Democracy is a form of governance that promotes the creation of non-oppressive and equitable conditions for human competition, which is a key part of the evolutionary process. However, the exclusion of certain groups of people from the democratic process does not contribute to the flourishment of a system that hinges on the belief that “the operation and ownership of power” (Fusco & Heathfield 2015, p. 12) are essential to making sure that citizens are not bereft of their freedom and civil liberties.
The notion of equal representation is embedded within democracy and helps ensure that tensions between power groups are reduced to a minimum through inclusive dialogues. Therefore, youth participation in the politics and lives of their communities is essential to guarantee the wellbeing of any society. Such participation not only serves as a benchmark of a high level of inclusiveness, which can be considered an important indicator of social progress, but also paves the road to increased interconnectedness between different generations, thereby ensuring that the succession of power is a cross-generational process.
Youth leadership development is a way to enhance young people’s early engagement in the democratic process by placing them at the center of political decision-making. Such participation is especially important given that a progressive social democracy cannot effectively function without maximum civic engagement. The issue of youth participation in politics has a tone of urgency due to “decreasing trends in youth voting, membership of traditional organizations and civic trust” (Shephard & Patrikios 2012, p. 753).
The aim of this paper is to propose an approach for increasing the level of youth engagement in government organizations. The paper will provide a strategy for the development of youth leadership based on the best practices of youth councils around the world.
Youth Parliaments
Youth Parliaments (YP) are youth organizations consisting of young members who are democratically elected to make sure that the views and interests of young people in their communities are represented (Shephard & Patrikios 2012). YPs can serve as effective institutional mechanisms for reengaging youth in formal politics (Shephard & Patrikios 2012). Such organizations already operate in the majority of European countries; they not only help ensure that young citizens learn how to use direct-democracy channels but also provide a critical “safety-valve parliamentary function” (Shephard & Patrikios 2012, p. 755) when extraordinary policies such as spending cuts have to be implemented.
The YP system across Europe includes the participation of the following countries: Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, the UK, Sweden, Scotland, and the Netherlands. The ages of YP members in Europe range from 7 to 25, with Estonia having the youngest youth cohorts (Shephard & Patrikios 2012). Best practices in the area of youth selection to YPs show that representation based on written skills is an effective mechanism for allocating a limited number of YP slots. In Denmark, young citizens who are interested in becoming YP members submit written bills. Greece and Belgium rely on essays and letters, respectively.
The experience of Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Denmark, and the UK suggests that youth partisanship should not be present in YPs (Shephard & Patrikios 2012). In terms of representation, YPs are recommended to aim toward diversity, regardless of whether parliament members represent their schools or fictitious constituencies. All activities in the YPs of Europe are geared toward socializing adolescents and simulating “the procedures of the adult parliament in each country” (Shephard & Patrikios 2012, p. 756). Therefore, it can be concluded that YPs are effective mechanisms for helping young citizens practice their civic skills and even influence the real-world political process across many government sectors.
Youth Councils
Youth councils are another effective method for promoting civic engagement among adolescents. Professionals who study and work with youth civic engagement organizations recognize that youth councils provide a unique opportunity for young citizens to celebrate their political agency through active engagement in the policy-making process (O’Connor 2013; Taft & Gordon 2013). A large body of research on youth councils identifies such organizations as “an idealized form of youth political engagement” (Taft & Gordon 2013, p. 88) that not only empowers young citizens but also promotes political pluralism.
Moreover, in the context of society at large, youth councils create new dynamics between adults and adolescents, thereby changing the traditional meaning of communal organization. The development of non-marginalized social organizations is a significant marker of a progressive social democracy; therefore, modern societies should strive to maximize opportunities for participation in alternative forms of civic engagement. The experience of Australia shows that youth councils can be used to overcome the problem of youth disengagement. According to Eva and Sedjaya (2013, p. 585), the creation of youth councils in the country was a response to the global financial crisis, which showed a lack of “confidence in business leaders who are fixated with short-term benefits.”
Leadership Training
Leadership training for youth is extremely important for any progressive society because it allows for the harnessing of the enormous untapped potential of young people, which can be used to solve various problems across both national and international domains. By building the leadership capacity of young citizens, it is possible to create a generation of responsible upcoming leaders who are willing and able to resolve numerous environmental, social, and political challenges in an ethical manner (Redmond & Dolan 2014). The promotion of youth organizations that incorporate youth leadership programs creates the environmental conditions necessary for the development of individuals who can effectively use their influence in order to guide a group of people toward achieving a common goal.
Redmond and Dolan (2014) highlight the importance of the development of an “authentic leader” who can mobilize a group to face a challenge or to find a solution to a problem through non-coercive means. The scholars stress that there is a distinction between adult and youth leadership. Redmond and Dolan (2014) maintain that unlike adult leadership, which is primarily focused on the development of leadership skills through the exploration of key skills, youth leadership can only be taught by providing young people with opportunities to apply their insight and knowledge in authentic ways.
