Do Young People have a voice — or just the illusion of one?

Every election, campaign, and political speech tells young people the same thing: your voice matters. We are encouraged to vote, to speak out, to campaign, and to believe that participation can shape the future. But if our voices truly matter, why do so many young people still feel unheard?

This tension is increasingly present in modern society, yet it is rarely explored in depth. Young people are constantly invited into political conversation, but there is less clarity on whether our participation translates into real influence. As a result, there is a progressive gap growing between the idea of being heard and the experience of actually being listened to.

If someone listens to you but never changes their behaviour, were you really ever heard?

What does it actually mean to “be heard”? Conventionally, society will often define “being heard” as your thoughts and feelings being morally validated and focused on without disruption, such as harmful interruptions or responses that repress others understanding of you and/or your vocalised perspective. Almost half (49%) of young people in the UK report feeling negatively about whether their voice matters in national decision-making, suggesting a gap between expression and perceived influence. This, however, conflates “being heard” with being acted upon. I contest that speaking must directly connote immediate acknowledgement. People are able to passively listen, and with that, no one is obligated to provide a response or carry out an effective change based on your view.

Can a democracy call itself representative if an entire generation feels politically invisible?

Representation is often treated as the foundation of democracy. Yet before questioning whether young people are represented, it is first necessary to ask what representation itself actually requires. Representative democracy is an abundant systemic feature of our parliament which allows citizens to elect officials who will create laws, policies and decisions to govern society on the public’s behalf. Additionally, within the UK government, MP’s hold an essential role in policy making as they serve in local position which governs specific areas within the country to acknowledge smaller communities and their political desiderata. However, the existence of representative democracy alone does not necessarily determine whether representation has been successfully achieved; rather, it must be displayed through communal decision-making based on shared values and experiences, as this system would tie in every aspect of the public’s political desire in a fair, democratic way.

But, despite this theoretical foundation, the practical reality of political representation is considerably more complex. Representative democracy is reached through two types of representation: descriptive and substantive. Descriptive representation means that representatives will resemble the people that they govern based on factors like gender or age. Substantive representation, however, means that representatives will advocate for a group, considering their interests and values regardless of whether they share them collectively or not. Having said that, this system overall raises a question: if parliament contains relatively few young MP’s, does that automatically mean that young people are underrepresented? And could older MP’s effectively represent society’s youth?

Current parliamentary demographics provide an interesting perspective on these questions. One factor worth considering is the age profile of Parliament itself, of which most MP’s within government are around the age of 48. In addition to this, MP’s under the age of 25 make up only 0.3% of parliament itself, whilst approximately 77.2% of MP’s are over the age of 40. This age imbalance raises questions about the extent to which younger perspectives are directly present in legislative decision-making. Data conveys that 71% of young people feel that the UK political parties do not speak for them and that 60% of the youth believe that politicians do not listen to their concerns at all, raising the issue of political disconnection between generations in UK politics. This distinction between descriptive and substantive representation is crucial when evaluating whether numerical underrepresentation necessarily equates to political exclusion. However, this does not automatically imply that young people are unrepresented in substantive terms. In parliament, MPs will be elected to represent constituencies rather than specific age groups and representatives are expected to act in the interests of all citizens within their constituency, regardless of age. Perhaps suggesting that effective representation may be substantive rather than descriptive.

As a result, the question of whether young people are truly represented extends beyond Parliament’s composition and more so into how political voice is expressed and perceived.

Has Social media confused expression with influence?

Across both representation and participation, the idea of ‘voice’ has remained central, yet inconsistently defined. Political expression can be understood as societal communication of opinions, ideological stances and the effectiveness of policies and candidate positions. All of which encourages civil engagement, which can bring communities together based on shared values through expression. Expression (in this case) can be a form of political transmission which can provide marginalised groups with a voice that can shape policies within parliament and how society functions within them. However, I believe that in an increasingly digital environment, the idea of political expression can become distorted and labelled as a form of wrongful political influence. Influence can operate differently from expression, as influence is primarily an individual’s capacity to deliberately alter an internal viewpoint and reshape their consequential behaviour. This distinction highlights that while expression concerns communication, influence is measured through impact. This contrast can also be observed in real political developments concerning youth engagement. A child’s political voice refers to their active expression of their opinions and experiences regarding matters that affect their lives. In February 2026, a bill was proposed to parliament, officially introducing the manifesto’s commitment to lowering the voting age to 16. This was a decision primarily triggered by the UK Youth Parliament’s campaign to provide the youth with “a voice that was heard.” This protest’s success not only introduces a lawful decision but also offers hope for the younger generation that change is possible if you use your voice with purpose.

However, despite this outcome, such instances are not always guaranteed within broader political participation. This therefore leaves open the question of whether young people have a genuine voice in political life, or merely the illusion of one.