The Growth of Disbelief in Democracy Among Young People: Exploring its Structural Roots

A recent survey carried out by the NGO Open Society Foundations  in 30 countries revealed that, around the world, individuals between 18 and 35 years old are more likely to accept authoritarian regimes than older people. Despite the information, the report also pointed out that 86% of people who participated in the study still claim to have the desire to live in a democracy. Another important point assessed by the survey was the fact that 71% of those interviewed stated that human rights represent values ​​in which they believe. Ethiopia, Turkey, China, India and Egypt are the five countries that had the highest number of individuals who believe it is important to live in a democratic government. 

In addition to these issues, around 70% of survey participants revealed that they were anxious about how climate change could affect their lives, and corruption continues to be seen as one of the biggest problems in different nations. Adrian Gurza Lavalle, professor at the Department of Political Science at the Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences (FFLCH) at USP and researcher at the Center for Metropolis Studies (CEM), explains that it is complex to find a consensus in the international debate about the reasons why could explain the increase in disbelief in democracy. 

“We know that this is a global phenomenon that is associated with a set of phenomena that have been named as “rise of the extreme right”, “emergence of extreme right populism”, “democratic regression” and other similar denominations that seek to understand this phenomenon, which still awaits a convincing explanation from the point of view of its causes”, explains the expert. 

Causes

To understand the reasons that contributed to the formation of this scenario, it is important to assess that this phenomenon, despite occurring globally, presents itself in a specialized way in each country. Lavalle explains that there are three major factors that can simplify this issue, the first refers to socioeconomic issues, the second to socio-technical issues and the third to the agents that are involved in this process. 

“Socioeconomic issues deal with the process of precariousness in the world of work and the growth of inequality in the world. This is explained as an effect of more than 40 years of policies of what is conventionally called neoliberalism”, comments the professor. Thus, from this, an intense chain of market deregulation, income concentration and informalization would have occurred in contexts in which this situation was not the norm, but the exception. 

It is possible to assess, in this way, that it is within the main segments affected by these actions that this disbelief increased, while, in the same period, the extreme right and nationalist sectors grew. The second aspect associated with this debate concerns the socio-technical conditions that encompass social networks and what they allow from the point of view of direct communication between senders and receivers. “Social networks allow us to produce homophilic networks, that is, networks of people who have very similar ideas. Thus, these networks function as chambers that feed back certain understandings of the world”, assesses the researcher. 

Another mechanism used by this system is the simplification and cheaper access to groups that required a set of filters in traditional media — thus, currently there is not necessarily mediation of certain political content. “The strangest information about the world has become subject to circulation, so the systematic use of this for political purposes can be pointed out as one of the factors that contributed to the formation of this disbelief”, points out Lavalle.  Finally, he says that this phenomenon does not happen spontaneously, therefore, the actions of agents contribute to fueling this disbelief. This happens because there are some actors who would be interested in either promoting this disbelief or taking advantage of it. 

Humberto Dantas, doctor in political science from the University of São Paulo and director of the Movimento Voto Consciente , also adds that a significant part of society, especially the younger segment, still has difficulty separating personal frustrations from public order challenges. “This, in fact, is what makes many older people defend dictatorships to this day through a nostalgic logic at a time when, despite the lack of democracy in the country, people thought they were better”, he comments. 

Another aspect raised by the researcher is the lack of understanding about the difference between freedom of expression and the limits associated with the values ​​on which we want to build our society. “The most recent numbers of attacks on democracy may bring to part of society the idea that it is normal and democratic to promote this type of attack. It’s not,” says Dantas. 

Consequences 

The increase in this disbelief implies different consequences, among them, the clearest seems to be the rise of the extreme right, with the advancement of intolerance in different social fields. “There is a process of strengthening what we could call liberal tolerance in the public sphere, which has promoted public policies that restrict rights”, says Professor Lavalle. 

Along with this, there is a restriction on civil society’s ability to act and a reduction in the power of press freedom. Furthermore, the expert assesses that this is a cyclical process, since the advancement of these effects is carried out through political actors who feed on the projection of these hate speeches in the public sphere. “This disbelief is simultaneously cause and effect cultivated by those who benefit from it”, he adds. 

Generations 

The professor also explains that there is a generational component to this debate, which concerns different national states — especially those in which there is a strong presence of diasporas. In European countries, for example, diasporas and the presence of immigrant communities are directly associated with the presence of young groups with precarious conditions of integration, which, in this debate, present themselves as an important object of radicalization. 

In Brazil, the generational divide is also considered in this debate, so it is possible to observe a trend of radicalization among young people who attend evangelical churches, for example. The expert highlights, however, that this field presents its diversities and pluralities, making it necessary to avoid simplifications when dealing with these sectors. 

Also in the national field, it is possible to observe that the generational divide is associated with socioeconomic aspects. In this way, it is observed that young people find themselves in more precarious situations from the point of view of their possibilities of insertion, especially with the growth of the “uberization” process of work. Permanent insertion into the job market, for example, has become an exception to the rule in conjunction with processes such as acquiring your own home. 

“You have a set of generations for which reaching, from a socioeconomic point of view, the position that their parents reached seems profoundly unlikely”, points out Lavalle. This factor would help in the formation of a process of vulnerability that makes these subjects more susceptible to a feeling of radicalization. Although this condition is observed, it is still difficult for researchers to objectively define other reasons that could contribute to the construction of this scenario. 

Ways

Despite the complexity and ramifications surrounding this issue, some paths can be taken to promote the strengthening of trust in democracy. Among them, Adrian Gurza Lavalle cites the funding of agencies that carry out research with young people that evaluate the informational treatment of different perceptions of the world. Furthermore, encouraging political participation on a democratic basis is essential, along with the appropriate punishment against all those who attack democratic institutions. “This would aim to combat the naturalization of certain speeches and behaviors as if they were trivial”, analyzes Humberto Dantas. 

Different measures are also being implemented at the municipal, state and federal levels to ensure greater population participation. Dantas also complements the issue by assessing that the densification of culture and significant changes in society’s education standards must be carried out to improve this problem, and it is also necessary to question how certain themes — such as the attempted coup observed on January 8th — will be taken to schools, classrooms and debates.