Election Commission data released ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha polls shows Low registration of first-time voters. What explains young people’s lack of engagement with the electoral process? (Illustration by C R Sasikumar)
In the 2014 general elections, I was extremely disappointed because I was unable to vote. If only they had been held in 2015, I would have been eligible. So, in 2019, after four years of waiting, I was beyond excited to be a first-time voter. Not wanting to blindly follow the candidate my family and friends preferred, I went through candidate profiles and party manifestos. I was determined to make an informed choice.
Now that I work with young people who are going to be eligible to vote in the next one to three years, I do not sense the same enthusiasm to exercise one’s democratic duty. This is also reflected in recent statistics: The Election Commission of India claimed that 38 per cent of eligible first-time voters, which is 18 million out of 49 million, registered to vote in the 2024 national elections. Merely 17 per cent of the youth population of Bihar, the state with the highest concentration of youth, is registered to vote, with the percentage in Delhi being only 21 per cent. Has the system failed to inspire confidence, has the youth failed to engage with the system, or is it something completely different?
I find this pattern concerning because it has long-term effects for a democratic nation that has a large youth population. It means that the largest section of the population is not engaging with the electoral process. In the case of elite urban circles, the cushion of privilege ensures that some people feel largely disconnected with events within the country and across the globe.
As a teacher, I observe a lack of internal motivation to engage with national and international affairs, especially with students. Accompanying this is the pressure of meeting deadlines, engaging in extracurricular activities, going for tuition classes, and scoring marks to get into a good college. The burden of work and the pursuit of personal gain prevents people from moving beyond their bubbles of safety, to be part of a process that is larger than just them.
This atomised, hyper-individualistic mindset stands opposed to the principles of democracy. When someone asks, “What can one vote do?”, it is evident that the absence of a direct and instant consequence mechanism is responsible for a decline in engagement. This attitude may be sown early in life, but it continues throughout, where competitive work environments too, emphasise personal success. The capitalist drive to work tirelessly and to constantly be “productive” is ideal for turning people into apathetic citizens who have no time to spend on politics.
Devices take up a major proportion of whatever little leisure time people have. Therefore, it is imperative to engage more meaningfully with our devices and social media. We should download apps and follow accounts that provide fact-checked news. The idea is to reduce as many barriers to knowledge and to integrate access to news with daily scrolling. At least this is a start. Unless people know what is going on, and identify the problem, it is near impossible to be part of the solution. However, there are additional layers to this notion.
For those who are aware of the issues, of the political rhetoric that has swept the nation — with the arrest of leaders and hate-filled speeches — it is perhaps the perceived lack of viable alternatives that has fuelled disengagement. There is no desire to be part of the solution. Because when one starts to identify how mouldy the state of affairs is, they also realise how difficult it is to change it. So, unfortunately, moving beyond atomism can also lead to dismay and disenchantment with the system. While discussing the elections, my students mentioned that the best option is just to go with NOTA. And to bring in the notion of privilege once again, instead of working towards changing the circumstances, many students aspire to move abroad, away from these issues.
Even for those who are politically engaged, actively voice their opinions on social media and believe in having important conversations, it is logistical impediments that come in the way of casting a vote. Associated with this, migration causes the biggest barrier — when people move, either for education or work, they often do not follow up on administrative tasks that can ensure a shift in constituency.
In dissecting the reasons behind low voter turnout and youth disengagement, it becomes apparent that our democracy grapples with a lack of civic education and logistical hurdles. Each factor plays a role in shaping the apathy observed among young voters. While I want to be optimistic, I also realise that there are immense challenges in bringing about systemic as well as personal development simultaneously, which are necessary to enrich the democratic ethos of the nation.
The writer is a Delhi-based teacher
