, during the general election, youth participation was again low. The Brookings Institution argues that even though the U.S. and Tunisia differ in the longevity of their democracies, American and Tunisian youth are both abstaining from the ballot box for similar reasons. Young people in both Tunisia and the U.S. are politically interested and engaged, but both of their elections featured older candidates who were out of touch with youth. No candidate in either country made youth-related issues a cornerstone of their platform. This comparison signals that general trends beyond demographic characteristics may explain declining rates of youth turnout across democracies.

Efforts to promote youth electoral engagement include civic education programs and “get out the vote” tactics that specifically target youth. However,  the “problem” with youth is not that they are uninterested and apathetic, but their lack in participation reflects the reality of their political climate. Youth do not feel connected to political parties and feel  excluded from the political process. What is missing from discussions surrounding youth and their lack of engagement is a hard look at the legitimacy of democracy in all democratic countries.

Democracies could face even bigger inclusivity issues in electoral participation if young people continue to be treated as simply “apolitical” or a demographic “problem” instead of extraordinary agents of change. A continuation of current trends in youth voter turnout could render democratic electoral institutions ineffective. By 2030, the UN Sustainable Development Goals could be undermined by a continued decrease in electoral participation across the world. The Sustainable Development Goals agenda states that “people who are vulnerable must be empowered,” and this specifically includes youth.xi To ensure the continued and strengthened legitimacy of political institutions throughout the democratic world, youth must be re-conceptualized as positive agents of change who possess enormous political power. A re-orientation towards this bulging demographic will aid the prospects for global democratic sustainability. 

i United Nations. (n.d.-b). International Day of Democracy: September 15: Background. Retrieved here.

ii United Nations. (n.d.-a). Goal 16: Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies.

iii Yerkes, S. (2016, November 6). Youth voting: What a new democracy can teach us about an old one.

iv Millenials across the rich world are failing to vote. (2017). The Economist.

v Parker, E. (2013, June 14). Tunisian Youth: Between Political Exclusion and Civic Engagement. Tunisialive: Living Tunisia.

vi Legislative and Presidential Elections in Tunisia: Final Report. The Carter Center. (n.d.).  May 27, 2015.

vii Gerber, A., Green, D., & Shachar, R. (2003). Voting may be habit-forming: evidence from a randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 540–550.

viii National Institute of Statistics. (2016). Statistiques Tunisie. Retrieved from www.ins.tn/en/themes/population

ix International Foundation for Electoral Systems. (2017). Youth Engagement.

x Yerkes, S. (2016, November 6).

xi The General Assembly. (2015, October 21). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. United Nations.

excluded from the political process. What is missing from discussions surrounding youth and their lack of engagement is a hard look at the legitimacy of democracy in all democratic countries.

Democracies could face even bigger inclusivity issues in electoral participation if young people continue to be treated as simply “apolitical” or a demographic “problem” instead of extraordinary agents of change. A continuation of current trends in youth voter turnout could render democratic electoral institutions ineffective. By 2030, the UN Sustainable Development Goals could be undermined by a continued decrease in electoral participation across the world. The Sustainable Development Goals agenda states that “people who are vulnerable must be empowered,” and this specifically includes youth.xi To ensure the continued and strengthened legitimacy of political institutions throughout the democratic world, youth must be re-conceptualized as positive agents of change who possess enormous political power. A re-orientation towards this bulging demographic will aid the prospects for global democratic sustainability. 

i United Nations. (n.d.-b). International Day of Democracy: September 15: Background. Retrieved here.

ii United Nations. (n.d.-a). Goal 16: Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies.

iii Yerkes, S. (2016, November 6). Youth voting: What a new democracy can teach us about an old one.

iv Millenials across the rich world are failing to vote. (2017). The Economist.

v Parker, E. (2013, June 14). Tunisian Youth: Between Political Exclusion and Civic Engagement. Tunisialive: Living Tunisia.

vi Legislative and Presidential Elections in Tunisia: Final Report. The Carter Center. (n.d.).  May 27, 2015.

vii Gerber, A., Green, D., & Shachar, R. (2003). Voting may be habit-forming: evidence from a randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 540–550.

viii National Institute of Statistics. (2016). Statistiques Tunisie. Retrieved from www.ins.tn/en/themes/population

ix International Foundation for Electoral Systems. (2017). Youth Engagement.

x Yerkes, S. (2016, November 6).

xi The General Assembly. (2015, October 21). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. United Nations.