BEYOND THE TABLE: YOUTH IN POLICY MAKING AND THE IJELE PRINCIPLE OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

My Reflections from the Enugu Youth Conference 2026

Yesterday, 12 August 2026, as the world marked International Youth Day, Enugu State hosted the Enugu Youth Conference 2026 at the International Conference Centre, Enugu, under a theme that is both timely and demanding: “YOUTH IN POLICY MAKING: A VISION OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY.”

The theme sounds attractive. It is the kind of theme that naturally draws applause because everybody likes the idea of young people being included. But beneath the beautiful language lies a more difficult question: What does it actually mean to include young people in policy making?

Is it enough to invite young people into a conference hall, give them seats around a table, allow them to listen to government officials, take photographs with policymakers and then send them home with certificates and souvenirs?

I respectfully submit that it is not.

A seat at the table without a voice at the table is only decorative inclusion.

Youth participation must not become another political vocabulary that sounds progressive but produces little change. If young people are to be incorporated into policy discussions, there must be institutional guarantees that make their participation meaningful, their contributions measurable and their voices capable of influencing outcomes.

Otherwise, we may succeed in putting young people in the room while leaving them completely absent from the decisions made in that room.

THE CONFERENCE AND THE QUESTION OF REAL PARTICIPATION

One of the important interventions at the conference was the emphasis by the Keynote Speaker, the Secretary to the Enugu State Government, on the need to incorporate young people into the table of policy discussion.

That proposition deserves commendation.

But it also deserves interrogation. Why?

Because the central question should not merely be “Are young people represented?” The more important question is “What happens to the voice of the young person after he or she has been represented?”

There is a profound difference between presence and participation.

A person can be present without participating. A person can participate without influencing. A person can influence without deciding. And a person can be given the illusion of influence while the actual decision has already been taken elsewhere.

That is why youth participation must move beyond symbolism.

The young person should not be invited merely to satisfy a demographic requirement. He should not be brought into government programmes simply because photographs require youthful faces. He should not be appointed to committees merely so that the committee can proudly announce that “youths were represented.”

The youth must be able to ask difficult questions.

The youth must be able to disagree.

The youth must be able to propose alternatives.

The youth must be able to challenge policies that are inimical to their generation.

And, most importantly, there must be a mechanism through which those contributions can affect the final policy.

As the old Latin maxim puts it, Audi alteram partem; hear the other side.

If the government genuinely desires youth participation, then the youth must not only be heard; their submissions must be considered before decisions are reached.

FROM “A SEAT” TO “A VOICE”

This is where I believe the conversation about youth inclusion needs to become more courageous.

For years, we have complained that young people are excluded from governance. The obvious solution appears to be to bring them into the room. But bringing them into the room is only the first step.

Suppose ten young people sit in a policy committee of twenty persons, but every proposal they make is routinely ignored. Have we achieved youth participation?

Suppose young representatives attend meetings, but the agenda has already been determined and decisions already agreed upon before the meeting begins. Have we achieved youth participation?

Suppose young people are invited to make recommendations, but nobody is required to explain why those recommendations were accepted or rejected. Have we achieved youth participation?I would argue that we have not.

We have achieved youth presence, not youth participation.

There is an important lesson here from the philosophy of representation. Edmund Burke famously observed that a representative owes his constituents not merely his industry but his judgment. Representation, therefore, is not simply about occupying a chair; it is about carrying a voice, exercising judgment and advancing interests.

The same principle applies to youth representation.

A youth representative who cannot speak freely, challenge policy, access information or communicate the concerns of his constituency is little more than furniture around the policy table.

The chair is not the achievement. The voice is.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION

The Nigerian constitutional framework itself provides a foundation for understanding why meaningful participation matters.

Section 14(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), provides that “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom the government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority.”

That provision carries an important democratic implication.

The government is not an institution existing independently of the people. Its authority derives from the people.

Furthermore, section 14(2)(b) declares that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.”

If young people constitute a significant part of the population, their welfare cannot reasonably be treated as an afterthought in public policy.

Section 14(2)(c) also recognises the participation of the people in their government.This is important because democracy cannot be reduced to periodic voting.

Democracy is not merely the right to choose government; it is also the right to participate in the processes through which government affects one’s life.

A young Nigerian who votes today but has no meaningful avenue to contribute to policies affecting education, employment, entrepreneurship, digital innovation, transportation, climate, security, technology and the future of the economy is participating only at the narrowest end of democracy.

Democracy must have a life beyond election day.

YOUTH PARTICIPATION MUST HAVE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL TEETH

If youth participation is to become demonstrably meaningful, it must be institutionalised.

Government should establish permanent Youth Policy Advisory Councils at state and local government levels, composed of young people selected through transparent and diverse processes.

Such councils should not merely be ceremonial.

