Why policymakers can no longer ignore Gen Z

This article is authored by Mehdi Hussain, former research associate, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi.

Generation Z is rapidly transitioning from the margins of Indian political discourse to its centre. This shift is amplified by sheer demographic scale—the country is home to the world’s largest Gen Z cohort, estimated at approximately 377 million people, accounting for roughly 26% of the nation’s total population. As these citizens enter the workforce, pay taxes, and make up a growing share of the electorate, their relationship with the state is shifting fundamentally. They are no longer willing to be passive recipients of top-down administration. Instead, they are operating as a structural force demanding a new paradigm of governance.

Gen Z (Representational image/Unsplash)

For policymakers, engaging with Gen Z is not an optional public relations exercise. It is an economic, constitutional, and institutional necessity. To secure long-term stability and democratic resilience, modern governance must understand both why Gen Z’s viewpoints matter and the decentralised pathways through which their activism audits and redirects public policy.

Historically, youth have occupied a highly marginalised position within traditional, top-down governance frameworks. First, policies are designed for youth rather than with them, treating their agency as “deferred” until they reach professional maturity. Second, representation has been limited to decorative and non-binding platforms (such as youth wings and mock parliaments) with zero legislative or budgetary power. Third, State planners have traditionally securitised youth populations, viewing them as threats to social order (e.g., managing unemployment to prevent unrest) rather than as active resources. Fourthly, power remains concentrated in older generations through high age thresholds for electoral office and seniority-based bureaucratic promotions, separating the age of lawmakers from the generation affected by their laws.

Over the last decade, technological and cultural shifts have flipped the traditional intergenerational hierarchy, transforming youth from passive recipients into active agents. Short-form video platforms like TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts have helped bypass traditional media gatekeepers, letting local administrative failures (like exam paper leaks) go viral and pressure policymakers within hours. While bureaucracies slowly debate regulations, Gen Z natively integrates generative AI to automate work, run borderless digital businesses, and challenge the state’s monopoly on knowledge. Then there is the decline of formal and lifelong corporate employment, which makes legacy welfare models obsolete. Because Gen Z is fluent in AI, software, and digital systems, they often understand the tools driving the modern economy better than the senior officials drafting the regulations.

Rather than waiting for State intervention, Gen Z tends to build its own solutions from the ground up, identifying gaps in local communities and mobilising resources digitally. This perspective challenges the traditional view of youth as a “liability” or a mere “vote bank.” By acting as active architects of democratic discourse, they push policymakers to treat them as co-creators of policy, shifting the governance model from top-down regulation to collaborative problem-solving. The framework of Gen Z acting as a structural force for accountability is best illustrated by the emergence of the Cockroach Janta Party and its protest at Jantar Mantar in June-July. This youth-led pressure group successfully challenged bureaucratic apathy toward joblessness and forced unprecedented institutional accountability in the education sector.

To understand Gen Z’s importance, policymakers must look at the specific sectors where youth actively challenge administrative failures. Recurring paper leaks in competitive examinations (NEET, CUET, state civil services, etc.) have created a “graduate nightmare,” destroying meritocracy and freezing socio-economic mobility. Operating in a policy vacuum, Gen Z gig workers and digital creators have challenged the complete lack of social security, health insurance, and algorithmic protections on platform apps. Protesting toxic air quality (AQI) and deforestation, youth frame environmental neglect as intergenerational theft that prioritises short-term lobbying over survival. As the most digitally active generation, Gen Z fights State surveillance, internet shutdowns, and online censorship, demanding that digital rights be treated as fundamental civil liberties.

Beyond demographic size, Gen Z’s economic influence is massive. A joint study by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and Snap Inc. projects their direct spending to reach $1.8 trillion to $2.0 trillion by 2035, turning this generation into the primary anchor of India’s consumption market. The Lokniti-CSDS National Youth Survey exposes deep-seated economic anxieties among Indian youth. Roughly 36% of youth aged 15–34 cite unemployment as the country’s gravest issue—a stark 18-percentage-point increase from 2016. Secondary concerns include poverty (16%) and inflation (13%). Anxiety is most acute among educated youth, with 40% of graduates and above expressing deep concern about joblessness compared to 27% of non-literate youth, highlighting a painful gap between educational credentials and market opportunities. The 2025 Deloitte Gen Z and Millennial Survey underscores that Indian Gen Z experience significant financial and workplace stress.

This economic and educational frustration is compounded by a deep representation deficit. Despite India having one of the youngest populations in the world, its political leadership remains highly gerontocratic. For example, only 11% of Members of Parliament (MPs) are aged 40 or below, and 38% are aged between 41 and 55, leaving Gen Z feeling structurally shut out of the rooms where national policies are decided.

While Gen Z’s importance is clear, significant institutional limitations in both bureaucratic systems and existing policy frameworks hinder the integration of their perspectives. State bureaucracies are structurally designed for stability, standardisation, risk-aversion, and slow, incremental change. They operate on rules of hierarchy and precedent. In contrast, Gen Z operates on speed, horizontal networks, and real-time digital feedback. Bureaucracies often view Gen Z’s demands for rapid institutional change as “demographic impatience”. In contrast, Gen Z views the slow pace of civil services as administrative inertia.

Existing policy frameworks that claim to involve youth often suffer from severe structural limits. Most “youth councils” or advisory boards operate informally, and they have no formal budget allocations, legislative veto power, or direct administrative authority. This tokenistic inclusion causes disillusionment, as Gen Z feels their perspectives are co-opted for public relations rather than translated into structural reform.

For the state, continuing to treat this demographic through the traditional lens of symbolic tokenism or risk management is a recipe for institutional obsolescence. Civil services that rely on rigid seniority and slow, risk-averse processes will inevitably find themselves unable to govern a digital-native, AI-driven, and gig-oriented economy. The mismatch is no longer just generational; it is structural.

Ultimately, policymakers face a stark choice: They can keep guarding the doors of a traditional leadership framework, or they can adapt their systems to treat youth as active partners in governance. Integrating Gen Z is not a cosmetic outreach initiative; it is fundamental to improving governance.

(The views expressed are personal)

This article is authored by Mehdi Hussain, former research associate, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi.