Society being polarised, teenagers all being libertarians and youths feeling seduced authoritarian models – three ideas that circulate frequently in political conversation in Argentina, but it seems they may not correlate with reality.
At least not according to the results of the latest study by the Observatorio Pulsar at the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) and the Asociación Conciencia civic education NGO, which recently interviewed almost 2,500 secondary school students of voting age.
Far from political radicalisation, the study – which consulted young people aged 16 to 19 – in fact reveals something different: the relationship is one of distancing and indifference. Accordingly, 69 percent claim to have little or no interest in politics, a proportion which reverses the pattern usually observed in the adult population.
However, that does not mean a lack of information or total rejection – teenagers know what politics is and have formed opinions, but it is considered to be something secondary in their everyday life: it shows up intermittently, does not organise their conversations or their personal bonds and rarely defines their identity.
Key findings
The survey was carried out in-person at secondary schools nationwide and included students aged 16 to 19 at state and private institutions. This design helped achieve an unusual territorial coverage and avoid the typical bias of online surveys, where only those who show an interest usually answer.
One of the key findings is the difference between the youths’ personal expectations and their view of the country. Whereas 73 percent believe their personal situation or that of their family will improve or remain stable in the coming year, only 45 percent assess Argentina’s current outlook positively.
The distance between individual optimism and scepticism about the country is key to understanding the relationship between young people and politics.
In that context, politics fills a marginal spot in everyday life. Most teenagers claim they talk little about the subject or not at all: 65 percent say they barely talk about it with relatives and 81 percent that they do not do it with friends either. When those conversations do come up, they are more common in the family sphere than among peers.
That low level of political centrality is also reflected in their practices. The vast majority of youths did not take part in political action over the last year, neither in person nor in the digital world. Even on social networks – the source of most of their information – active involvement is limited and is restricted, in the best-case scenario, to following leaders’ accounts or sharing content.
Polarised youth?
The study also disproves the idea of a youth electorate marked by polarisation. For most, politics does not work as a moral compass or an identity frontier: some 61 percent state that they could be in a relationship with someone with different political ideas; 64 percent claim to have friends with opposite ideas to their own.
In institutional terms, democracy is still the preferred political regime. On a scale of 1 to 10, the importance of living in a democracy got an 8.25 average among the interviewed youths – a high score. However, that valuation coexists with a critical outlook on its current running: the assessment of how democratic Argentina is today is as low as 6.83 points.
The main risk showing up on data is not a deviation towards authoritarian positions, but something subtler: indifference. Though democracy is mostly preferred to other alternatives, the percentage of those who state they do not care whether they live in democracy or not is growing. According to the study, that attitude is centred especially on sectors with a lower cultural capital and educational level at home.
That gives way to a wider reading. The political citizenry – as suggested by researchers – does not come about automatically, but is built in socialisation processes involving the family, school and the cultural environment.
Where those instances are stronger, so is adherence to democracy and participation in public life.
Comments