Vital for Democracy,but Do They Realise It? Europe's Youth and the 2014 Elections

Introduction

Europe is facing its biggest economic, financial and political crisis since the 1930s. After decades of peace and prosperity we see high unemployment, recession and, for many, a gloomy future. Everyone in Europe is asked to contribute to restoring Europe's wealth, but those most affected are the youth. Do Europe's politicians really have the answers to the challenges ahead? Do politicians give hope and signs of positive change? Do politicians think about those who will carry the burden in the future, the young people of today, who will be the adults of tomorrow?

For many, democracy, and voting in particular, is the way in which citizens can have their say. But will the economic crisis have an impact on the democratic behaviour of the citizens? During the last European elections in 2009, we saw another decrease in voter turnout, 43% overall, and just 29% of young people. After five years of crisis and no end in sight before the European elections in 2014, the big question remains whether there will be more active participation or whether we will see the downward trend continue, raising serious questions about the legitimacy of the European Parliament.

In this regard, we could categorise young people as a minority age group as, for example, during the last European elections, in 2009, just 24% of voters were between 18 and 35 years old, while 55% of voters were over the age of 36. Young voters, like any demographic, do not vote in one monolithic group, and their experiences, concerns and opinions run the same spectrum as the rest of the electorate. However, some shared cultural influences and generation-specific challenges can become significant in guiding their political choices.

This presents the question to political parties of why they should bother to reach out to young people, create political positions for them and include them in political decision-making if in the end they might not vote at all or might vote for the opposition party. Political parties have to be self-critical as well, as there is a lack of confidence in politics, which has the biggest effect on non-voters: in 2009, 28% of respondents lacked confidence in politics, and 17% felt that their vote had no consequence and would not result in a visible change (European Parliament and European Commission 2009, 27). Furthermore, 78% of young people did not vote because they are critical of political institutions, but they might express their interest in politics in ways that are different from voting in elections, for example through buying or boycotting products for political, ethical or environmental reasons; collecting signatures on petitions; contributing to a political discussion on the Internet; or participating in a legal demonstration and/or strike (Institute for Social and Analysis 2005).

What has been the turnout trend since the first European elections?

In recent years, Europe has faced serious problems concerning the often-cited democratic deficit. Available data show a significant decrease in the turnout for European elections. Between 1979, the year when the first European elections were held, and 2009, the turnout has decreased by 20% (European Parliament 2013) Comparing election turnouts, a general conclusion can be drawn that the percentage of those voting is higher at local and national levels than at the European level (Eurostat 2013).

A common reason which voters describe as the deciding factor in participating more at the local and regional elections than in European elections is the knowledge of and familiarity with candidates running in the elections. The candidates running in the European elections are perceived as distant and unfamiliar. Another reason why citizens abstain from voting in European elections is thought to be the lack of knowledge about the functioning of the European Union and its institutions.

In this sense, there exists an urgent need for common activities which will bring the EU closer to its citizens and vice versa. This year has been designated the European year of Citizens, and it officially sets out the goal of bringing the European Union's institutions closer to its citizens; the direct success thereof is supposed to be seen in the 2014 elections.

Surveys show that respondents aged 15–24 score the highest in considering the role of the European Parliament important in the running of the EU–-75% of those aged 15–24 compared with 71% in general in the EU27 (European Parliament 2012). Young people recognise the relevance of the EU in general, but they do not see the connection between these European aspects and their personal lives. Furthermore, there is a lack of knowledge about the functioning of EU institutions.

The paradox is that people do not cast their votes at EU elections, but at the same time they consider the European Parliament important and powerful. Again, the majority of EU citizens describe voting in the European elections as the best way for their voices to be heard. So why is this not reflected in the turnout? When analysing the result, we recognise the huge potential that lies within the youth vote, as the 15–19 age group has been most affected by the decline (European Commission 2012). At the European elections in 2004, the general turnout was 46%, but only 33% of the population aged 18-24 participated. At the last elections in 2009, the general turnout was 43% and youth participation only 29%.

The younger generation feel more European and have a better image of the EU and of their country's membership in the EU. The older generation (55 and above) are more likely to have a more national-focused sentiment than other age groups. Young people 15–24 years old have a 10% more positive image of the EU than people over the age of 55 (European Parliament 2012).

Our ‘Young Voters’ survey held on Facebook (Prainsack and Vodanović 2013) focused on one particular question: What would motivate you to vote in the next European elections in 2014? The majority of participants in this survey answered that the main reason for voting is ‘to fulfil one's duty as a citizen’, which is not dramatically different from the reasons given by other age groups (European Parliament 2012). The second most important reason was ‘the possibility to cast a vote for young candidates from my country’. In third place were policies targeting youth on the topics of economic growth and unemployment as motivation to vote (European Parliament 2012).

