Luigi Di Martino

Our recent article, written with Pip Collin as part of the New Possibilities: Student Climate Action and Democratic Renewal project, examines governmental listening in the context of youth climate activism and democratic responsiveness.

The article starts from a relatively simple but important question: what does it mean for governments to genuinely listen to young people?

In democratic systems, participation is often treated as evidence of inclusion. Young people may be invited into consultations, advisory structures or public engagement processes: these initiatives are frequently presented as indicators of democratic openness. However, participation alone does not necessarily mean that young people are being heard in ways that shape political understanding, policy priorities or institutional responses.

The article argues that listening should be understood not merely as a communicative skill or interpersonal virtue but as a governance practice. Governments continuously make decisions about which voices are recognised as legitimate, which forms of knowledge are treated as credible and which concerns are incorporated into policy processes.

This perspective becomes particularly relevant in relation to youth climate activism.

Movements such as School Strike 4 Climate have demonstrated significant organisational capacity and political sophistication while successfully shifting climate change further into public and political debate. At the same time, institutional responses to these movements have often been uneven. Public officials may acknowledge the importance of youth participation rhetorically while remaining resistant to the claims, urgency or forms of knowledge advanced by young activists.

The article therefore examines the distinction between visibility and responsiveness. Forms of visibility within the democratic processes does not necessarily translate into influence. Young people may gain media attention and symbolic recognition while still being excluded from meaningful decision-making processes.

Questions of epistemic justice are central to this discussion.

Epistemic justice concerns whose knowledge is recognised as authoritative and whose experiences are dismissed or marginalised. Young people are often positioned within political discourse as emotionally engaged but lacking expertise or political maturity. These assumptions shape how institutions interpret youth activism and can limit the extent to which young people are recognised as legitimate political actors.

Approaching listening through the lens of epistemic justice helps move beyond procedural understandings of participation. It shifts attention towards the power relations that shape democratic communication and the conditions under which some voices are heard more readily than others.

The article also suggests that governmental listening should not be understood as agreement or policy adoption. Democratic listening instead involves serious and accountable engagement with public claims, including transparency around how governments interpret, respond to and justify their decisions.

More broadly, the article contributes to ongoing debates about democratic responsiveness, political communication and the relationship between citizens and institutions in contemporary democracies. At a time when public trust in institutions is increasingly contested, questions about listening remain central to democratic renewal.

Article available here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10904018.2026.2679765#d1e223