To this end, it is necessary to encourage prospective leaders “to take an active leadership role in the present” (Redmond & Doland 2014, p. 3), thereby helping them to succeed. This approach can provide many effective solutions for problems that trouble the communities in which young citizens reside, without having to rely on outside experts.
International experience with youth leadership development suggests that such diverse programs and activities as charities, community clean-ups, petitioning for community improvements, and anti-bullying initiatives, among others, are capable of equipping leaders with the skills necessary to tackle more complex tasks in the future (Redmond & Doland 2014). Ngai et al. (2012, p. 166) argue that the development of leadership skills in young people living in Hong Kong “shifts the focus from remedying youth deficits to nurturing their unique talents and preparing them for full participation in the community and society.”
By eliminating the limitations of the remedying approach, the government of Hong Kong helps young citizens grow and modify their values in such a manner that they mirror the best attitudes and behaviors of the previous generation, while still maintaining the creative drive that is so necessary for positive social transformation. The creators of leadership programs for young people in this administrative region of China recognize the following domains of leadership development: personal, interpersonal, intrapersonal, national, and international (Ngai et al. 2012). The best strategies for training young people include but are not limited to adventure-based training, experiential training, competitive engagement, and non-local participation (Ngai et al. 2012).
None of these strategies are mutually exclusive. In fact, the program operators try to integrate as many of them as possible in their project-based assignments to develop twenty-first century skills in participants. In order to achieve the maximum efficiency of instruction, the educators conduct leadership workshops and apply various approaches to training that “range on a continuum from didactic learning at one end to experiential learning at the other” (Ngai et al. 2012, p. 174).
A study on empowerment-based, non-formal education programs for aspiring leaders among Arab youth suggests that they are highly effective in the development of both self-efficacy and self-esteem (Morton & Montgomery 2013). Such programs provide adolescents with “access to a supportive adult or older youth leader” (Morton & Montgomery 2013, p. 22). It should be mentioned that the best practices gleaned from youth empowerment programs in Arab countries suggest that instead of one-to-one mentoring, which can be time- and resource-consuming, group interactions can be used as effective mentoring schemes.
Furthermore, the delivery of such programs has to occur outside of formal educational settings. Such application of the youth empowerment process is believed to be the most conducive to the development of independent co-learning relationships between mentors and young learners (Morton & Montgomery 2013).
A study on youth participation in disaster risk reduction in the Philippines conducted by Fernandez and Shaw (2013) suggests that by involving young citizens in risk reduction activities, it is possible to substantially reduce the negative outcomes of crises. The experience of this country shows that young people are capable of providing valuable insights on disaster management. Therefore, it is necessary to promote youth volunteerism through their regular engagement in youth councils as well as disaster response programs (Fernandez & Shaw 2013).
According to Preiffer and Wchsler (2013), once an individual develops a particular leadership style, it undergoes only negligible and minor alterations throughout the course of his or her life. Therefore, youth mentors have to take a three-dimensional approach to youth leadership development that encompasses the following domains: leader-member relations, task structure, and power.
Conclusion
By making young people a part of the democratic process, it is possible to minimize the tensions between power groups within a society and to promote the development of effective leaders who are capable of succeeding in a wide range of government sectors. International experience has shown that the involvement of adolescents in YPs and youth councils is an effective mechanism for the promotion of social cohesion and leadership development.
Reference List
Eva, N & Sendjaya, S 2013, ‘Creating future leaders: An examination of youth leadership development in Australia’, Education & Training, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 584-598.
Fernandez, G & Shaw, R 2013, ‘Youth council participation in disaster risk reduction in Infanta and Makati, Philippines: A policy review’, Journal of Disaster Risk Science, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 126-136.
Fusco, D & Heathfield, M 2015, ‘Modeling democracy: is youth participation enough?’, Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, vol.7, no. 1, pp. 12-31.
Morton, M & Montgomery, P 2013, ‘Youth empowerment programs for improving adolescents’ self-efficacy and self-esteem: A systematic review’, Research on Social Work Practice, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 22-23.
Ngai, N, Cheung, C, Ngai, SS & To, S 2012, ‘Youth leadership training in Hong Kong: current developments and the way ahead’, International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 165-179.
O’Connor, C 2013, ‘Engaging young people? The experiences, challenges, and successes of Canadian youth advisory councils’, Youth Engagement, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 73-96.
Preiffer, S & Wchsler, S 2013, ‘Youth leadership: a proposal for identifying and developing creativity and giftedness’, Estudos de Psicologia Campinas, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 219-229.
Redmond, S & Dolan, P 2014, ‘Towards a conceptual model of youth leadership development’, Child and Family Social Work, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-10.
Shephard, M & Patrikios, S 2012, ‘Making democracy work by early formal engagement? A comparative exploration of youth parliaments in the EU’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 752-771.
Taft, J & Gordon, H 2013, ‘Youth activists, youth councils, and constrained democracy’, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 87-100.