Youth and vote: more squares, less ballet boxes.

If one wants to examine in depth and understand how youth political participation is changing in Italy, perhaps one should look first at the squares, not at the polls. In recent years, new generations have filled streets and public spaces for climate, civil rights, gender-based violence, Palestinian genocide, and social justice. A visible, intense mobilization, often organized through social networks. Yet, when you go from the square to the polling booth, the numbers shrink.

In the 2022 general election, turnout was just over 63%, the lowest in Republican history. Demographic analysis shows that participation in the 18-34 age group was lower than the overall average, with a significant difference compared to the older age groups. Even in the 2019 European elections, despite a slight overall increase in turnout in the Union, participation by those under 25 was lower than for voters over 40. The generation gap remains a constant.

But to reduce it all to "disaffection" would be a superficial read. Young people are no less political: they are less tied to the traditional channels of politics. Their participation is expressed in different ways, often direct, immediate, thematic and also through government criticism. They are active for specific causes and much less for party membership. It is a citizenship that focuses on concrete and urgent issues, but struggles to recognize itself in the structures of traditional parties.

Here a crucial fact emerges: trust. Surveys of political participation have shown very low levels of trust in parties and parliament for years, and this distrust is particularly pronounced among young people. The parties are perceived as distant, elitist, self-referential, little representative of generational instances. Institutional policy appears slow compared to the speed of social change. The result is a transformation of the geography of participation: fewer party sections, less structured militancy, more spontaneous movements, more digital campaigns, more public demonstrations. The square becomes the symbolic place where you feel that you can engrave, be visible, count.

This is where the upcoming justice referendum comes in. An important appointment for the constitutional order and for the balance of powers of the State. But the question is unavoidable: Will it intercept youth political energy? Or will it remain confined to a technical debate that speaks mainly to insiders? When themes are perceived as abstract, participation tends to decline: not because one lacks interest in democracy, but because one lacks the perception of direct impact. The challenge of the referendum will not just be to reach a quorum, but to speak language that is understandable to a generation accustomed to getting information quickly, digitally, and in a fragmented manner.

At the European level, the trend is similar: youth activism on values issues is growing, but the link with traditional parties is weakening. Some countries have seen signs of rising youth turnout, but the generational divide remains evident in most Western democracies. The truth is that participation has not disappeared, it has moved. It has become more horizontal, less hierarchical, less ideological. The problem is not the absence of commitment, but the breaking of the channel between commitment and representation.

The justice referendum may be an opportunity to rebuild that bridge. But for this to happen, politics must recognize that legitimacy no longer comes only from party symbols. It must demonstrate listening, openness and the ability to translate generational questions into real decision-making processes. Crowded squares and half-empty ballot boxes are not a contradiction; they are the signal of transformation. To ignore it would be to accept a democracy that speaks less and less to its younger citizens. Understanding it, however, could be the first step to bring that generation back into institutions, without shutting down the energy that now animates the streets.