Transcription

• Speaker #0

  Welcome to the Gen Z Shift, a podcast decoding Generation Z and Generation Alpha for leaders, brands, and changemakers. Based on the research and articles of Benoit van Kallenberge, a European expert on Generation Z, Generation Alpha, and brand culture. Each episode helps you understand the generations reshaping how we work, consume, connect, and live. Because the future isn't coming. It's already here. And today we are jumping straight into a topic that honestly is going to complete... completely recalibrate how you view the next generation.

• Speaker #1

  We really are. It's all about their political identity.

• Speaker #0

  Right. Because, I mean, we've all heard the stereotype, you know, the narrative that Gen Z is just totally checked out of politics, deeply apathetic and basically just doom scrolling their lives away.

• Speaker #1

  Yeah, that's the common assumption.

• Speaker #0

  But today we're unpacking Benoit van Kallenberger's September 2026 article, Does Gen Z Still Believe in Politics? And the data we have proves the exact opposite.

• Speaker #1

  It really does.

• Speaker #0

  They haven't abandoned politics. They've just like... Abandon the building where it usually happens.

• Speaker #1

  Which is a fundamental paradigm shift. Yeah. And to understand how this generation actually engages with society, we're grounding this entire conversation in hard data today.

• Speaker #0

  Yes, strictly the numbers.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. We're pulling from extensive research from the OECD and the European Parliament youth surveys to really dissect the underlying mechanisms of their civic behavior.

• Speaker #0

  And just to be super clear with you listening, whether you're a business leader or an educator. Our mission here is purely analytical.

• Speaker #1

  Right. Completely impartial.

• Speaker #0

  Yeah, we aren't endorsing any specific political positions or ideologies that pop up in this research. Our job is just to observe the data, spot the patterns, and explain how civic engagement is changing.

• Speaker #1

  Because it is changing rapidly, both physically and digitally.

• Speaker #0

  So, okay, if they've completely left the traditional, quote-unquote, building of politics, where did they go?

• Speaker #1

  Yeah.

• Speaker #0

  Because if you ask anyone from an older generation to describe a 20-year-old's political habits, you get this really specific kind of chaotic profile.

• Speaker #1

  Oh, totally. The stereotype is that they don't vote, they distrust anything with an official logo, and they basically just live in a digital echo chamber.

• Speaker #0

  Right. Until a trending topic angers them enough to impulsively protest. And then, theoretically, they just move on to the next trend a week later.

• Speaker #1

  But the numbers from 2025 tell a significantly more structured and Honestly, engaged story.

• Speaker #0

  Really? How so?

• Speaker #1

  Well, when you look at the data, 24.3% of Europeans age 16 to 29 participated online in civic or political issues.

• Speaker #0

  OK.

• Speaker #1

  And if you compare that to the general overall population, that baseline sits at just 20.2%.

• Speaker #0

  Oh, wow. So youth participation is actually measurably higher.

• Speaker #1

  Yes, exactly. And this isn't just an isolated regional anomaly driven by one specific election. This holds true in 23 out of the 27 EU member states.

• Speaker #0

  OK, let's unpack this, because I think there's a really helpful way to visualize what's happening mechanically here.

• Speaker #1

  I'm intrigued. What's the analogy?

• Speaker #0

  Well, for older generations, engaging with politics was essentially like buying a legacy cable TV bundle, right?

• Speaker #1

  Well, I see where you're going with this.

• Speaker #0

  You join a traditional political party or maybe a massive labor union. And by doing that, you bought the entire. higher ideological package.

• Speaker #1

  Right. You got the whole bundle, whether you liked all the channels or not.

• Speaker #0

  Exactly. You might only really care about two or three channels. Maybe you were super passionate about tax policy and foreign relations.

• Speaker #1

  But you had to take all the platforms, all the baggage, all the compromises. Yes.

• Speaker #0

  Yes. Just to get a seat at the table. But Gen Z doesn't do bundles. They treat politics like a la carte streaming.

• Speaker #1

  That is a perfect way to frame it. That streaming analogy highlights the exact structural change you in how humans organize today.