They should have the statutory or administrative authority to: • Review proposed youth-related policies before adoption; • Submit formal recommendations to ministries, departments and agencies; • Request responses from the government on recommendations made; • Participate in public budget consultations concerning youth programmes; • Monitor the implementation of youth-focused policies; • Publish periodic reports on government performance concerning youth development; and • Nominate or recommend youth representatives to relevant policy committees.

The most important element, however, is this: The government should be required to respond to substantive recommendations.

If a Youth Council recommends that a particular policy should be amended, the responsible ministry should not simply ignore it. It should state whether the recommendation has been accepted, modified or rejected and, where rejected, provide reasons.

That simple mechanism transforms consultation from a ceremony into accountability.

REPRESENTATION MUST ALSO BE DIVERSE

Another danger is the creation of what may be called “elite youth representation.”

Sometimes when the government says “youths,” it means a small circle of politically connected young people. But the Nigerian youth population is not homogeneous.

The young entrepreneur has different concerns from the unemployed graduate.

The student has different concerns from the young artisan.

The young farmer has different concerns from the technology entrepreneur.

A young person living in an urban centre may experience government differently from a young person in a rural community.

Therefore, meaningful youth participation must be geographically, economically, socially and professionally diverse.

A youth policy table that contains only young people who already have access to power risks becoming an echo chamber.

The youth table must have room for the young person whose voice has never before reached the government office.

CONSULTATION MUST COME BEFORE DECISION, NOT AFTER IT

There is another fundamental principle that the government must embrace.Consultation should ordinarily occur before the decision is substantially settled.

There is little value in asking young people what they think after a policy has already been designed, funded and approved.

That is not consultation.

That is notification.

There is a world of difference between saying: “This is what we have decided. What do you think?”

and saying: “This is the problem we have identified. What do you think we should do?”

The second approach respects the intelligence of citizens.

The first merely seeks their endorsement.The Latin maxim Vox populi, vox Dei (“the voice of the people is the voice of God”) should not be interpreted as a licence to accept every popular opinion uncritically. Rather, it reminds those who exercise public authority that the people are not objects of governance. They are its ultimate constituency.

YOUTH PARTICIPATION SHOULD BE MEASURABLE

Another solution is to develop measurable indicators of youth participation.

The government should be able to answer questions such as: How many youth representatives participated in the formulation of this policy?

What recommendations did they make?Which recommendations were accepted?Which were rejected?

Why were they rejected?

What proportion of youth-related programmes emerged from youth consultations?

How much of the youth development budget was influenced by youth recommendations?

What percentage of youth representatives came from different local government areas?

How often were youth representatives consulted?

Once participation becomes measurable, tokenism becomes much harder to hide.

What cannot be measured is often difficult to hold accountable.

THE DANGER OF TOKENISM

Tokenism is perhaps the greatest enemy of genuine youth inclusion.It occurs when institutions include young people principally to create the appearance of inclusiveness without surrendering any meaningful influence.

A young person is invited to the conference.

He speaks.

He takes photographs.

He receives applause.

He posts the pictures on social media.Then the real decisions continue somewhere else.

That is not empowerment.

That is a political decoration.

Young people should not become the flowers placed around the table while others eat the meal.

If the government sincerely believes that the future belongs to the youth, then young people must not merely be used to advertise the future. They must be entrusted with a role in constructing it.

THE MEANING OF “SHARED RESPONSIBILITY”

But the theme of the conference contains another phrase that deserves equal attention: shared responsibility.

This phrase is important because youth participation should not be presented as though the government owes young people everything while young people owe government nothing.

That would be an incomplete understanding of citizenship.Rights and responsibilities walk together.

The youth must demand accountability from the government, but the youth must also accept the responsibility of being informed, disciplined, constructive and patriotic.

Young people cannot demand a seat at the table and then refuse to prepare themselves for the conversation.

We cannot demand representation without developing competence.

We cannot demand leadership without cultivating character.

We cannot demand accountability while celebrating corruption when it benefits us.

We cannot condemn political godfatherism and then secretly desire a godfather of our own.

We cannot complain that our generation is excluded from governance while refusing to understand budgets, legislation, public administration, policy formulation and civic responsibility.

Shared responsibility means that the government must open the door, but the youth must walk through it prepared.

THE IJELЕ PRINCIPLE: WHEN THE MASQUERADE DANCES, THE VILLAGE DANCES

This is where the Igbo cultural analogy of Ijele becomes particularly powerful.

Ijele is not simply a masquerade that emerges from the forest and suddenly becomes magnificent before the eyes of the community.

Behind the spectacle is organisation.

Behind the dance is preparation.

Behind the grandeur is the contribution of many hands.The beauty of Ijele is not the product of one person.

Different people, groups and traditional roles contribute to the preparation, protection, presentation and performance of the masquerade. There are those who prepare the masquerade, those who accompany it, those who provide music, those who create the atmosphere, those who maintain order and those whose collective efforts allow the performance to become what the community eventually celebrates.

The person watching the magnificent masquerade may see only Ijele.But the community knows that Ijele did not walk alone.

That, to me, is the true meaning of shared responsibility.

