This article is spurred by two perspectives that have shaped my understanding of youth engagement in public life. The first is personal: that of a mother of the youngest local councillor, observing at close range how a young person comes to see politics not as an abstract system, but as a space for responsibility and service. The second is professional: having spent my entire working life in education and youth-focused settings, I have worked continuously with young people and have seen first-hand how they think, communicate, engage and, just as importantly, disengage from public life.
Together, these perspectives challenge the persistent narrative that young people are apathetic about politics. Research consistently shows that young people care deeply about social justice, climate change, equality, mental health and economic security, but often feel disconnected from formal political institutions that appear distant, adversarial or unresponsive (Henn & Foard, 2014). The problem, therefore, is not disengagement, but misalignment between political culture and young people's lived realities.
This misalignment becomes particularly visible in Malta, one of the few countries to introduce Vote 16, granting young people the right to vote in local and national elections from the age of 16. The reform was rightly recognised as a progressive step towards democratic inclusion. Yet it also exposes a paradox: young people are trusted with electoral responsibility while still being excluded from many other civic, legal and decision-making spaces. They are politically enfranchised, but not yet fully recognised as civic equals.
Vote 16 represents an important signal of trust in young people's political judgement. Studies show that civic attitudes and voting habits are formed early, and that engaging young people before adulthood increases the likelihood of long-term democratic participation (Franklin, 2004). Many 16- and 17-year-olds are already informed, opinionated and politically aware. However, enfranchisement alone is insufficient. Without meaningful participation beyond voting, young people may experience politics as contradictory and tokenistic.
One of the most misunderstood aspects of youth engagement is attention span. Young people are often criticised for having short attention spans, particularly in a digital age. Educational research suggests instead that attention is selective rather than deficient: young people engage deeply with content that feels authentic, relevant and emotionally resonant (OECD, 2019). Politics often struggles here, relying heavily on long speeches, procedural debates and abstract language that fail to connect with younger audiences.
Having worked with young people throughout my career, it is clear that culture is a powerful gateway to engagement. Music, art, sport, volunteering and community activities are not distractions from politics; they are entry points into it. Music, in particular, has historically functioned as a vehicle for protest, identity and political expression, often articulating social concerns more powerfully than formal political discourse (Street, 2012). Similarly, activities such as sports clubs, environmental initiatives and cultural events create informal spaces where political conversations can emerge organically.
Education consistently demonstrates that engagement is active rather than passive. Young people are not inspired by being spoken at; they are inspired by being involved. Youth councils, participatory budgeting and consultation processes can attract young people to politics, but only when they are genuine and consequential. Research shows that political efficacy - the belief that one's participation can influence outcomes - is a key predictor of sustained political engagement (Beaumont, 2011). Tokenistic participation, by contrast, breeds cynicism and withdrawal.
Being the mother of a young councillor reinforces how central political efficacy is. What sustains engagement is not novelty or ambition, but the experience of being listened to and taken seriously. This is especially important for sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds who may vote but are still navigating their social and legal status. Early political experiences can either cultivate democratic commitment or entrench disengagement.
Civic engagement begins long before the first vote is cast. Having spent my professional life in education, I have seen how early experiences of voice, debate and responsibility shape confidence and civic identity. Experiential civic education - including debates, simulations, community projects and exposure to real decision-making - helps demystify politics and makes participation feel attainable (OECD, 2019). When young people understand how decisions are made and how power can be challenged, politics becomes less opaque and more accessible.
Representation and integrity also matter deeply. Young people are more likely to engage when they see people like themselves in political roles. Representation makes participation imaginable. However, younger generations also have low tolerance for hypocrisy, corruption and hostile political behaviour, and are more responsive to politics that is transparent, respectful and values-driven (Henn & Foard, 2014).
Attracting young people to politics is not about asking them to adapt to outdated systems. It is about politics adapting to a generation that is educated, culturally expressive and socially conscious. Vote 16 was a bold and necessary step. The challenge now is to ensure that political culture, participation structures and communication practices genuinely reflect the trust that reform implies.
Sometimes the clearest insights into democratic renewal come not from statistics alone, but from lived experience: from decades spent working with young people, and from watching one step into public life. If young voices are taken seriously and engagement is made meaningful, the future of democracy can be more inclusive, resilient and hopeful.
Dr Katya De Giovanni is a warranted Organisational Psychologist and Member of Parliament