• Speaker #0

  Yeah.

• Speaker #1

  Because historically, political parties functioned as bundles because organizing was just incredibly expensive.

• Speaker #0

  Oh, right. You needed physical stuff.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. You needed printing presses, phone banks, literal physical infrastructure to reach voters. You had to aggregate issues just to aggregate the funding.

• Speaker #0

  But digital tools have driven the cost of organizing down to basically zero.

• Speaker #1

  Precisely. So they don't need the party infrastructure to find each other anymore. They care deeply. about highly specific issues, right?

• Speaker #0

  Like what?

• Speaker #1

  Climate change, housing shortages, the situation in Gaza, migration, women's rights.

• Speaker #0

  And because of the digital ecosystem, they can just crowdsource funding or track legislation on those specific things.

• Speaker #1

  And organize demonstrations directly. They simply subscribe to the issues they care about, completely bypassing that traditional party bumble.

• Speaker #0

  Which explains why Van Kouwenbrink's research points out that formal and informal participation increasingly coexist. But they are in completely separate lanes.

• Speaker #1

  Yeah, the OECD data really backs that up. It shows that 18 to 29 year olds are less likely to engage in formal mechanisms.

• Speaker #0

  Like they vote less, they don't write formal letters to their representatives.

• Speaker #1

  And they certainly aren't showing up to bureaucratic town halls.

• Speaker #0

  Right. But they demonstrate in the streets and post political content online way more than the older public.

• Speaker #1

  Because they've decoupled the act of political engagement from the institutions that historically monopolized it.

• Speaker #0

  That's a great way to put it.

• Speaker #1

  You know, you can be a hyper engaged citizen actively shaping public policy through micro donations and like open source intelligence on social media without ever registering as a member of a party.

• Speaker #0

  So if they've canceled their cable subscription to traditional parties, what exactly are they streaming?

• Speaker #1

  You mean what issues are actually pulling their attention?

• Speaker #0

  Yeah, because if you consume a lot of mainstream media, you'd assume they only care about highly visible sweeping. ideological topics.

• Speaker #1

  Right. The media paints them as this single issue monolith.

• Speaker #0

  Exactly. But what does the data actually say?

• Speaker #1

  Well, the reality is incredibly pragmatic. When you look at the European Parliament is 2025 youth survey. This was polling 16 to 30 year olds, the absolute number one priority.

• Speaker #0

  Yeah.

• Speaker #1

  Cited by 40 percent of respondents is the cost of living and rising prices.

• Speaker #0

  Wait, that completely flips the script. 40 percent are focused on basic economic survival.

• Speaker #1

  Yes. Not just abstract ideology.

• Speaker #0

  Wow.

• Speaker #1

  And when you factor in the skyrocketing housing markets across Europe, post-pandemic inflation, and just the instability of the gig economy.

• Speaker #0

  It makes perfect sense.

• Speaker #1

  Right. It makes perfect sense that immediate economic reality has eclipsed broader ideological goals.

• Speaker #0

  What came in second?

• Speaker #1

  Climate and the environment do come in second at 33%.

• Speaker #0

  Okay. That tracks.

• Speaker #1

  But right on its heels is the economy and job creation at 31%.

• Speaker #0

  I have to... Pause and push back on the popular narrative here.

• Speaker #1

  Go for it.

• Speaker #0

  If their top undeniable concerns are the price of groceries, making rent and securing a stable job, why are they constantly labeled as just the radical climate generation or the protest generation?

• Speaker #1

  It's a great question.

• Speaker #0

  It feels like we are trying to force this multidimensional generation onto a two dimensional political compass. just so they're easier to categorize for the evening news.

• Speaker #1

  What's fascinating here is how the traditional left-right axis of politics is actively fracturing under the weight of this generation.

• Speaker #0

  Breaking down completely.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. We love simple labels in the media. Like, one recent narrative has been this idea of a massive universal gender divide.

• Speaker #0

  Oh, right. The theory that all young women are moving sharply left and all young men are moving sharply right.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. But when researchers analyzed 2025 data from over 466,000 young people across 32 European countries, it explicitly cautioned against that oversimplification.

