Youth Participation in the 2024 Elections: Insights, Lessons and Future Possibilities
Elections have come and gone. While wrapped up in the post-election activities which involve the inauguration of the President, the announcement of the new cabinet amongst other processes, more work awaits. Election reflections on the voter turnout remain a vital concern. Numbers often tell a story by painting a much more tangible reality of the extremities of situations we find ourselves in. Throughout the election cycles, youth participation has been the primary concern.
Young voters continue to be disinterested in voter participation. While such voting trends have been prominent in South Africa since the 1994 elections, the western democracies too have experienced the same fate. The liberation struggle had one goal that is, equality for all, particularly relating to election voter participation. The apartheid (Afrikaans: ‘apartness’) system had crafted legislative laws that begot racial segregation and white supremacy in South Africa. People of colour had suffered the brunt of it by being incarcerated or being left out from accessing resources such as land, mining rights or capital. Sometimes they would be given access however they were relegated to poorly paid, menial jobs. This further contributed to the racial inequality which spread in the country. The Black South African youth later engaged in anti-apartheid activism which resulted in the 1994 universal elections. While we cannot account for the voter turnout figure due to a lack of a voters roll at the time, 1994 is still perceived to have been the electoral year with the highest voter turnout. Notwithstanding, observations however show that voter participation and electoral participation amongst some of the struggle beneficiaries, has been lacking.
The 2014 General Elections were the first elections for the ‘born-free’ (i.e. born after 1994 elections) eligible voters. Currently the eligible voter population is about 39.7 million however only 27.8 million registered to vote. Of the registered population, 55.25% were female whereas 44.75% therefore showing a higher voter turnout amongst females. Despite the registered voter population increasing over the electoral cycles as seen by the approximate voter totals of 25.4 million in 2014, 26.8 million in 2019, and 27.8 million in 2024, there is a gap between the eligible voter population and registered voters. In 2014 it was about 7 million, in 2019 about 9 million and in 2024 about 11 million. The gap is widening, and voter turnout continues to decline. The 2014 elections recorded a 73.48% voter turnout which was later followed by the 2019 electoral year which recorded a 66.05% voter turnout. The 2024 national elections recorded a significantly lower voter turnout of 58.64%. What could be the reason?
Some citizens have alluded their political apathy to be due to reduced government confidence over the years. This is because of the corruption tales and poor service delivery. This has led to low voter turnouts. Additionally, the youth have reported feeling unseen and unheard.
In the recent 2024 electoral cycle, although voter turnout has been significantly low, youth participation in politics has taken a shift. During the 6th Parliament (2019-2024) we saw 9% of the Members of Parliament (MPs) comprising of the youth aged between 25-35 years. The 7th Parliament although showcasing age demographics in 10-year clusters we still see a fair increase of youth representation in Parliament. This is seen in the 3% and 16.8% of MPs falling in the 20-29 and 30-39 age groups respectively. Although present in parliament we still need more youth voices within changemaker spaces as they hold the future of the nation.
Youth participation in politics
Political apathy and passivity have been a global concern when it comes to democracy exercises. While some research testaments reveal non-voter or spoilt ballot behaviour to being a protest of some sort that points to supposed democratic satisfactions other observations reveal that there are underlying issues requiring attention. Voter turnout amongst the eligible youth (i.e. those aged 18-35 years) has been the lowest compared to other age groups. In 2014 at the time, it was interpreted to mean that the youth were disinterested in politics however this was not the case. The youth had felt they had been ignored and their opinions had been seen as irrelevant. This was countered by a youth campaign that focused on having notable endorsements from peers’ youth looked up to as well as the use of modern technology in voter education through opinion pieces, social media exchanges amongst others. This strategy has carried over into 2024.
Of the 27.67 million registered voters, 17.7% accounted for voters under the age of 30. This was a lower turnout compared to the 2019 elections that had 21%. This comes despite the varied youth campaign efforts in the higher education and other community spaces. The youth statistic still hints on low voter turnout amongst the youth. Despite this however, unlike previous years the rise of digital technology, has not only prompted active youth participation in politics through various social media exchanges, podcasts, blogs and/or opinion pieces but also seen the representation of youth in parliament. With the hashtag phrases, trending short video content creations, algorithmic feeds, information has been shared in astonishing speeds. This has drawn the attention of the youth and invited them into sociopolitical exchanges. Additionally, we have seen youth visibility even within electoral voting station staff. Most of the voting staff comprised of the youth thereby enacting senses of hope for the future. Furthermore, there has been an increased documentation of the electoral process. The youth have partaken in their own archival pursuits by covering the electoral processes with their own mobile phones documenting and sharing reflections and media content. We therefore see how social media platforms function as decentralised spaces that offer an equal field with which youth can engage in and be heard. As mentioned in previous electoral years, youth felt unheard and ignored. The increased use of digital technology has shown the:
- Political power of social media – social media has become a coordinating tool for most political movements e.g. #FeesMustFall, and #RhodesMustFall etc. The true power of social media can be seen in the influence it coerces. This has been seen in the growing trends and ‘viral’ attributes of social media content. Through anonymous or known commentary sections, #hashtags and ‘like culture’ information has been shared widely and consequently drawn the attention of youth who are the predominant demographic within social media spaces.
- Freedom of speech – The internet has allowed various freedoms including the freedom to access to information as well as ordinary citizens freedom to public media creation. The latter is seen in the content creations that include different forms of media such as memes, parody sketches, videos, and written pieces amongst others. All these media formats have communicated thoughts and enacted safe spaces for conversations.
- Political activism – Digital spaces have enabled different voices to speak on sociopolitical issues. As enablers, they have prompted the spread and growth of political activism.
Lessons learnt
Looking at the voter turnout statistics we may draw some lessons. The 1994 electoral year had the highest voter turnout. This may have been based on the idea of hope for a better future exemplified by the fight for equality. The electoral cycles that followed however, show a decline of not only the registered population and voter turnouts but also that hope for a better future. How can we re-ignite hope? With the increased use of digital technology, citizens particularly the youth have been vocal in these spaces and shared their expressions concerning politics within the country. Although layered with hilarity as seen in the use of parody sketches and meme culture, there are some underlying truths. Digital spaces have enabled invisible actors in our democracy and unveiled youth political expressions as well as allowed them access and/or critique of their political leaders. Consequently, this has at times nudged political responsibility. Social media therefore serves as a contact zone for intergenerational exchange, creating lines of communication. This essentially re-ignites hope and presents opportunities for inclusion. By so doing, recommitment to nation building and social development by and amongst the elected officials and the youth can be made possible. Although we see increased digital youth participation in politics, there is need for increased political participation on the ground. This starts with hope.
Thelma Nyarhi is a researcher at the Democracy Development Program (DDP) and writes in her own capacity.
