Martin K Across the globe, youth-led movements are emerging as a critical force in reshaping the governance landscape. In Nigeria, the #EndSARS protests mobilized millions against police brutality in 2020, forcing temporary reforms and sparking global solidarity. In Hong Kong, youth were at the forefront of mass mobilizations for democratic rights, creating one of the largest civil resistance campaigns in Asia since the Tiananmen Square protests. In Africa’s Sahel region, young protesters were key actors in mobilizing against corruption and stagnating regimes, sometimes catalyzing regime change. In Europe and North America, climate movements such as Fridays for Future demonstrate the global spread of youth as agents of change.
Yet, this transformative energy carries a paradox. While many movements channel democratic accountability and justice, they also risk being weaponized into instruments of destabilization, creating what Samuel Huntington once described as the “revolution of rising expectations”. When institutional channels are weak, these movements can accelerate democratic breakthroughs, but equally, they can open pathways to “soft coups” that overturn governments without arms. This dual character demands careful analysis through International Relations (IR) and Political Science theories.
Theoretical Anchors: Youth Movements through IR & Political Sciences Lenses
Youth movements occupy a liminal space between hope and disruption, embodying what Charles Tilly (2006) termed contentious politics: the dynamic struggle between authorities and challengers. To analyze their rise, Political Science and International Relations theories provide both conceptual scaffolding and interpretive insight.
Social Movement Theory remains fundamental. McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly (2001) argue that movements succeed when political opportunity structures, elite divisions, state fragility, or international support create openings for dissent. The Arab Spring clearly illustrates this: Tunisia’s youth mobilization, sparked by Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation, relied on fractured elites and transnational solidarity to ignite regional uprisings (Howard & Hussain, 2013). However, the theory also predicts limitations: when structures close, as in Egypt after 2013 or Sudan after 2021, youth energy is often suppressed, divided, or co-opted. Therefore, youth activism remains dependent on moments of upheaval, thriving during crises but remaining vulnerable as States strengthen their control.
Democratic theory offers a second lens. Carole Pateman (1970) argued that democracy without participatory practices is hollow, sustained by ritual rather than genuine citizenship. Youth-led protests, from #EndSARS in Nigeria to student fare dodging in Chile, illustrate demands for deeper democratic engagement. They embody the push for participatory democracy, where conventional institutions have failed to deliver accountability. Here, youth movements act as corrective forces, reinvigorating democratic norms and widening political space beyond elite bargains (Foweraker, 1995).
Constructivist International Relations theory adds a transnational dimension. Norms and repertoires of resistance diffuse across borders, creating cascades of mobilization (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). Tunisia’s protests diffused across the Arab world; Black Lives Matter resonated in London, Lagos, and Sydney; Greta Thunberg’s solitary strike evolved into Fridays for Future, spanning over 150 countries (Wahlström et al., 2019). In this sense, youth movements are not confined to national boundaries; they operate within globalized moral economies, drawing legitimacy and inspiration from shared narratives.
Yet theories of empowerment must also be balanced by theories of securitization. The Copenhagen School (Buzan, Wæver, & de Wilde, 1998) highlights how States construct certain phenomena as existential threats, legitimizing extraordinary measures. Governments often securitize youth dissent: Nigeria framed #EndSARS as a national security risk, China depicted Hong Kong youth as “terrorists,” and Uganda labeled Bobi Wine’s supporters as destabilizers. Such securitization transforms calls for justice into grounds for repression, illustrating how movements confront not only state power but also the discursive regimes that delegitimize them.
Taken together, these theoretical anchors underline the Janus-faced character of youth activism. They are democratic innovators, expanding participation and accountability, but also potential accelerators of instability when co-opted or securitized. They reveal the double-edged nature of political agency in the twenty-first century: a force capable of deepening democracy or, under fragile conditions, of legitimizing its undoing.
