Dressed in black, they went to the capital, gathered on a field, waved flags and sang the national anthem. Soon they were driven apart by police units, first with tear gas, then with rubber bullets and worse. Allegedly 22 protesters were killed.
This was not on the Malieveld, but in Antananarivo, the capital of the African island of Madagascar. The so-called Gen Z protests adhered three days there, after which President Rajoelina said on Monday to dissolve the government and write out elections.
Where we all waited amazed here until our ministers finally admitted that the protest was not out of hand, but an extreme right -wing manifestation, there were also large protests taking place elsewhere in the world this weekend. In Morocco, Peru, Nepal, Madagascar and previously in Kenya, Serbia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, young people took to the streets en masse. Not because they wanted to riots, were angry with ‘migrants’, or were afraid of losing their status and ‘culture’. No, their goal was existential: they demanded their place in a country where corrupt elites are the service and the prevailing regime keeps the doors of policy and administration potentially for anyone who is not a member of their clan.
Unicef already published earlier this year A detailed report About the increase in youth protests worldwide, Youth, Protests and the Polycrisis titled. The authors state that the level of youth protests has not been so high in decades. And that the demonstrating young people really have something to be against again: rising food prices, lack of good jobs, increasing impoverishment in the cities and, above all, increasing frustration about the failing strength of their regimes. But not only in authoritarian governed countries are young people that their governments ‘do not deliver’.
The Open Society Barometerentitled Can Democracy Deliverbased on a study in thirty countries, concluded that only 57 percent of 18 to 35-year-olds preferred democracy over other forms of government (for people over 55 that was 71 percent). Because those democratic or semi-democratic systems no longer deliver what the new generation wants and needs: they fall short in the field of work and economy, equality and participation, climate and sustainability, and yes, also in the field of international law (Israel and Gaza), the international order has long since stopped and squeaking.
Have we indeed ended up in a new, unprecedented situation as Unicef claims? No of course not. The Bible already wrote, through the prophet Joël, about “sons and daughters who will prophesiate” about “young people who will see visions.” And that was somewhere in the ninth century BC. It is of course the young people who protest, because their future is hijacked in front of their eyes, or spoiled and made unlivable by the prevailing class. And it is the old Gardes that, instead of reforming and renewing, cling to achievements and own certainties. In itself that is of all times. If we go back one generation in time, we end up with the major demonstrations against atomic arms, in 1981 and 1983. Or the squatter riots in 1980 and the new market riots of 1975. At that time it was not about extra money for Ukraine or the construction of more owner -occupied homes for starters. It was about preventing an atomic war. And about the detriment of a neighborhood for a metro, in a situation where there were hardly any rental properties for the new generation (the Boomers from now). The question is only every time, what do the governments that the young people are hoping for?
In the sixties, seventies and eighties they listened (or were forced to do so). As a result, the protests really yielded something in the late 1960s: participation, new parties and women’s rights, to name a little.
Our societies were fought and formed by young demonstrators
Now it is different. Because the government listens, but to the wrong groups. Because the protests in Morocco, Nepal, etc. were about large numbers of young people. The riots on the Malieveld are about far fewer people who are on average much older. The latter are similar to sociological structure with Protests against AZCs in GermanyFrance or England, or with protests against corona measures in the 2020-2023. These are protests in which more older than younger people participate. Out of one research into the Querdenker-Protesten In Germany and Switzerland it turned out that less than 10 percent of the participants were younger than 30 and that the average age was at 50 years.
Joël from the Bible (Joël 3: 1) already knew it: the elderly will dream dreams. You could say, they look back. Because the protesters of these riots are about what the Germans indicate as nicely as Besitzstandswahrung. The protests are not focused on progress and more participation. But it is precisely on defending their own achievements against newcomers and alleged intruders. Whether it is migration or mortgage interest deduction, the protest voice of these mostly older demonstrators (and do not let yourself be blinded by a number of visible young people, the figures show that the Malieveld demonstrators were not at all that young at all) is motivated by a conservative, backward defense of their own Besituis. It doesn’t matter that “people of color feel threatened” as a result. If their ‘values, safety and traditions’ are at the top, according to The website of Elrechtsthe organizer of the Malieveld demonstration.
But if history teaches us something, it is that our democratic societies fought and formed by young demonstrators. Before they turn away from democracy, it is important to listen to them, whether they are on the A12, dressed in the red or protest against cuts in education. Let your ears hang and say ‘understanding’ for the ‘frustrations’ From a handful of old demonstrators (who perhaps form the real minority), swimming is against the flow of time. The question is simple: do we listen to the old demonstrators and their fear dreams, or to the young with their visions?
NEW: Give this article as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can do every month 10 articles Give a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a payment wall.