When Ijele eventually emerges, nobody who contributed to its emergence should say, “The glory belongs only to me.”

The masquerade carries the labour of the community on its body.

The glory of the performance is collective because the responsibility for the performance was collective.

That is precisely how governance should work.

GOVERNMENT IS THE IJELЕ; THE PEOPLE ARE THE HANDS BEHIND IT

Imagine the government as Ijele.

The governor may stand at the centre of the performance.The commissioners may appear as the principal actors.

Permanent secretaries, civil servants, legislators, local government officials and political appointees may occupy different positions within the machinery.

But the government does not walk alone.

The students, workers, traders, farmers, artisans, professionals, entrepreneurs, civil society organisations and, importantly, young people, are part of the community whose collective participation gives government legitimacy.

When the government succeeds, the glory should not belong exclusively to those sitting in offices.

It belongs to the people.

When the government fails, responsibility cannot simply be pushed downward onto citizens.

Those who possess greater decision-making authority must bear greater responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

That is the philosophy of shared responsibility.

Salus populi suprema lex esto: the welfare of the people should be the supreme law.

If a policy succeeds, everyone should benefit.

If a policy fails, those responsible must be accountable.

If a policy is being formulated, those affected should have a reasonable opportunity to contribute.

That is the Ijele principle of governance.

THE YOUTH SHOULD NOT ONLY DANCE AROUND THE IJELЕ

There is, however, an even deeper lesson.

Young people must not merely be the people dancing around the masquerade.

They must also participate in determining how the masquerade is prepared, where it goes, what it represents and how its performance is judged.

For too long, young people have sometimes been treated as the energetic crowd around politics.

We are invited to rallies.We are asked to make noise. Just to shout of the greatest kpo kpo or gba gba.

We are expected to mobilise crowds.

We are used extensively during campaigns.

But when the serious policy discussions begin, the microphone mysteriously becomes heavier.

That must change.

Youth participation must move from mobilisation to formulation; from cheering to deliberation; from the crowd to the committee; from the campaign ground to the policy room.

Young people should not merely be good enough to be political campaign banner bearers.

They should be considered competent enough to carry policy portfolios.

FROM SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVISM TO POLICY ACTIVISM

The digital generation also has an enormous responsibility.

Today, a young person can mobilise thousands of people with a smartphone.

That is power.

But influence without knowledge can easily become noise.

The new generation of youth leaders must therefore become students of policy.

Understand the Constitution.

Understand public finance.

Understand legislation.Understand how budgets work.

Understand procurement.

Understand local government administration.

Understand how policies are drafted and implemented.

Understand the difference between a promise and an appropriation.

Understand the difference between political rhetoric and an enforceable government programme.

The youth must become too informed to be manipulated.

As Francis Bacon famously put it, “Knowledge itself is power.”

A youth population that understands government becomes harder to deceive and easier to involve meaningfully.

THE GOVERNMENT MUST ALSO TRUST THE YOUTH

But responsibility cannot be placed entirely upon young people.

The government must also overcome the mentality that youth equals inexperience.

Age can be a source of experience, but age alone is not a certificate of wisdom.

History has repeatedly demonstrated that young people can lead movements, build institutions, develop technologies, create businesses and transform societies.

The appropriate question should not always be: “How old are you?”

It should also be: “What can you contribute?”

A 25-year-old who understands the problem may have a better policy proposal than a 60-year-old who has never experienced the problem.

The youth should therefore be assessed not merely by age but by competence, character, capacity and commitment.

If I were to propose a simple framework for genuine youth participation, it would be four words:

LISTEN. CONSIDER. RESPOND. IMPLEMENT.

Listen: Give young people genuine opportunities to speak.

Consider: Ensure their proposals are properly examined by policymakers.

Respond: Explain what the government has accepted, modified or rejected and why.

Implement: Where a youth proposal is adopted, ensure that it moves from paper to reality.

This is where participation becomes demonstrable.

A government that listens but never considers has not genuinely participated.

A government that considers but never responds lacks transparency.

A government that responds but never implements lacks seriousness.

The full cycle must be completed.

YOUTH PARTICIPATION SHOULD BEGIN BEFORE ELECTIONS

There is also a need to redefine political education.

Young people should not become interested in government only when elections are approaching.

We should be interested in how policies are formulated even when there is no election.

We should attend town hall meetings.

Read government budgets.

Monitor legislative proceedings.

Engage ministries.Submit memoranda.

Join civil society initiatives.

Ask questions.

Write policy briefs.

Build youth associations around issues rather than personalities.

The future of democratic governance cannot be built solely around political parties.

It must also be built around an informed citizenry.

THE PLACE OF UNIVERSITIES

Our universities should become laboratories for democratic participation.

Students should be encouraged to debate actual public policies, not merely theories for examinations.

Student unions should move beyond welfare complaints and become centres of civic education.

By: ONANIKEM DAVID CHUKWUBUIKEM (CLASSIC KÍDDY) ESUT, LAW FACULTY