By Thinam Mali
Democracy From Below intern, My Vote Counts
This year, South African youth in Khayelitsha were offered a seat at the table in a consultation hosted by the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA), ahead of the State of the Nation Address (SONA). In his address, Deputy President Paul Mashatile uttered something powerful to the youth: “You are not passive observers of the national mood- you set its tone and pace”. A stirring statement, powerful in the moment, yet familiar.
The government has, to its credit, taken steps to formalise youth consultation channels. The nationwide municipal youth desks are evidence of an attempt to facilitate youth participation and development. Legislative frameworks reinforce this intent; the Municipal Youth Guidelines (2004) direct municipalities to set up youth units and councils, and the National Youth Policy (2020-2030) identifies youth participation as central to building an equal South Africa. Yet despite these channels and frameworks, evidence shows that these channels are either insufficiently resourced or are not translating to tangible change that the youth can see and feel. The youth participation levels at the election polls are evidence of youth dissatisfaction with using formal participatory tools to drive the change that they want to see.
The recent protests spearheaded by the youth around unemployment, ‘Justice for CweCwe’ campaign and academic exclusion, highlight that we are not apathetic or disillusioned. The protests demonstrate that we can identify issues affecting us and have the capacity to mobilise around them. However, the question one should ask is why this capacity is not carried onto formal participatory channels like elections and local government spaces of participation (Integrated Development Plan, community meetings, ward meetings). Is it because experience has led us to conclude that formal platforms are performative, therefore ineffective to yield intended outcomes? Or do these once-in-a-while youth initiatives lack the ability for us to gain the necessary participatory muscle needed to engage in formal platforms?
That is the paradox that lies at the center of South Africa’s youth participation problem. The government acknowledges our potential and the importance of our participation in one breath and sidelines us with the next. While the Youth Roundtable was momentous, we need consistent consultation platforms that yield feasible outcomes to bolster our participation, not once-off moments. And until the government understands the difference between the two, the crisis of participatory democracy in South Africa will continue to worsen, one disengaged young person at a time.
Numbers do not lie; they highlight a system that needs reform
The 2021 local government elections revealed what performative and inconsistent youth engagements produce. Nearly 1.8 million 18-19-year-olds were eligible to vote; however, eighty per cent did not register to vote. Meanwhile, only twenty per cent of the population aged 20-35 registered to vote, compared to ninety per cent of those aged 40 years and above. The youth (individuals aged 15-34) make up one-third of South Africa’s estimated 63 million people. When such a large portion of the population does not participate in formal processes, it impacts the entire functioning of the democratic system.
This is not due to apathy as usually perceived. We are not checking out of formal participatory channels because we are indifferent. We have withdrawn from participating because we have watched participation yield no outcomes. The empty promises of political parties partly contribute to this conscious withdrawal as parties enter communities, make promises, and leave without consequence. We have attended meetings where outcomes were already decided on and we have been told that our voices matter by institutions that make decisions without our input. A qualitative research report titled ‘ Youth transitions in South African communities’ confirms that we are well-informed about current affairs and passionately express concerns regarding problems that plague our communities, such as government failure to provide basic services. Yet we find formal political processes frustrating, alienating and unlikely to produce desirable outcomes. At the core of our withdrawal from formal processes is not indifference, it is prior experience of formal participatory spaces.
Compounding this is the reality of material conditions that we face as young people; youth unemployment stands at 46.1%. We cannot afford to prioritise civic participation when the pressure to meet our immediate needs requires our time and energy. This is the tension that should be addressed when discussing genuine youth participation within the South African democratic system.
When participation feels like a ritual, rather than a tool for change, people put down their toolboxes.
Performative participatory platforms produce disengaged citizens
The government must understand that the way in which we experience participation determines whether we will show up to participate again. Every youth roundtable that does not contribute to an improvement of issues raised this year, every ward committee consultation that overlooks youth input, every promise made in party manifestos that does not come into fruition when that party comes into power, each one of these teaches us that showing up does not matter. And that we should resort to tools of participation existing outside of government platforms, such as protest, to make our voices heard.
Electoral participation is interlinked to other forms of civic engagement. If we are not showing up at the polls, a form of participation that happens once every five years, there is little chance that we would engage in an integrated development plan (IDP) consultation, ward meeting or any other form of engagement that requires sustained participation. These are the processes that are a cornerstone of local governance, enabling it to function.
To understand the current state of youth engagement, we must understand that democratic muscle is weakened by disuse. Therefore, when the government offers youth engagement platforms that are occasional, it is manufacturing youth disengagement. More importantly, if the issues raised in the roundtable are not reflected in the budget, it will reaffirm our belief that formal consultation is performative.
What needs to happen for meaningful youth participation to take place?
The focus here is not on whether the government should invest in youth participation, as that is obvious in a country where the youth make up most of the population. The real focus is what investment in youth engagement looks like beyond roundtables, public relations statements, and tweets.
It all starts with civic education treated as a consistent framework, rather than an afterthought. If banks are able to flood universities to sign up students for bank accounts, the government and civil society can do the same for voter registration, democratic literacy and local governance process awareness. Given that 58% of youth are NEET (not in employment, education or training), outreach cannot be limited to campuses only; it must meet us where we are.
It continues with the use of digital tools that we are already familiar with. South Africa has over 50 million internet and social media users, yet digital tools for civic engagement remain thin or inaccessible. We need apps that move beyond voting station locations and election outcomes. The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) mobile app is crucial for the election period, however there must be apps that facilitate youth engagement in between elections. We need real-time updates on community meetings, accessible meeting minutes from decisions taken in local government, and digital guides that explain the tiers of government in simple language, delivered on platforms that we use.
Above all, there needs to be a direct addressing of the problem: we do not trust participation because participation has not delivered anything. The answer is not in presenting a flashy version of a broken process, but in making the process work. That requires political will on both sides. Those in power must act on issues that we raise, reforming formal channels that we can trust and use to hold those in power accountable, and building sustainable movements that will not dissolve after one well-attended roundtable. On the other hand, it requires us as the youth to move between formal and informal channels to make our voices heard.
The issues that were raised at the Youth Roundtable in Khayelitsha, such as extortionists repressing small businesses, unemployment and the material conditions that distract us from participating, must be addressed. If these issues are not addressed, it will further affirm how we perceive participation. We will conclude that the roundtable was not a seat at the table, but a media coverage opportunity.
The promise of democracy
In closing, a democratic system that treats youth participation as a one-time annual ritual does not just fail us as the youth, but it positions itself for failure. The antidote to one of the biggest issues facing South Africa’s democracy lies in the sustained engagement of generations that inherited the promise of 1994 of having a voice in governance. Low voter turnout is a symptom of a deeper issue, which is a political system that calls us to the table but does not allow our voices to influence outcomes.
Participation is not innate; it is a skill that is acquired and sharpened through practice. It is further built through trust and instances of showing up and being heard, and implementing a once-a-year event will not lead to a hopeful youth that engages.
We are not being unreasonable; we are asking to be valued, not through speeches but through deliberations that yield tangible outcomes. That is what democracy promises to offer us.