One way to address the low turnout among youth is for political parties to give an opportunity to young candidates in the upcoming elections, even though their interest in politics is in general lower than that of other age groups (Cernigolar et al. 2010). The fact that their peers would motivate them to vote suggests a wise strategy for political parties, which would be to field more young candidates, which again could result in higher turnouts.

To let them vote or not to let them vote, that is the question: voting at 16

The European Youth Forum (YFJ) in 2010 organised a European-wide campaign–-also targeting EU institutions–-to lower the voting age in Europe to 16, arguing that youth have to be taken seriously and be offered an opportunity to influence the political process in order to strengthen our democracy in Europe (European Youth Forum 2010). Opponents of this proposal claim that young people are not mature enough, would vote for the biggest populists and most appealing slogans among the campaigners, and are not educated enough to take a voting decision. Whose assumptions are correct?

When looking at Austria, where voting at the age of 16 was introduced in 2008, the findings are both very positive and astonishing. According to two Austrian research centres, the Institute for Social Research and Consulting and the Institute for Strategic Analysis, lowering the voting age played a pioneering role in including young people in politics, and it led to a variety of initiatives and projects by the Ministry of Education in order to prepare 16- to 18-year-olds for the elections (Zeglovits and Schwarzer 2009). These institutes found that young people showed a high interest in politics and political participation, and the turnout of first-time voters was as high as for the overall electorate. This was also due to public campaigns.

Young people also are self-critical enough to question their own knowledge about politics and to voice the wish for more information, which again led to a clear differentiation between ‘information’ and solely ‘party/campaign slogans’. According to the study, young people were looking for information and not keywords. They are satisfied with the political system of democracy, and they display a high level of trust in political institutions such as the European Parliament. However, young people indicate a low level of satisfaction with the political establishment, and they have low confidence in political parties or politicians (only 20% of young people in Austria indicate their trust in them).

Many young people are interested in politics but are disillusioned by politicians, as they feel neglected and feel that their interests are not represented by political parties (this feeling is shared by nearly half the 16- to 18-year-olds).

It is important to discuss politics and democracy in schools and around the dinner table, as young people have to be prepared to become engaged as best as they can with decisions that affect their lives. Also, civic engagement and different ways of involvement, such as discussions of political issues, campaigns that promote activities, interaction with politicians, experiencing the act of voting in a role-play and so on have a vital impact. These activities can be seen as helpful and valuable in preparing young people for their first vote. Credible appearances of politicians in the direct living environment of young people can also help to bridge the distance between them and politicians. Lowering the voting age would be a positive force towards encouraging political parties and politicians to formulate solid and substantial youth policies by addressing a younger constituency.

The key conclusion is that lowering the voting age raises the political interest in the younger age groups, and it has proven to be a boost for democracy, as newly enfranchised voters were prepared for their first election. It could also be argued that those political leaders most prepared for the change and most engaged with youth voters benefited the most from their votes.

Youth organisations: do they shape new ideas, or are they more of the same?

The youth branches of political parties play a strong role in reaching out to young people as they can offer an attractive entry point into politics. Furthermore, they can, through their participation in party bodies, help the main party to formulate youth-specific policies and if necessary push them through despite reluctance from political parties. The task of youth wings is to allow new ideas and new talents to arise. They do this by giving the youth representation in the political sphere, by helping the party to reach out to young voters and by giving young people a chance to engage in policy debate and activism. Youth wings also assist young people in developing skills and networks that will help them in their careers. We believe that parties with a strong youth wing will have a crucial advantage in the years to come. It will also be up to the main parties to involve the leadership of the youth wing in order to create new ideas.

Furthermore, building up and including young candidates on the election list, as shown in our survey, can be a strong motivator for young people to vote for a political party. In the European Parliament in the term 2009-14, for example, 126 members of a total of 749 belong to the group of EU40, Members of the European Parliament under the age of 40. Surprisingly, the knowledge of young people on the successes of young politicians and especially on how to stand and compete in elections themselves is very low.

It will also be interesting to see the impact of yet another campaign by the YFJ, among whose 100-plus members are the Youth of the European People's Party and the European Democrat Students, which has set up, ahead of the European elections in 2014, the project of the League of Young Voters (LYV), to which the European People's Party also subscribes. The LYV was set up to monitor the activities and positions of European political parties on youth-specific issues. Within the framework of the LYV, debates with established politicians as well as youth candidates will be held, and modern media tools will be used to reach out to young people all over Europe.

The European Parliament, again in cooperation with the YFJ, is planning a big European Youth Event in May 2014, before the European elections, in which they want to reach out to young people and put 10,000 of them in touch with Members of the European Parliament. It remains to be seen how successful they will be, and much will depend on the approach: will it be another top-down approach, or will politicians listen to the concerns and dreams of young people?

