The international community has embraced youth empowerment with unprecedented enthusiasm. From the UN's Youth2030 strategy to the recently adopted Pact for the Future, global frameworks increasingly recognise young people as essential partners in addressing climate change, inequality and democratic governance. Yet, as youth-led protests surge worldwide, from climate strikes to pro-democracy movements, a troubling question emerges: Are we adequately protecting the young leaders we inspire to challenge the status quo?

​

The Empowerment Paradox

For the past seven years, I have worked on building initiatives that support young people to pursue social innovation and systemic change in their communities. This experience has exposed a fundamental contradiction in how we approach youth leadership development. While international organizations enthusiastically promote youth participation through programmes, summits and frameworks, they have largely failed to grapple with what happens when these empowered young people actually challenge power structures.

 

The evidence of increased youth political engagement is overwhelming. The UN Youth2030 initiative has documented significant increases in youth engagement in UN processes across diverse groups, with a rise in youth participation from 33 to 50 UN entities. Events like the World Bank's annual Youth Summit draw thousands of participants. This does not even start to consider the likely thousands of civil society and private organizations that facilitate youth engagement, participation and advocacy for sustainable development.

 

These initiatives represent progress in recognising youth as legitimate political actors, innovators, entrepreneurs and researchers rather than passive beneficiaries. However, a critical gap exists between empowering youth and protecting them. Recent research reveals that young people are among the five groups most commonly exposed to attacks on their fundamental freedoms in civic spaces.

 

The threats they face are comprehensive: sociocultural barriers, financial challenges, legal obstacles, digital surveillance and physical violence, including arbitrary detention and targeted killings.

 

When inspiration meets reality

Consider the trajectory of high-profile youth activists like Greta Thunberg, who has been arrested multiple times across Europe for climate protests, or Disha Ravi, a young Indian climate activist arrested on sedition charges for sharing a protest toolkit. These cases illustrate how quickly youth political participation can escalate into confrontation with authorities. The pattern is consistent globally. A Kenyan youth activist recently told the UN Security Council how police routinely enter informal gathering spaces to "harass and illegally arrest young people. " Yet, despite documented evidence of these risks, there are no established standards for protecting young people who become politically active through empowerment programmes.

​​

The Protection Gap

A recent experience with colleagues experiencing challenging political environments prompted deep contemplation and some research on what responsible leadership means when working with young people on these issues. While examining safeguarding mechanisms for youth activists in my programmes, I quickly recognised a harsh truth: although international frameworks heavily endorse youth political participation, they offer almost no specific protocols for when these young individuals face arrest, detention, intimidation, or violence. The UN's Youth, Peace and Security framework includes a "Protection" pillar that calls for ensuring young people's rights and investigating crimes against them. However, this remains at the level of aspirational principles rather than operational procedures. These measures are also especially challenging for civil society and local organizations to implement. Current "protection" mechanisms are largely reactive, offering post-incident legal support, diplomatic pressure for high-profile cases and advocacy campaigns, rather than proactive safeguarding.

​

These are also considered through international human rights frameworks, which are often developed internationally and rarely considered pre-emptively when it matters most. Missing elements include pre-engagement risk assessments, rapid response mechanisms for detained youth activists, standardised protection protocols for organisations running youth programmes, and systematic monitoring of youth activist detention rates. This represents a serious ethical gap: we encourage political engagement without corresponding investment in protection infrastructure.

 

There is also the question of the extent to which a civil society organization should be responsible for providing this type of support if they have not expressly encouraged the young leader to engage in dissent, and many of the youth are often legal adults. The organizations themselves do not have the power, resources, or reach to influence the situation. Very often, the best that can be done is a social media awareness-raising campaign (which, once again, is reactive).

​

Beyond Representation to Responsibility

The UN frameworks, while progressive in recognising youth agency, stop short of acknowledging the full implications of genuine empowerment. Real systemic change (whether addressing climate action, reducing inequality, or strengthening democracy) inevitably requires challenging existing power structures. This is not something young people can "project manage" their way out of; it involves confronting entrenched interests that may respond with repression.

 

International youth organizations must move beyond feel-good participation metrics to grapple seriously with the duty of care. When we inspire young people to challenge injustice, we bear responsibility for their safety. This means:

• Honest Risk Assessment: Youth programmes must include frank discussions about potential consequences of political activism, allowing young people to make informed decisions about their participation.

• Proactive Protection Mechanisms: Organizations need rapid response protocols, legal support networks, and security planning that matches the scale of their empowerment efforts.

• Sustained Support: Protection cannot be limited to programme duration. Young activists often face consequences long after international attention moves elsewhere.

• Resource Allocation: The enthusiasm for youth summits and participation frameworks must be matched by investment in protection infrastructure.

 

A Path Forward

The solution is not to retreat from youth empowerment but to mature our approach. The UN's Youth, Peace and Security framework provides a foundation with its recognition that young activists face real risks requiring "mechanisms for the safety of young peacebuilders. " However, this must evolve from acknowledgement to action. Organizations engaging youth in political initiatives need to develop comprehensive safeguarding standards that address the full spectrum of risks young activists face. This includes not just physical protection but also digital security, legal support and long-term care for those facing ongoing persecution.

 

The international community's commitment to youth leadership will ultimately be measured not by the number of young people in conference rooms, but by how well we protect those brave enough to take our calls for change seriously. As we seem to have entered an era of increasing political volatility, the question is not whether young people will continue to challenge power; they will. The question is whether we will support them with the same energy we've shown in inspiring them. The time for comfortable distance between empowerment and responsibility is over. Young leaders deserve both our inspiration and our protection.