Support is lowest in France, Spain and Poland, while 21% back authoritarian rule under certain circumstances
Only half of young people in France and Spain believe that democracy is the best form of government, with support even lower among their Polish counterparts, a study has found.
A majority from Europe’s generation Z – 57% – prefer democracy to any other form of government. Rates of support varied significantly, however, reaching just 48% in Poland and only about 51-52% in Spain and France, with Germany highest at 71%.
More than one in five – 21% – would favour authoritarian rule under certain, unspecified circumstances. This was highest in Italy at 24% and lowest in Germany with 15%. In France, Spain and Poland the figure was 23%.
Nearly one in 10 across the nations said they did not care whether their government was democratic or not, while another 14% did not know or did not answer.
Actually young Europeans are losing faith in the actual implementation where constantly lying politicians suffer zero consequences while the media floods everything with bullshit as a diversion.
This BS article with it’s utter misrepresentation of the actual study cited is a perfect example of the latter…
This is a very weird framing of this study. The original study (which is linked in the article) is in German. Those who don’t speak German will find a useful translation provider, I provide the study’s summary literal translation:
>Young people: EU and democracy are good, but reforms are needed
- 57% prefer democracy to any other form of government - 39% think that the EU does not function particularly democratically
- Young Europeans want change - 53% criticize the EU for being too preoccupied with trivialities instead of focusing on the essentials
- Cost of living, defense against external threats and better conditions for businesses should be priorities for the EU
- Only 42% think that the EU is one of the three most powerful global political players
Among others, the study also says (again, a direct translation, I am not paraphrasing):
48% of young Europeans believe that democracy in their country is under threat, compared to 61% in Germany. Two thirds rate their country’s membership of the EU as positive. At the same time, 53% of young people criticize the fact that the EU is too often concerned with minor issues. Half of 16 to 26-year-olds think the EU is a good idea, but very poorly implemented.
I don’t say that everything is perfect, but the whole study paints a completely different picture than this article - and especially its headline - appears to suggest.
[Edit my comments for clarity, translation has not been edited.]
This was very informative.
It would also be of interest to see the formulation of the questions. A lot of the far-right deny that their views are authoritarian or autocratic and just call it “democracy”. I wonder how narrow the questions and how well they can highlight a distiction between e.g. " democracy" (which may include autocratic rule) and “liberal democracy” (which would not include autocracy).
Unfortunately there is only a German version of the study, I don’t know whether you speak German or you may manage to get a automated translation.
Study: Junges Europe 2025 / Young Europe 2025 - (PDF)
In the study (85 pages) you see each question and the response.
Last year the study was also available in English (Young Europe 2024 - pdf)
I hope this helps somehow.
One would think on the decline of democracy and accompanying problems you should gain faith in democracy.
But somehow it’s always the opposite.
The less scientific progress there is, the more people “lose faith in it”, the less peace there is, the more people are skeptical of it, the less equality there is, the less people value it.
I think it’s not natural, rather an illustration of covert media propaganda being very powerful.
I think it’s not natural, rather an illustration of covert media propaganda being very powerful.
That the point…
In reality nobody loses faith in democracy. They simply criticise the application/implementation (specifically the EU one that isn’t very democratic in the first place and the total lack of consequences for lying politicians).
But the decline of democracy has another facet… the deteriation of media quality and information being replaced by attention seeking and framed clickbait bullshit. Which is what brings you this rediculous misinterpretation of the cited study.
Or: reading this article should not tell you that people lose faith in democracy but should make you lose faith in journalistisc standards at the Guardian.
Ah man I hate being just old enough to remember the stories about what the alternative is like. I suppose youth have the excuse of ignorance, but still.
deleted by creator
The problem is more how money is unevenly allocated and swings outcomes. A democracy that can be bought isn’t really a democracy at all.
deleted by creator
Your suggestion would have us choose an arbitrary measure of achievement to say who is allowed full participation in a society. That seems extremely fraught, to say the least. Why is education any better than amount of land owned? Or tax paid? Or holiness? Or age/experience?
From a certain perspective, each of those groups has a more vested interest in successful governance than other groups. And each has an agenda to promote their own interests.
You think education is important because presumably you are educated. I’m not, in the traditional sense. Everything I know is self-taught through reading and hard work. And I work in a field where almost every single person I encounter is better educated than me, down to the interns. And I am more capable than 90% of them.
Education alone doesn’t make one more capable of clear reasoning or logical thinking and its lack is no preclusion. It’s just another arbitrary distinction. You are suggesting a meritocracy based on education rather than wealth or status, but it’s still a meritocracy with all the flaws that entails.
Sometimes, I feel like you do. It’s hard to see so many stupid people harming society for stupid reasons. But then I remind myself they need representation, too. They are part of society. And importantly they think they are the smart ones and I’m the stupid one, and judging based on intelligence depends greatly on who is doing the judging. You and I might not both make the cut depending on what knowledge is valued, how it’s measured, and where the line is drawn.
Democracy doesnt have to, and usually doesn’t, involve giving everyone a say in literally everything. For example, in the US people did not have the ability to vote for their senators until we had an established public education system in the early 20th century. So our original senate was much closer to something like the house of lords in the UK.
While allowing people to directly elect all their congressional representatives didnt go bad right away, 100 years later its pretty clear that the average person is far too incompetent to be voting for their senate representation. Public education, good as it might be compared to having none at all, is compromised as hell and does not inspire quality civic engagement.
Honestly our country would be far better off if only people who’ve earned some degree of higher education could vote for their state’s senators, but of course that would be billed as undemocratic and elitist quite easily by anyone who opposed it. There are plenty of morons with a college education, but it would be better simply by virtue of not having both houses of congress able to be captured by the exact same stupidity
The problem is that the people at the top don’t want informed citizens. There should be a citizenry(?) class through 3 years of high school, and there should be a sort of public access channel (including online) that disseminates all relevant political information (local and general).
That would make the situation even worse by reducing the pool the rich have to buy to get the majority to contribute to their wealth even more. The problems we face with democracy aren’t driven by poor education. Poor education is a component but it’s a consequence of the main driver which is accumulation of wealth in few hands. Those use that wealth to keep it and accumulate more by buying elected officials, buying campaigns, running their own people, buying the media, defunding the education system that educates the majority, etc. Reducing the voting power of the majority would make this cheaper to do for the owner class, which would lead to increased exploitation and decrease in the living standards of the majority. Eventually leading to social unrest of some sort. Instead you want to introduce more democratic power for the majority, especially where the generated wealth is separated from them - in the workplace. If you get democracy in the work place, the workers would likely vote to keep more of the value they produce, leaving less to accumulate as wealth in the owner class. Leaving less money to buy elected representatives with the owners and more money with workers to buy political representation of their own.
The right would immediately use that to disenfranchise blacks, queers, and women. “You need a degree from an accredited college to vote, and coincidentally women only schools don’t count, nor do historically black ones”
We can’t just kill all the conservatives but if you could somehow prevent them from accessing power, we’d be better off.
Understandable if they can’t reap the benefits.
And what are the benefits of authoritarian rule for its citizens? Given enough time, those rulers will cause harm in any circumstance.
Of course
Germany highest at 71%…lol in the worst possible way
If this is any way true, we’re in for a fuck of ride
