Why Do Youth Choose to Protest?
In early December, Kenyan environmental activist Truphena Muthoni made history by hugging a tree continuously for 72 hours. The aim was not only to raise awareness of the growing threats posed by climate change and deforestation, but also to highlight the limitations of traditional advocacy efforts in driving meaningful political change.
Muthoni’s protest reflects a broader global shift. From climate strikes in Europe to student protests in Latin America, youth movements gained momentum in 2025, indicating a growing rejection among younger generations to accept piecemeal political responses to systemic challenges.
Across Africa, demonstrations led by Generation Z last year transcended national borders and political systems. In Kenya, youth took to the streets following the death of a blogger and educator while in police custody; in Madagascar, recurring water and electricity outages ignited widespread unrest; and in Morocco, anger was directed at preventable maternal deaths during childbirth.
Importantly, these protests were not driven by isolated incidents but rather by ongoing and deep-seated governance failures, with demonstrators demanding comprehensive responses to long-standing issues such as soaring living costs, high youth unemployment rates, unreliable public services, and entrenched inequality. Their concerns were not secondary; their demands resonated broadly, explaining why labor unions and other influential groups joined youth-led movements in countries like Madagascar.
Youth protests have become, in fact, a reflection of widespread public discontent. This raises two crucial questions: Why have young people turned to protest as a primary means of political engagement? And under what circumstances do protests translate into policy change?
The wave of protests that erupted in 2025 underscored the failure of formal channels for youth engagement. Although countries like Kenya, Madagascar, and Morocco have established national youth councils and other advisory bodies, political participation from youth remains constrained by structural and systemic barriers.
As a result, many young people feel unrepresented and unheard, leading to a loss of trust in public institutions. This erosion of confidence is compounded by capacity constraints, as youth often lack the skills, training, and resources needed to navigate complex policy systems. Meanwhile, the nature of contemporary protest movements, which often lack leadership, further excludes them from formal negotiations and decision-making processes.
Despite this, last year’s youth protests influenced policy-making in three significant ways. First, widespread public outrage forced governments to reassess existing priorities and address long-ignored issues, such as maternal mortality, corruption, and limited access to digital technologies. Public memorials for those who lost their lives due to police violence served as warnings that inaction could reignite unrest.
Second, the protests highlighted the deep gap between political commitments and implementation, drawing attention to political corruption and the misallocation of public funds. In Morocco, for instance, public anger focused on huge government investments in sports facilities while essential social services like health and education remain underfunded.
Third, the protests drew attention to the real-life consequences of political decisions. Power and water outages served as stark examples: poorer communities were particularly at risk, as most families lacked viable alternatives to public services, while wealthier households and large corporations could rely on private services. Youth activism helped spotlight these disparities.
The success of youth mobilization in creating lasting change depends on several factors. Notably, avoiding violence is crucial. When protests turn violent, they risk losing legitimacy and support from the public. In fact, research consistently shows that peaceful movements are more likely to achieve their declared goals.
Moreover, while protest movements tend to focus on broad objectives, success often hinges on articulating clear demands and garnering support from powerful stakeholders. In Madagascar, for example, protests gained momentum when support from the military shifted the balance of power, intensifying pressure on political authorities and ultimately leading to the ousting of President Andry Rajoelina.
Responses from policymakers also play a critical role in shaping outcomes. Rather than explicitly linking reforms to protesters’ demands, officials often acknowledge underlying problems while distancing themselves from movements that brought national attention to those issues.
Certainly, young people’s limited understanding of how power and resources are distributed undermines their political influence. Despite their demographic weight and tech-savviness, they often find it challenging to compete with entrenched interest groups or identify points of leverage.
If governments wish to draw youth attention to policymaking as a credible alternative to protests, they must provide genuine opportunities for direct engagement with decision-makers. This interaction should be accompanied by practical tools to help youth understand how policy is made and where they can exert influence. Morocco’s proposal to expand political participation among citizens under 35 offers a promising model.
However, participation must translate into tangible improvements in people’s lives. Increased investment in health and education, such as the proposed 16% budget increase in Morocco, should be paired with funding allocated for youth-led initiatives, supported by strong monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
Sustained progress will also require comprehensive reforms in the public sector. A citizen-centered approach, supported by a capable and accountable civil service, could improve service delivery, rebuild trust, and reduce reliance on protests as a primary means of political expression.
Policymakers should not dismiss youth protests as mere sporadic disruptions; they must recognize them as a collective response to governance failures. When formal channels for engagement collapse, protests become the norm. Ignoring these signals risks deepening public distrust and fueling further unrest.
In contrast, it is clear that governments that respond with genuine reforms, ongoing dialogue, and tangible improvements in service delivery can transform youth activism from a source of instability into a foundation for more inclusive and resilient governance.