A look at some case studies
- Africa: Between Democratic Openings & Popular Coups
The African continent illustrates both the emancipatory potential and the destabilizing risks of youth movements. In Tunisia (2011), the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, a young street vendor, catalyzed one of the most transformative uprisings of the 21st century. Unemployed graduates, students, and digital activists quickly translated anger into organized dissent, toppling President Ben Ali within weeks. Scholars note that Tunisia embodied the essence of political opportunity structures: elite divisions, international attention, and deep state fragility created an opening that youth actors seized (Howard & Hussain, 2013). Yet, as Yerkes (2017) argues, the promise of Tunisia’s youth-led democratic renewal has since eroded. President Kais Saied’s 2021 power grab illustrates how early breakthroughs, without institutional anchoring, remain vulnerable to authoritarian resurgence. Tunisia thus teaches us that youth activism can open the door to democracy, but cannot alone guarantee its consolidation.
In Nigeria (2020), the #EndSARS movement epitomized the fusion of digital mobilization and grassroots street protest. Sparked by anger at police brutality by the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), the protests mobilized millions, generating over 28 million Twitter posts in weeks (Ojebode et al., 2021). Youth organized decentralized funding streams through Bitcoin after State accounts were frozen, illustrating the adaptability of digital-era movements. The eventual disbanding of SARS was framed as a victory, yet the massacre of unarmed protesters at Lekki Toll Gate revealed the limits of reform when States securitize dissent (Amnesty International, 2020). The case exemplifies the securitization dynamic described by Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde (1998): youth were redefined from citizens into threats, legitimizing violence against them.
The Sahel reflects a more troubling trajectory. In Burkina Faso (2014), the Balai Citoyen (“Citizen’s Broom”) movement, rooted in hip-hop culture and youth networks, mobilized mass protests that ended Blaise Compaoré’s 27-year rule (Honwana, 2019). Initially hailed as a democratic renewal, this victory was later appropriated by the military. Coups in 2022 and 2023 were justified as “youth-backed,” demonstrating how movements can become legitimizing covers for regime change rather than democratic consolidation (Melly, 2023). Mali and Niger present similar dynamics: youth disillusionment with corrupt elites aligned with soldiers’ ambitions, producing what scholars term popular coups (Cheeseman & Fisher, 2019). In these cases, youth agency, instead of deepening democracy, facilitated its suspension.
Sudan (2018–2019) reveals both the resilience and fragility of youth activism. The Sudanese Professionals Association, driven by youth, orchestrated sit-ins that toppled Omar al-Bashir. Yet, the subsequent 2021 coup undercut the transitional arrangement, illustrating how elite bargains often betray grassroots mobilization (de Waal, 2019). Sudanese youth thus embody Tilly’s (2006) paradox of contention: they can open political space but cannot ensure that it will not be closed again.
More recent mobilizations in Kenya (2024–2025) represent an evolution in African youth politics. Known as the “Gen Z protests,” these demonstrations against the Finance Bill were decentralized, digitally coordinated, and non-partisan. Unlike earlier movements tied to opposition parties, Kenyan youth framed their struggle as generational, demanding accountability beyond ethnicity. Dozens were killed by security forces, but the protests forced President William Ruto to withdraw the bill, one of the clearest examples of policy reversal under youth pressure in Africa’s recent history (Mutahi, 2025).
Finally, in Uganda, youth discontent crystallized around musician-turned-politician Bobi Wine and his People Power Movement. With Uganda’s median age at 16, the demographic weight of youth challenges President Museveni’s four-decade rule. Despite heavy repression in the 2021 elections, Ugandan youth have reframed politics as a generational struggle, echoing Honwana’s (2012) concept of “waithood”: young people stranded between childhood and adulthood, denied full citizenship, and forced into resistance.