• Speaker #0

  So the monolithic gender divide is a myth.

• Speaker #1

  It varies wildly depending on where you're standing. In some countries, there's almost no ideological gender gap. In others, young women are more left-leaning. And in some specific regions, the gap is indeed widening. But the core takeaway is that geography and immediate material conditions matter far more.

• Speaker #0

  More than just a universal generational identity.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. For example, while defense and security sits at a moderate concern overall for European youth, it ranks massively higher among young people in countries like Czechia, Poland, and Estonia.

• Speaker #0

  Which makes logical sense. Their physical proximity to conflict and the historical memory of Russian aggression directly dictate their political priorities.

• Speaker #1

  And this leads to what Van Kallenberg describes as Gen Z being Less politically loyal.

• Speaker #0

  Meaning they don't just vote straight down the party line.

• Speaker #1

  Right. A single voter today might hold a combination of views that completely defies the political identities of their parents.

• Speaker #0

  Give me an example.

• Speaker #1

  Well, they might be fiercely progressive on social issues, but strictly economically liberal, highly skeptical of current immigration policies, and aggressively pro-climate.

• Speaker #0

  And again, just to reiterate for you listening, we aren't judging. any of those specific stances.

• Speaker #1

  No, not at all.

• Speaker #0

  We are just looking at the architecture of their beliefs. And that specific combination of views just does not fit into the traditional platform of any single legacy political party.

• Speaker #1

  It creates a massive fragmentation. And that fragmentation explains why both left-wing and right-wing political movements are successfully attracting young voters simultaneously across Europe right now.

• Speaker #0

  Because they're issue shopping.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. There is no unified European Gen Z vote. They are picking the movements that address their specific immediate a la carte priorities, regardless of the broader ideological label on the tin.

• Speaker #0

  I have to be honest, I'm struggling with this next part.

• Speaker #1

  What's that?

• Speaker #0

  If they are this fragmented, this independent and completely willing to bypass traditional party systems, I would just assume they've completely given up on the idea of national governments. Like, do they even care if these institutions exist anymore?

• Speaker #1

  That is the assumption most people make. But the data throws a massive curveball here.

• Speaker #0

  Oh, really? Yeah.

• Speaker #1

  Look at the OECD-USHE's 2026 survey on drivers of trust in public institutions. In 2025, 42% of 18 to 29-year-olds reported having high or moderately high trust in their national government.

• Speaker #0

  Wait, 42%? Yep. Nearly half of them actually trust the government.

• Speaker #1

  Yes, and perhaps more importantly, the generational gap between them and people over 50 has narrowed to just a 2% difference.

• Speaker #0

  That's tiny. What was it before?

• Speaker #1

  Back in 2021, that gap was 10 points. So relative to older generations, they're actually trusting their governments slightly more over the last few years.

• Speaker #0

  I don't understand. How can they trust the government while simultaneously refusing to use its formal channels?

• Speaker #1

  Because the core crisis isn't a lack of trust. The core crisis is a lack of influence.

• Speaker #0

  Ah

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. The same OECD data gives us a very clear mechanism. Across these countries, only 31% of young respondents believe that people like them actually have a say in what the government... does.

• Speaker #0

  Only a third feel heard.

• Speaker #1

  Right. Now look at the correlation. Among young people who do feel politically heard, trust in the national government soars to 69 percent.

• Speaker #0

  Wow. And if they don't feel heard?

• Speaker #1

  Among those who feel they have no influence, trust collapses to a mere 22 percent.

• Speaker #0

  So they don't doubt the government exists to do a job. They just doubt they have any ability to steer the ship.

• Speaker #1

  Precisely.

• Speaker #0

  The primary question they're asking institutions isn't, can I trust you? It's, can I influence you?

• Speaker #1

  And when they can't influence the institution through formal channels, they revert to the informal channels we discussed earlier, the street and the feed.

• Speaker #0

  Here's where it gets really interesting. Because if we look at the mechanics of how they try to exert influence, we run headfirst into a massive clash of speeds.

• Speaker #1

  A clash of speeds, yeah.

