Image: Y7/Future Leaders Network
There is often much discussion about how to effectively represent, include, and safeguard young people’s voices within politics. The act of embedding their perspectives and participation into formal decision-making processes is commonly referred to as youth institutionalisation. In a political context, this means ensuring that young people are not merely consulted, but structurally integrated into policy design and implementation.
According to the Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations, young people are recognised as guardians of the future as it pertains to human rights, and therefore are essential actors within policy-making spaces. Yet despite this recognition, youth-led civic work often loses visibility once initial initiatives conclude or become confined to symbolic participation.
Many civic organisations and policymakers endorse the importance of youth engagement — but how consistently is this commitment being realised in practice? How can the UK effectively support its young population in sustaining meaningful and long-term civic participation? Drawing from my own experience within youth civic–political representation, I have found that advocacy alone is not sufficient to ensure lasting impact. The key lies in building strong, multi-stakeholder partnerships and structured funding/financial investment.
Bridging Principle and Practice: Why Youth Belong in Diplomacy
Within the sphere of diplomacy and international relations, we know that young people’s voices must and should be included. They bring a multitude of valuable contributions: representational perspectives, digital fluency and cross-cultural understanding. Their presence and participation are an indicator of a functioning and active democracy. Allowing financial, social or ageist obstacles to bar young activists from these policy-making processes leaves decision-making spaces at risk of being characterised by limited representation and homogeneous perspectives. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security recognises this risk. Two of its five pillars—participation and protection—explicitly call for young people to be involved in, and safeguarded within, decision-making processes. High-level institutions, therefore, acknowledge at least in principle that inclusive participation is essential to sustainable peacebuilding and democratic resilience. Yet translating this recognition into consistent practice remains uneven. The gap between rhetoric and implementation sets the stage for examining how youth participation can be institutionalised more effectively, a question explored through the Y7 framework in the next section.
The Y7 in Action: A Blueprint for Youth Representation
The Y7 serves as the official youth engagement group of the G7, providing a tangible model for embedding youth participation within international governance. Each year, young delegates from G7 countries undertake months of policy negotiation, culminating in an official communiqué presented to the host government. In the UK, delegates are appointed by the Future Leaders Network (FLN), a non-profit organisation committed to cultivating the next generation of social, political, and economic leaders. This year, the Y7 Summit convened in Ottawa, Canada, where delegates collaboratively produced the Y7 2025 Communiqué — addressing key global priorities including technology, climate change, peace and security, and the economy. As the UK’s representatives on Peace and Security, I had the privilege of advocating for the interests of young people on the international stage. Our work extended beyond policy drafting to active engagement with embassies, civil society organisations, and private sector actors, building consensus around youth-informed policy priorities.
The Y7 model offers a twofold approach to institutionalising youth participation. Firstly, delegates are required to represent the perspectives of young people through direct consultation, ensuring that policy recommendations are informed by primary, youth-led evidence. Secondly, by appointing only individuals aged 18–30, the FLN guarantees that those shaping the agenda are themselves the demographic affected by it. This structure exemplifies how youth representation can be operationalised rather than merely symbolised. However, as with most youth engagement platforms, the challenge lies in ensuring that these contributions are not confined to annual cycles of advocacy but sustained through ongoing partnership and policy follow-up.
Beyond Representation: Building the Infrastructure for Sustainable Youth Engagement
Meaningful inclusion requires more than visibility—it demands structure. While platforms like the Y7 demonstrate considerable progress, their long-term impact depends on financial and institutional support that outlives individual programmes or delegate cycles. Too often, young representatives are expected to operate without adequate funding, mentoring, or organisational backing, which undermines the sustainability of their advocacy. The recent closure of the British Youth Council (BYC)—a once-vital institution for youth representation in the UK—illustrates the fragility of youth participation when it is underfunded and overly reliant on short-term grants.
To embed longevity in youth engagement, the UK must shift from ad hoc initiatives to systemic integration. This involves three key steps.
First, increasing stakeholder awareness through strategic advocacy campaigns—particularly targeting policymakers, funders and institutions that influence civic spaces. Through my own engagement with stakeholders, including Members of Parliament, peers in the House of Lords, embassies, and civil society organisations, I have seen how collaborative partnerships can amplify youth-led advocacy beyond the conference stage. By securing meetings, sharing the Y7 communiqué, and initiating policy-focused discussions, these networks helped elevate our recommendations from a youth document to a credible policy reference point. Visibility among decision-makers not only validates the work of young advocates but also establishes a framework for continuity, ensuring that youth-driven outputs like the communiqué inform future consultations and agendas.
Second, strengthening the capacity of youth-led organisations through consistent funding streams and access to networks that enhance their credibility and influence. A policy proposal actually mentioned within the Y7 2025 Communiqué “Invest in accelerating integration and institutionalization of YPS National Action Plans (NAP) by: providing an official YPS budget plans and Focal Points, by 2026”.
Finally, fostering long-term cross-sector partnerships between government, academia and the private sector to ensure young voices are not merely consulted, but co-design policy interventions with long-term accountability mechanisms. The support of a blend of private, governmental and charity stakeholders pushes a stronger collective mandate, lending both legitimacy and influence to youth-led policy initiatives.
To conclude, platforms like the Y7 provide young civic actors with the space to make initial disruptions in policy discourse. Yet it is through formalised partnerships with institutional stakeholders, coupled with consistent financial support, that these efforts can transition from symbolic participation to sustained influence. Embedding such structures within existing policy frameworks is key to ensuring that youth engagement is not episodic, but enduring.
About the Author
Shakana Sheppard is a graduate from the University of Nottingham having completed her degree in Politics and International Relations. Since then, she has worked on strategic communications and political research in a variety of positions, and is currently interning at Ferrero in their Corporate Affairs department. Most recently, Shakana represented the United Kingdom at the Youth G7 (Y7) Summit on Peace and Security. Be sure to follow her work here.