Yes, I want to work. Yes, I want to participate. Yes I want to…

First of all, we would like to highlight that youth issues are not a question of two or three specific topics which are independent from each other, but that youth issues cut across topics interdependent with questions that concern the whole society. One thing is clear as well: whenever you hear politicians talk the youth talk, they focus on education and youth employment (or unemployment for that matter), which no doubt are the most pressing concerns for young people today.

These findings are also reflected in the feasibility study conducted by the YFJ in 2010, in which they formulated the key topics of interest for young people: education, employment and participation; and five cross-cutting issues: sustainable development, communication and information rights, global solidarity and security, migration and integration, and market rights and opportunities. Take a look, for example, at unemployment and its impact on voting behaviour. Unemployment is the top concern among EU citizens regardless of age. Young people more than any other group prioritise the fight against unemployment (European Parliament 2012). It is interesting to point out that being unemployed was a decisive factor in non-participation in elections. In 2009, 72% of unemployed people did not vote; however, interestingly, for 41% of the voters aged 18–24, being unemployed was a motivation to cast their vote in the European elections (European Parliament and European Commission 2009, 14). The goal of the LYV in this regard is to receive and stimulate youth-friendly information and positions in the campaigns of political parties. If parties manage to formulate credible solutions to issues of utmost concern for young people and give them hope and a perspective, it again will motivate them to participate in elections.

@Youth: go to vote #EU2014

How do digital media change the way young people learn, play, socialise and participate in civic life? Many of us are happy to be known and active on Facebook, Twitter, Linkedln, YouTube and other similar networks, but someone preparing an election campaign has to brush up his or her knowledge and use of it and understand the means of communication of young people today. The challenge for political parties in the next European elections will be to find the right tone, the right means of communication and the right political values, and to be genuine when using social media. Everyone can write a blog, but who is going to read it if the right messages are not conveyed and the right language is not spoken to the audience?

There surely lies a huge potential in reaching out to the electorate via social media, as a report by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development shows that 79% of households have a computer, and 74.9% have Internet access. In the EU, the averages are slightly lower, 76.7% and 73.2% respectively. In the US, 77% of households have a computer, and 80% have Internet access (US Department of Commerce 2011).

In 2008, we saw the huge success of the Obama campaign, which serves as an interesting example for social media experts. The question is whether Obama's success could be mirrored in Europe and what it would take to repeat his social media phenomenon which managed, with a never-seen-before online campaign, to reach out to young voters and raise money via the Internet at the same time.

Some key facts about Obama's election campaign in 2008: more than 12 million young Americans elected the person who made them believe in their abilities to bring about change, the person who gave them hope and the person who made them feel united. It was Obama's new media communication strategy that was the main reason young people, when voting, preferred his promise for change to his party affiliation and favoured his character over his experience (Alexandrova 2010). The strategy managed to promote Obama through building communities as well as enabling and promoting bottom-up activities. Furthermore, Obama was the only candidate who fought for the young electorates. Obama used the Internet to develop a personal relationship with supporters and was elected for reasons beyond such traditional points as experience or party affiliation. Obama's message of hope, change and unity was disseminated well. His campaign strategy could only work when the components worked together: a message (change), methods (organisation), an instrument (money), tools (media and money) and a man at the wheel. The underlying idea of Obama's campaign was community organising: ‘The campaign is about you’.

Youth behaviour patterns traditionally depend on what is going on in the country and whether or not there is a candidate who is trying to reach young people. But in Obama's campaign, Millennials, also called Generation Y (those born in the late 1970s who reached voting age around the year 2000), were both immersed in digital media and showed renewed interest in public life. Voting was part of the social movement, and by reaching out to young people, Obama turned them into strong supporters, whereas others failed to take new media seriously. Much was organised by the youth themselves: it was the young people who were developing activities related to the candidate on the web, not the candidate trying to get them involved. The idea for the bottom-up campaign partially came from the bottom.

Politicians should be more interactive in using online communication tools to reach out to young people, as this electorate practically lives online. Yet, simply adopting the latest technology is not enough to bring them into the political world. Politicians should be using social media to actively engage young people instead of as another one-way communication tool to tout their latest talking points. Personalising the message to the viewers and audience is the key to connecting.

There are also, of course, challenges involved, as these methods may also spread misinformation, and they may promote voice more than influence; therefore, the need for digital media literacy is evolving. There is also a risk in campaigning with social media, as too much political activity on social networking sites can turn potential voters away from candidates or even voting in general. To be successful, strategists will have to identify the delicate line between the right amount of information and oversaturation–-and use that line to their advantage.

Conclusions

As social media and mobile technology continue to evolve, we can expect to see the opportunities for political engagement increase, and campaigns should turn to these channels to find young voters and forge a connection, especially as young people can be very passionate and therefore a very powerful group.

Now is the time for campaigns to consider the significance of the young vote and consider the return on the time spent reaching them on their own level: it could be the deciding factor in the next election.