When systems are not trusted, agency finds another path

Niko Kadi [Courtesy]

In recent months, a familiar concern has resurfaced in public discourse: that young people are disengaging from national life. Reduced street protests, quieter public expression, and a perceived withdrawal from formal processes are being read as fatigue, or even indifference.

That reading is shallow. What we are witnessing is repositioning. To understand this shift, we must begin where our last conversation ended, with the question of trust. Across multiple sectors, a pattern has become difficult to ignore. Policies are announced, explanations offered, yet public belief does not follow.

Citizens increasingly interpret official statements through lived experience rather than declared intent. Where outcomes and explanations diverge, credibility weakens. In such an environment, participation itself begins to lose meaning.

Participation assumes that the system one is engaging with is legitimate, that rules are applied consistently, and that institutions operate with a degree of integrity.

When those assumptions are questioned, participation no longer feels like influence. It begins to feel like an endorsement. At this point, agency emerges. The agency does not wait for permission. It does not depend on validation from the system it seeks to influence. It reorganises itself, often quietly, outside the visible structures of engagement.

This is the shift we are beginning to see. The apparent decline in street protests should not be mistaken for a decline in political energy. In many cases, it reflects a transition from reactive mobilisation to more deliberate forms of engagement.

Voter registration drives, decentralised civic networks, and issue-based organising are less visible than protest, but potentially more consequential. The locus of influence is moving, from symbolic disruption to structural positioning. 

This also explains the changing language of the moment. Expressions such as “NIKO KADI” are not simply slogans of inclusion. They signal something deeper, a claim of presence and ownership that does not wait to be recognised. It is a declaration that agency is already assumed, not granted. The tone is not one of appeal, but of assertion.

This matters because it reframes how we interpret youth engagement. The question is no longer whether young people will participate in existing systems. It is whether those systems retain enough legitimacy to attract meaningful participation at all. 

In low-trust environments, agency does not disappear. It migrates. It becomes less visible, more networked, and often more strategic. It is shaped less by the need to be heard in the moment and more by the desire to influence outcomes over time.

This may include the ballot, but it is not limited to it. It reflects a broader redefinition of citizenship, from periodic expression to continuous positioning. 

For institutions, this presents a quiet but significant challenge. Engagement can no longer be assumed. It must be earned. Rebuilding that connection will not come through better messaging or more elaborate participation frameworks. It will depend on something more demanding, the restoration of alignment between what is said and what is experienced. 

Until then, the shift from participation to agency will continue, not as a rejection of public life, but as a reconfiguration of how it is entered and shaped. 

The writer is a consultant in policy, strategy, and governance