Democracy is not a static achievement; it requires constant renewal. This renewal is fundamentally a social process, demanding that each new generation actively “buys in” to the system’s core norms and principles. As some scholars soberly remind us, “democracy without democrats is not sustainable” (Wuttke et al., 2022). This intergenerational commitment has long been taken for granted in Australia, but today, this very process of democratic renewal faces a profound challenge.
Indeed, it is no longer clear that younger generations support the democratic system with the same conviction as their predecessors. This raises the central puzzle of this report: do young people truly support democracy, or are they increasingly turning towards undemocratic alternatives? Answering this question is critical to understanding and navigating the future of democratic renewal in Australia.
The Jeff Bleich Centre for Democracy and Disruptive Technologies is committed to confronting this puzzle head-on. In late 2024, we surveyed over 1,000 Australians, revealing a stark reality: only 55.7% of young Australians aged 18 to 29 believe democracy is the best form of government. This figure is not a statistical anomaly; it is an alarm bell for Australia’s democratic stability, especially when compared to the 87.97% of Australians aged 70 and over who hold the same belief.
This report provides a more in-depth look at the survey data to determine whether young people’s democratic disconnect represents healthy “critical citizenship” (a dissatisfaction with performance) or a more dangerous “democratic antipathy” (a genuine erosion of commitment). We believe, in light of the results of the survey, that there is a clear shift towards antipathy among young Australians, revealing a generation increasingly tolerant of undemocratic alternatives.
From Critical Citizens to Antipathetic Youth
For decades, the dominant framework for understanding youth scepticism in politics has been the “critical citizens” thesis (Norris, 1999). This view posits that citizens can be cynical towards politicians and democracy while remaining committed to the democratic principles that underlie the governance system itself. Critical citizens therefore identify performative issues with the democratic system, but remain committed to working within the democratic framework to reform and improve democracy.
However, the conditions facing today’s youth are profoundly different from when this thesis was first proposed, and such a critical citizen approach may no longer be sufficient. Young Australians are increasingly facing a set of cascading, intractable crises. These include, for example, the existential threat of climate change, a systemic housing affordability crisis that locks them out of future security, and persistent economic precarity, all set against a backdrop of global instability and wars.
Simultaneously, young people perceive a system that is unresponsive to the specific needs created by these crises. Governments are largely governed by older individuals who do not share the same concerns as young people. This significant underrepresentation of young people in formal politics creates a deep sense of exclusion and political alienation (Stockemer & Sündstrom, 2023). This disillusionment is further amplified by a post-truth media environment, where misinformation and conspiracy theories spread rapidly online, eroding trust in the very institutions (like elections and the courts) that form the basis of democracy (Bordeleau & Stockemer, 2024).
When a democratic system consistently fails to address the core anxieties of an age cohort, it is logical that their faith in that system’s processes would wane. This is why we propose shifting the focus away from a “critical citizen” approach towards the concept of “democratic antipathy” (Foa and Mounk, 2016). This latter concept is defined as an active tolerance of, and in some cases a preference for, illiberal and undemocratic alternatives.
Research Methods & Findings
To understand whether young people are actively turning away from democracy, it is not enough to measure abstract support for democracy. Instead, the most robust approach is to directly measure tolerance for specific undemocratic practices. This requires a research design that integrates two complementary methodologies.
- Observational Data: A large-scale survey measuring stated tolerance for undemocratic actions.
- Conjoint Experiment: An experiment designed to reveal underlying preferences for democratic attributes when forcing trade-offs.
The survey data reveals a consistent and deeply troubling pattern. The erosion begins with abstract support: as previously noted, only 55.7% of Australians aged 18-29 agree that “democracy is the best form of government,” far lower than the oldest cohort (e.g., 87.97% for 70+).
This abstract disenchantment translates into concrete support for actions that violate core democratic norms (see Table 1). The findings are alarming: 37.62% of young Australians support or strongly support the “use of force to prevent policies they disagree with from being enacted”; 39.03% agree that the “government should be able to bend the law when required”; 35.71% agree that the “Prime Minister should be able to ignore court decisions”; and 25.24% support “committing voter fraud to prevent a party they dislike from winning.”
Table 1. Young Australians’ Support for Undemocratic Practices
Democratic Principle Violated
|
Specific Attitude / Belief
|
% of Young Australians (18-29) in Agreement
|
Legitimacy of Democracy
|
Democracy is the best form of government.
|
55.7%
|
Political Violence
|
Support the use of force to prevent policies I disagree with from being enacted.
|
37.62%
|
Rule of Law
|
The government should be able to bend the law when required.
|
39.03%
|
Judicial Independence
|
The Prime Minister should be able to ignore court decisions.
|
35.71%
|
Electoral Integrity
|
Support committing voter fraud to prevent a party they dislike to win an election.
|
25.24%
|
The most powerful evidence, however, comes from a conjoint experiment designed to measure revealed preferences. This experiment moves beyond what people say and uncovers what they truly value when forced to make trade-offs. Respondents were presented with pairs of hypothetical societies, each defined by random attributes (e.g., free elections, strong economy, low crime, independent media, etc.), and asked to choose which they would prefer to live in. The results reveal an important age divide. While all age groups valued positive outcomes like strong economies, younger cohorts placed a significantly lower value on core democratic safeguards compared to their older counterparts.
The most damning finding relates to the principle of limited government. For the 18-39 cohort, the preference for “Checks & Balances”––a society where the prime minister must answer to Parliament and the courts––was statistically indistinguishable from zero. This can no longer be considered apathy; rather, it is the active devaluation of a cornerstone of liberal democracy. In other words, it seems that many young people have begun to see democratic processes as expendable, or even as obstacles, in the pursuit of outcomes like economic security. This creates a significant vulnerability to authoritarian appeals from any leader who promises to “get things done” by sweeping away procedural constraints.
Conclusion and Implications
The convergence of observational and experimental evidence allows for a conclusive diagnosis: Australia is witnessing a clear and present trend of democratic antipathy among its youngest citizens. This is not the healthy scepticism of “critical citizens” but a fundamental shift. The dangers this poses are profound and include:
- Accelerated Democratic Erosion: A population that is indifferent to institutional guardrails provides fertile ground for would-be autocrats.
- Political Instability: When nearly 40% of a cohort endorses force to achieve political ends, the norm of peaceful dispute resolution is jeopardized.
- Loss of Institutional Resilience: Core pillars like the rule of law and judicial independence rely on public consensus. As that consensus frays, the institutions become brittle.
The evidence this research unveils is unequivocal: a significant cohort of young Australians is measurably more tolerant of undemocratic practices and exhibits a lower preference for core democratic institutions. This democratic antipathy constitutes a critical vulnerability for Australia’s future. This trend appears to be a direct consequence of a democratic system that is perceived by many of its youngest citizens as exclusionary, unresponsive, and incapable of solving their most pressing problems. These findings should serve as a stark call to action for Australia’s political leaders, policymakers, and educators.