• Speaker #0

  Think about the environment Gen Z has grown up in. Everything in their digital ecosystem involves real-time measurable feedback.

• Speaker #1

  Instant gratification.

• Speaker #0

  Exactly. They leave a comment, the creator replies. They like a video. The algorithm instantly curates the next swipe. They can digitally organize a global boycott in 24 hours and watch the stock price of a company drop in real time.

• Speaker #1

  That is their baseline expectation for how systems respond to input.

• Speaker #0

  Yes. But democracy, democracy is inherently structurally slow.

• Speaker #1

  It is designed to be slow.

• Speaker #0

  We need it to be slow. We design checks and balances, bicameral legislatures and long election cycles specifically so policy isn't impulsive.

• Speaker #1

  You definitely do not want the nuclear codes or the national budget driven by the emotional ways of whatever is trending on a Tuesday afternoon.

• Speaker #0

  Exactly. Compromise takes time. But the tension here is incredible. Imagine applying that real-time expectation to a government bureaucracy.

• Speaker #1

  Oh, it's brutal.

• Speaker #0

  It's like the anxiety of waiting three days for an urgent email reply at work but stretched out over a four-year election cycle. How long can legacy institutions continue to ignore a generation that fundamentally measures success in real-time metrics?

• Speaker #1

  Well, the friction is already causing a measurable disconnect. Van Kallenberg highlights a telling behavioral choice in his article.

• Speaker #0

  What's that?

• Speaker #1

  30% of young people who have never contacted a politician say it's odges simply because they believe doing so would have absolutely no impact.

• Speaker #0

  They just assume it's pointless.

• Speaker #1

  They view traditional bureaucratic channels as a black box. You drop a letter in. You never hear back. You have no dashboard to track if your opinion actually moved the needle.

• Speaker #0

  It's like submitting a customer service ticket into the void.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly.

• Speaker #0

  Eventually, you stop using the official website form and you just go yell at the brand publicly on social media because that gets a response.

• Speaker #1

  That is the exact mechanism playing out in the political sphere. The street protest and the social media feed win out over formal consultations because they make a political voice visible instantly.

• Speaker #0

  You don't have to wait years to see if your vote mattered.

• Speaker #1

  Right. You can see your influence measured immediately in crowd size, in shares, in the immediate shift of public discourse. The monumental challenge for institutions is figuring out how to make democracy more participatory, offering that sense of influence without making actual policymaking dangerously impulsive.

• Speaker #0

  Which means the very definition of political leadership has to evolve.

• Speaker #1

  It has to.

• Speaker #0

  We can't just keep running a 20th century operating system complete with its closed-door negotiations, and slow public relations rollouts for a generation running on 21st century hardware.

• Speaker #1

  We really can't. And part of the structural problem is that the current architecture of political leadership is quite literally not representative of the people it governs.

• Speaker #0

  Right.

• Speaker #1

  There is a massive gatekeeping issue.

• Speaker #0

  Let's talk about that representation gap because the mechanics behind it are fascinating.

• Speaker #1

  And numbers are stark.

• Speaker #0

  They really are. Across OECD countries, 20 to 39-year-olds make up about 34 percent of the voting age population. So they are a massive demographic block.

• Speaker #1

  Over a third.

• Speaker #0

  Yet, if you look at the landscape in 2024, only 22 percent of members of parliament were under 40.

• Speaker #1

  And it gets exponentially worse the higher up the ladder you look.

• Speaker #0

  Yeah. Only 8 percent of cabinet members were under 40 and a tiny 3 percent were 35 or younger.

• Speaker #1

  And we have to look at why that gap exists. It's not just that older politicians refuse to retire. You know, the modern political pipeline is incredibly expensive to enter. Running a campaign requires entrenched donor networks. Political parties demand years of unpaid or low-paid paying your dues within their specific hierarchies before they'll back a young candidate.

• Speaker #0

  So the system is structurally designed to filter out young challengers who haven't adopted the party's legacy behavior.

• Speaker #1

  Precisely.

• Speaker #0

  So they are largely governed by people two or three generations removed from their daily reality simply because those are the only people who can afford the barrier to entry.