- Asia: Democratic Waves, Authoritarian Pushback, & the Nepal Gen Z Moment
Asia has emerged as one of the most dynamic theaters of youth-led contention. From the streets of Hong Kong to the campuses of Delhi, from Yangon’s barricades to Kathmandu’s city squares, youth have mobilized to defend autonomy, resist authoritarian drift, and demand deeper democratic accountability. Their repertoires of contention are strikingly diverse, including digital campaigns, flash mobs, sit-ins, and occupations, but their centrality to political transformation is unmistakable.
In Hong Kong (2019), the “anti-extradition bill movement” demonstrated the ingenuity of youth activism in an increasingly authoritarian context. Students and young workers pioneered the “be water” strategy: decentralized, fluid, and leaderless organizing that enabled adaptability against repression (Lee, Yuen, & Tang, 2019). At its peak, nearly two million marched, one-quarter of the population (Chan, 2020). Yet, despite global visibility, Beijing reasserted control through the 2020 National Security Law. This case exemplifies the tension between innovation and authoritarian adaptation, highlighting how even massive mobilizations can be blunted by State resilience (Levitsky & Way, 2010).
Myanmar (2021) further illustrates the radicalization of youth in the face of authoritarian resurgence. Following the military coup, Generation Z initiated the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM), paralyzing banks, schools, and ministries. They extended resistance beyond cities, linking with ethnic armed groups in what Tilly (2006) would call an evolving repertoire of contention. Unlike earlier generations, Myanmar’s youth had experienced quasi-democracy during 2011–2020 and refused to accept its reversal (Kiik, 2022). Their mobilization shows how generational memory shapes resistance, though the brutality of military crackdowns exposed the limits of civic protest under hard authoritarianism.
In India (2019–2020), the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) ignited student-led protests at Jamia Millia Islamia and Jawaharlal Nehru University. Young activists framed their resistance around constitutional values, presenting themselves as custodians of secular democracy (Chatterjee, 2020). These protests resonate with Habermas’ (1989) conception of the public sphere, as youth reclaimed civic space against exclusionary State narratives. They also highlight how youth activism can articulate pluralism, countering majoritarian politics with appeals to constitutional universality.
The Thailand protests (2020–2021) pushed generational contention to cultural frontiers. Youth challenged both military dominance and the monarchy, long shielded by taboo, through creative repertoires blending pop culture, memes, and satire (Montesano et al., 2022). This movement underscored the cultural dimension of youth activism: resistance was not only about institutions but also about reimagining national identity.
South Korea’s experience reminds us of longer trajectories: youth activism in the 1980s was pivotal in dismantling authoritarian rule and remains a historical anchor of the country’s democratic consolidation (Shin, 2012). The legacy of those mobilizations continues to inspire contemporary youth struggles across Asia, underscoring the longue durée of youth as democratic catalysts.
The Nepalese Gen Z protests (September 2025) mark the latest and perhaps most dramatic youth-led mobilization in Asia. Triggered by the government’s abrupt ban on 26 social media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, and X, protests quickly expanded into a generational uprising against corruption, nepotism, and economic stagnation (Reuters, 2025). Leaderless and decentralized, youth coordinated through alternative platforms such as Discord and encrypted channels once mainstream apps were blocked. When security forces opened fire, killing at least 19 protesters, the state’s securitization of dissent intensified mobilization rather than suppressing it (AP News, 2025).
The political fallout was extraordinary: the social media ban was lifted, Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli resigned, and an interim government led by former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was sworn in. Parliament was dissolved, marking one of the clearest instances in South Asia where youth activism directly precipitated regime change (Financial Times, 2025). Yet, the fragility of this outcome looms large. Without structural reform, Nepal risks sliding into a cycle of protest and elite reassertion, similar to patterns seen in Egypt after 2011.
