Youth Participation in youth related public policy: reflections on the road to Banjul

Dabesaki Mac-Ikemenjima

Youth Participation in youth related public policy: reflections on the road to Banjul by Dabesaki Mac-Ikemenjima

The African Youth Charter defines youth participation as the right of ‘every young person’ to take part in development processes ‘in all spheres of society.’ Taking this as the primary premise, governments committed through the charter to: provide access to leadership roles and policy-making arenas, promote civic duties and social action, empower them, strengthen of youth work and provide access to information (including skills and services).

The charter’s definition of participation provides an important basis for reflection on youth ‘access’ to development policy spaces, and an important basis for youth advocacy. To some degree, the element of empowerment (assuming empowerment here refers to learning) is an important justification for investing in youth participation. Apart from facilitating the inclusion of young ‘voices’, youth participation facilitates the hands-on training, through intergenerational learning of future leaders and policy-makers and could enhance their technical know-how to direct future public policies. This is a big plus in the African value chain of ‘knowledge transfer’ and the benefits certainly (in some cases) surpass the costs on a cost-benefit scale.

However, harnessing these benefits has largely been hampered by lack of ‘access.’ By access I mean the possibility of a young person taking part in ‘all spheres’ of public policy-making. The barriers to access are numerous and are both institutional and structural. The main institutional barrier is the role which young people could or are allowed to play within the bureaucracies of state and non-state organisations. These include the rules regarding how policies are made, speaking rights at official meetings, how official memos are submitted and circulated to constituent members, etc. At structural level, they include political constraints, resistance to changing the status quo, a situation where young people are expected to be passive listeners and beneficiaries of policies and not play any part.  In Africa, young people are expected to be ‘obedient’, ‘ask no questions’, and ‘say nothing’ because the ‘adults know better, after all, they were once young.’

The African Union in developing the youth charter took the lead in breaking such barriers by ‘providing’ the avenue for youth to play key roles as consultants from ‘the inside’ and ‘participants’ on ‘the outside.’ Young people played key roles in the processes of its development, adoption and advocacy for its ratification (more regarding ratification in next post). These processes following the submission of a zero draft, included young people on ‘the inside’ in organising youth-led ‘consultations’ on ‘the outside’ across the continent to shape and refine the content of the charter. A youth forum was organised bringing youth from diverse backgrounds to discuss draft charter and this was adopted by the youth, before onward transmission to experts, ministers and finally heads of state for adoption and endorsement respectively.

This approach to the development of the charter comes very close to a ‘bottom-up approach’ to youth policy. A bottom-up approach is not only difficult but almost hard to implement in the policy environment at the African Union, and perhaps similar international institutions. Notwithstanding, the advantages of the African Union’s approach are numerous in that young people’s voices were integrated from start to finish. Given the ‘powers’ that ‘insiders’ have in ‘interpreting’ delegations’ representations at intergovernmental negotiations, one can say that the presence of youth as consultants played no small role in shaping the final content of the charter.

Looking back five years, as one who was involved in that process, some positions could have been pursued differently. One key issue remains how youth is defined in the charter – age 15 to 35. For one thing, perhaps those under the age of 18 could have been dropped to avoid overlap with the African Charter on the rights and welfare of the child, and those over the age of 30 could have been dropped to avoid the present situation where there are several overage representatives of youth. But at the time, majority of the youth wanted a broader and more embracing age bracket.

The argument for ‘youth as age 18 to 30’ comes from a view of youth as a period of ‘growing-up’, a transition from one stage of the life cycle to another. In many African societies, initiation rights into adulthood take place before the age of 25 thus a culturally consistent definition of youth is more likely acceptable. Secondly, if life expectancy on the continent revolves around age 52 or so, how can anyone be youth until age 35?  However, as I said, the ‘voices of the youth’ had to be respected.

That said, I think the African youth charter process, and the practice within the African Union, with the support of the UN Population Fund to integrate young voices in policy-making, as ‘insiders’ not just spectators or ‘participants’ is definitely good practice, one that I would personally endorse for dissemination at national and sub-national levels.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Dabesaki Mac-Ikemenjima is an avid supporter of the youth movement, having played roles in national, regional and international processes relating to the sector. He was formerly a school teacher, policy analyst and consultant at various institutions, his main interests being: HIV/AIDS, adolescent health and post conflict youth policy. His country specific experience includes: Sierra Leone, Zambia and Nigeria.