• Speaker #1

  If we connect this to the bigger picture, it becomes obvious the solution isn't just a cosmetic age update.

• Speaker #0

  Right. You can't just swap in a younger face.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. You can't just parachute a 25-year-old into a cabinet seat, force them to adhere to rigid party discipline and top-down messaging, and expect Gen Z to suddenly feel represented.

• Speaker #0

  Because a young politician exhibiting legacy behavior is going to feel just as outdated as a 70-year-old politician doing the same thing.

• Speaker #1

  Absolutely. Because it's the behavior they are rejecting. They are rejecting the gatekeeping and the secrecy, not just the age of the person at the podium.

• Speaker #0

  Right.

• Speaker #1

  Conversely, Older political leaders who are willing to adapt their behavior can absolutely gain legitimacy with this generation.

• Speaker #0

  How so?

• Speaker #1

  Well, if an older leader explains their decisions transparently, provides the open source context for why a compromise was made, and practices new forms of direct, horizontal communication, they will earn respect.

• Speaker #0

  So Gen Z doesn't reject leadership outright?

• Speaker #1

  No, they reject the idea that a formal title alone grants you unquestionable...

• Speaker #0

  And we have hard data showing they aren't trying to burn the system down either. When you ask them about the broad ideals of these institutions, they are incredibly supportive. Like, look at the Eurobarometer data for the European Union. 58% of 15 to 30-year-olds have a positive image of the EU, which is actually higher than older age groups.

• Speaker #1

  That's a crucial point.

• Speaker #0

  And 90% of them want greater unity between EU member states. 68% actively want a stronger role for the European Parliament. They aren't. anti-system. They are anti-ineffective systems.

• Speaker #1

  They just have incredibly high expectations for what those institutions should be delivering. The traditional political model relies on a strong leader communicating decisions downward after they have been quietly negotiated in back rooms.

• Speaker #0

  The old smoke-filled rooms.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. And that model sits incredibly uneasily beside a generation accustomed to flat hierarchies, direct digital access, and open source information sharing.

• Speaker #0

  So what does this all mean? If you are listening to this and you run a brand or you manage a corporate workplace or you work in education, you already know exactly what we are talking about.

• Speaker #1

  You've lived it.

• Speaker #0

  You have already had to survive this shift. Ten years ago, workplaces had to stop demanding blind authority and start offering transparency and context if they wanted to retain young talent.

• Speaker #1

  Right.

• Speaker #0

  Schools had to completely rethink what learning means when every student has unlimited information in their pocket. Brands had to overhaul how they earn trust, moving from broadcasting commercials to actually engaging in two-way conversations.

• Speaker #1

  The private sector and the educational sector have already been forced through this generational crucible. They adapted to the demand for transparency and direct influence because the market literally forced them to.

• Speaker #0

  Politics is just the last domino to fall. Why would political institutions be the one human endeavor magically exempt from this massive generational shift? And how authority and participation work.

• Speaker #1

  They aren't exempt. The pressure on that final domino is compounding every single year.

• Speaker #0

  Yeah.

• Speaker #1

  Which leaves us with a truly fascinating and somewhat daunting scenario to consider for the future of governance.

• Speaker #0

  What's that?

• Speaker #1

  Well, if Gen Z's issue-driven, decentralized, a la carte approach to politics doesn't just change the system, but actually becomes the global standard for how all generations engage, what happens to the very idea of national consensus? Will the future of democracy look less like unified national parliaments marching under broad, predictable ideological banners and more like a series of constantly shifting single issue flash mobs deciding policy on a micro level?

• Speaker #0

  A future of issue by issue flash mob democracy. It's an incredible concept to leave on, and it definitely reframes how you should be looking at the protests, digital movements and the online organizing we see every single day.

• Speaker #1

  It changes everything.

• Speaker #0

  They aren't a sign of a generation that doesn't care. They were the blueprints of a generation desperately trying to invent a new way to participate. Gen Z doesn't need less politics. They just need politics to finally offer proof that their participation actually matters. Thanks for listening. The Gen Z Shift Audio.