Taken together, these Asian cases illustrate three dynamics. First, youth are innovators of repertoires, be it “be water” in Hong Kong, meme culture in Thailand, or digital-native resistance in Nepal. Second, they embody the contradiction of democratic aspirations meeting authoritarian adaptation: reforms are won, but often reversed or undermined. Third, diffusion is evident: the Nepalese protests echoed tactics and grievances visible in Sri Lanka (2022) and Bangladesh, underscoring the transnational currents of Gen Z mobilization. Asia’s youth thus stand at the heart of contentious politics, embodying both the promise of renewal and the peril of destabilization.
- Europe & North America: Climate, Justice, & Polarization
In Europe and North America, youth activism has been characterized less by regime change and more by agenda-setting power. The Fridays for Future movement, initiated by Greta Thunberg’s school strike in Sweden in 2018, rapidly diffused into a global youth phenomenon. By March 2019, coordinated climate strikes mobilized over 1.4 million young people in more than 120 countries (Wahlström et al., 2019). This case illustrates constructivist IR insights: youth became norm entrepreneurs, reframing climate change from a technical policy issue into a moral and generational imperative (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). Their impact extended to institutional politics, influencing EU Green Deal discussions and shaping United Nations climate negotiations (Martiskainen et al., 2020).
In the United States, Black Lives Matter (BLM) represents the largest protest movement in American history. Sparked in 2013 and magnified in 2020 after George Floyd’s murder, BLM mobilized between 15 and 26 million participants nationwide (Buchanan et al., 2020). Its reach extended globally, with solidarity marches in London, Paris, Nairobi, and Sydney, showing how racial justice became a transnational youth cause. BLM embodies norm diffusion: its slogans, gestures, and frames became recognizable across borders (Taylor, 2016). Yet, the movement also faced securitization: US law enforcement and political opponents often framed it as a threat, reflecting how States delegitimize youth activism through narratives of disorder (Camp & Heatherton, 2016).
In Canada, Indigenous youth have been central to movements such as Idle No More (2012) and anti-pipeline blockades (2018–2021). These movements connect generational struggle with sovereignty and environmental justice, positioning Indigenous youth as guardians of land and culture against extractivist state policies (Palmater, 2013). Their activism demonstrates the intersectionality of youth politics, combining decolonization, climate justice, and democratic accountability.
European youth have also mobilized around justice issues. From anti-austerity protests in Greece and Spain during the 2010s to contemporary anti-corruption demonstrations in Eastern Europe, youth movements illustrate the breadth of grievances beyond climate and race (Flesher Fominaya, 2017). Together, these cases reveal youth as actors who not only contest injustice but also expand the boundaries of political discourse.
- Latin America: Youth as Catalysts of Democratic Deepening
Latin America has long been fertile ground for youth-driven political transformation. In Chile (2019–2021), high school students sparked mass mobilizations by protesting metro fare hikes. What began as localized dissent escalated into a nationwide uprising against inequality, forcing a referendum on rewriting Chile’s constitution. Scholars note that youth served as political entrepreneurs, catalyzing institutional transformation that elites had long deferred (Somma, Bargsted, & Medel, 2021). Although the first draft constitution was rejected in 2022, the process illustrates how youth can reframe national debates, embodying what Mahoney and Thelen (2010) describe as “institutional change through layering and displacement.” Youth did not dismantle Chile’s political system, but they forced it to reckon with unresolved questions of equity and representation.
In Colombia (2021), proposed tax reforms amid the COVID-19 pandemic triggered youth-led protests that rapidly expanded into broader critiques of inequality and police violence. Youth from marginalized urban communities were particularly active, creating what Gutiérrez Sanín and Acevedo (2022) call a “generational insurgency” against exclusion. The government withdrew the tax bill, but at the cost of at least 44 civilian deaths during crackdowns (Human Rights Watch, 2021). Colombia’s youth protests highlight the interaction between fiscal policy and generational politics, showing how economic grievances intertwine with demands for dignity and representation.
