In a nation where the youth played a pivotal role in overthrowing an autocratic regime through a large-scale uprising in July-August 2024, one might anticipate heightened political involvement among the younger demographic. However, a recent survey conducted by the South Asian Network on Economic Modeling (SANEM) in partnership with ActionAid Bangladesh indicates that 82.7 percent of youth in the country, particularly first-time voters, lack interest in engaging in political activities, with only 1.6 percent currently active. While historical data pre-2024 is unavailable, given the intense political oppression during that era, it is plausible to assume that the numbers were similarly low. This significant gap between democratic aspirations and disinterest in politics raises critical questions about who authentically represents today’s youth in Bangladesh, especially as major political discussions progress without their involvement.
This commentary does not aim to critique the aforementioned survey directly, acknowledging its methodological constraints such as sampling and bias concerns. Instead, the survey prompts a deeper reflection on how political representation is structured presently. It specifically highlights concerns about the legitimacy of the National Consensus Commission (NCC), where established political parties are engaged in high-level dialogues to shape the nation’s future. Surprisingly, few are questioning the representational validity claimed by these parties or whether they genuinely advocate for the majority of citizens, particularly the youth.
Established in February this year, the NCC was established to coordinate national dialogues regarding reform proposals crafted by reform commissions. These dialogues have involved mainstream political parties assumed to speak on behalf of the populace. The initial round of discussions comprised 45 sessions with 33 parties and coalitions, including the BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, NCP, CPB, Nagorik Oikya, Ganosamhati Andolon, Gono Odhikar Parishad, and AB Party. A subsequent round is currently ongoing with a similar roster. The continuity of this engagement raises concerns in light of the insights from the SANEM report.
Although 82.7 percent of young individuals express disinterest in political affairs, as first-time voters, they hold a legitimate stake in shaping the nation’s future. Their widespread disengagement from politics suggests a lack of identification with the current political leadership.
When individuals exhibit disinterest in political activities led by groups purporting to represent them, it leads to misrepresentation and paternalism. The political parties currently in dialogue with the NCC are commonly perceived as representatives of the people. However, if the youth, constituting more than one-fourth of the population, not only distance themselves from politics but also show disinterest in the dominant political entities, their representation appears dubious. Being represented by individuals in whom the constituents have no interest constitutes a fundamental misrepresentation.
Misrepresentation is concerning, particularly when it involves being represented by actors lacking trust or interest, undermining the moral legitimacy of representation. While disinterest may not always originate from distrust, given Bangladesh’s history of political dysfunction, the possibility cannot be overlooked. If young individuals refrain from political engagement due to distrust in the system or its representatives, having their voices replaced by these actors represents a severe form of substitution.
This misrepresentation poses a significant risk for the youth, granting political legitimacy to individuals they neither trust nor engage with, who subsequently make decisions shaping the future of the younger generation. When youth disengagement stems from political disillusionment, replacing their voices with those of untrusted proxies exacerbates the issue, potentially resulting in policies that neglect the needs and aspirations of the youth, further deepening their political alienation. In such scenarios, the appearance of inclusive dialogue only conceals a deeper democratic deficit.
Instead of earning the trust and participation of the youth, these parties behave as if that trust already exists, engaging in high-stakes dialogues like the national consensus talks without a genuine mandate from this generation. This diminishes young individuals from autonomous political agents to passive recipients in need of direction, denying them the moral and political agency to decide on their representation, priority issues, or their participation. This embodies paternalism – assuming authority over another’s interests without considering their input.
For instance, youth-led community organizations that played vital roles during the uprising, such as organizing protests and disseminating information, are notably absent from these national discussions. Their exclusion reinforces the notion that only party-affiliated voices hold significance in shaping the future, sidelining those who mobilized for change but do not align with traditional political structures.
If true inclusivity is the objective, the process must extend beyond party-centric representation. The NCC cannot credibly aim to construct a new political framework while disregarding those who do not see themselves mirrored in the existing political framework. Therefore, dialogues should encompass independent youth representatives and others speaking from outside conventional party affiliations. Only by directly engaging with those currently excluded from political participation can claims of inclusivity and legitimacy hold merit.
Should the youth withdraw from politics out of disillusionment, their absence from state