Mexico and Brazil provide further illustrations. In Mexico, the Yo Soy 132 student movement (2012) mobilized against media bias and corruption, reframing electoral politics (Mora, 2014). In Brazil, youth were central to the 2013 mass protests against transport costs, which escalated into a critique of corruption and inequality (Avritzer, 2017). These cases reveal how youth often mobilize around immediate grievances, fares, taxes, and corruption, but articulate broader critiques of governance.
Latin America thus exemplifies the transformative, yet uncertain, outcomes of youth activism. In some cases, like Chile, movements open institutional reform processes; in others, like Colombia, they expose deep fractures without securing lasting change. Across the region, youth remain catalysts of democratic deepening, even as repression and co-optation temper their achievements.
Final Thoughts: Youth as the New “Third Ford”
In International Relations, youth movements are increasingly visible as a third force, Non-State actors that shape legitimacy, reframe narratives, and destabilize the old monopolies of States and elites. They do not govern directly, nor do they resemble conventional civil society organizations. Rather, they embody a generational pulse that rises in moments of rupture, confronting authority with raw legitimacy and numerical power. States often securitize them, branding them as existential threats, while global institutions cautiously celebrate them when their activism aligns with climate, development, or human rights agendas. This contradiction forms what may be called the containment–adaptation paradox: youth are praised as innovators on the world stage but are policed and repressed within their own societies.
Their diffusion is unmistakably transnational. Tunisia’s revolution cascaded across the Arab world; Black Lives Matter echoed in Paris, Nairobi, and Sydney; Fridays for Future globalized climate urgency; and now Nepal joins this chain, signaling that Gen Z mobilization is no longer a regional phenomenon but a global one. In each case, youth have functioned as norm entrepreneurs, transmitting repertoires of protest and crafting solidarities that transcend borders.
Yet this “third force” is not a neutral one. Youth movements embody the restless energy of societies demanding accountability; they expand participation, shift policy agendas, and in some cases topple governments. Nevertheless, they also risk legitimizing instability when institutions collapse, offering cover for military juntas, populist leaders, or fragile interim governments. In the years ahead, there is a growing chance that youth movements may themselves become a new weapon of politics, capable of engineering regime change without bullets, mobilizing legitimacy in ways that parliaments and armies cannot. Their bodies, their voices, and their networks may be wielded as instruments in the power struggle.
This carries grave dangers. When authorities respond with live ammunition, as in Sudan or Nepal, they risk transforming civic contestation into mass atrocity. To “shoot to kill” is to gamble with legitimacy itself; potentially crossing into the territory of crimes against humanity or even genocide when entire generational cohorts are targeted. Such decisions, in the twenty-first century, are unlikely to be taken lightly by political authorities under international scrutiny, but their very possibility underscores the volatility of youth-led contention.
The normative lesson is therefore urgent: youth must be treated as legitimate political actors, not securitized threats. Their grievances must be institutionalized into participatory processes before dissent erupts into rupture. When channeled constructively, youth can revitalize democracy, democratize governance, and embed new forms of accountability. When ignored, suppressed, or manipulated, they may become the undoing of fragile regimes, and, in extreme cases, the spark of violence on a catastrophic scale.
The double-edged sword of youth activism thus remains one of the defining forces of our time. It is both a warning and a promise: a reminder that the future of democracy, justice, and peace in the twenty-first century will, largely, be written in the restless footsteps of its youth.
Disclaimer
This reflection is an independent academic analysis, drawn from publicly available sources and scholarly debates. It does not represent the views of any institution or organization, but is rooted in the author’s research trajectory, ethical commitment, and comparative study of global youth movements. The case studies highlighted, including Tunisia, Nigeria, Hong Kong, Chile, Kenya, Uganda, and Nepal, are used as illustrative examples within broader debates on contentious politics, climate justice, and governance, without claiming to exhaust all national or institutional perspectives.
“The youth of today are not merely the citizens of tomorrow; they are the architects of the present. To silence them is to silence democracy itself.” – Unknown
