ARE YOU A GATEKEEPER?

Are youth offices truly empowering the next generation, or have they become gatekeepers, stifling the very voices they were meant to elevate? Underneath the well-intentioned facade of these institutions lies a troubling reality: exclusivity, power struggles, and bureaucratic barriers. We should ask ourselves: are we building bridges for youth or walls to keep them out?

Have you ever asked yourself if you are a gatekeeper? If not, have you observed gatekeeping tendencies in youth engagement? Chances are, you have. Whereas we live in a world that constantly needs fresh perspectives and boundless energy from young people, we witness a disturbing trend. The institutions designed to elevate youth voices – youth offices, advisory boards, and similar bodies – have become gatekeepers, impeding the progress they meant to foster.

Initially created to bridge the gap between generations, they now stand as walls reinforced by bureaucracy, ego, and an unquenchable thirst for power—traits that would make even Machiavelli proud. One of the most visible forms of gatekeeping manifests through exclusivity. Youth offices have turned into private clubs, where gaining access often depends more on whom you know than what you can contribute.

Opportunities that should be available to anyone with the passion and drive to create change are instead reserved for those with the right connections, background, or family ties. The entire structure begins to resemble a velvet-roped club where an inner circle of well-connected individuals decide who gets in and who remains outside. This is not just a problem limited to youth organisations; More relatable to the NGO world – who is your contact?

Then there is the issue of power, a force that corrupts even the most idealistic. Young leaders, who often begin their journeys full of optimism and the desire to make a difference, can easily succumb to the intoxicating allure of power. What starts as a noble cause can quickly evolve into a quest for titles, perks, and status. Before long, the focus shifts from advocating for their peers to building personal empires, which creates a toxic environment where ego reigns supreme and the needs of the youth are sidelined.

The Tactics

One particularly damaging outcome of this power play is that youth leadership positions, which should be a revolving door for new voices and ideas, often become lifetime appointments. The world is constantly changing, and the perspectives that drive meaningful action should change along with it. Yet, too usually, we see youth leaders holding onto their positions with a vice-like grip, unwilling to make room for the next wave of changemakers. This stagnation halts progress, stifles innovation, and breeds resentment among young people who feel locked out of the system and denied the chance to contribute.

Even when youth organisations attempt to engage young people, there is often a subtle but insidious form of tokenism. Some organisations handpick a few ‘model’ young individuals to represent the masses. These chosen representatives are typically selected for their conformity, their willingness to adhere to the organisation’s narrative, and their ability to uphold its polished image. However, these individuals rarely reflect the true diversity of the youth they claim to represent. As a result, policies and programmes developed under their guidance often fail to address the real concerns of marginalised communities or acknowledge the nuanced intersectionality that defines exclusion.

Meanwhile, the bureaucratic labyrinth that defines many youth offices presents another hurdle. Endless meetings, complex procedures, and a relentless focus on compliance over actual impact create an environment that wears down even the most passionate young leaders. The enthusiasm and energy that should be harnessed for change are drained by red tape. In many cases, youth offices become puppets controlled by political or organisational powers lurking behind the scenes. Their purpose shifts from amplifying youth voices to echoing approved narratives. This betrayal of their fundamental mission silences dissent and turns these institutions into tools for manipulation rather than empowerment.

Even when young people secure a seat at the table, they often find themselves starved of the resources, training, and support necessary to make a meaningful impact. Without adequate funding, guidance, and tools, these youth are set up to fail, their potential muted and wasted. What good is a youth-focused initiative if it lacks the resources to succeed? The answer is simple: it becomes an empty gesture, a form of performative inclusion that serves only to maintain the status quo.

Exclusion takes many forms, and language itself can be a gatekeeping tactic. Youth offices often speak in jargon, acronyms, and obscure references that alienate young people. Rather than fostering an inclusive environment where young voices are heard and valued, these institutions create an atmosphere of intimidation and exclusion.

Another way youth organisations reinforce gatekeeping is by hoarding information. Transparency is crucial to any democratic process, yet many youth offices operate in secrecy, withholding essential information that could help young people hold leaders accountable. This lack of transparency breeds mistrust and cynicism, causing young people to disengage entirely from a system that appears rigged against them. Worse still, those who do not fit the mould of the ‘ideal youth leader’ are often ignored or dismissed. Their concerns are seen as irrelevant, and their voices are silenced. This sense of powerlessness pushes young people further from civic engagement, creating a generation that feels unheard and undervalued.

Some youth offices even foster an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, pitting young people against adults or other stakeholders. Rather than encouraging collaboration, they create divisions that hinder progress and deepen mistrust. Similarly, there is often a paternalistic attitude among youth offices, where leaders assume they know what is best for young people without consulting them. This top-down approach is condescending and entirely counterproductive, as it disregards the lived experiences of the people these organisations should serve.

The problem is often compounded by the fact that many youth offices depend on external funding. This reliance on funders can shift organisational priorities, making them more focused on pleasing financial backers than on serving the needs of young people.

The Ripple Effect

Even the selection process for youth representatives can be elitist, favouring candidates with specific backgrounds, connections, or educational qualifications. This perpetuates inequality, shutting out talented young people who do not fit the mould. To make matters worse, many youth offices take a ‘one size fits all’ approach to their initiatives, failing to recognise the unique needs of different communities. This lack of nuance leads to ineffective solutions and further alienates young people whose voices are not being heard.

In some cases, youth leaders develop a ‘saviour complex,’ believing they alone can rescue their peers from their problems. This arrogance alienates the people they aim to help, undermining their agency and stifling genuine empowerment.

Some youth offices, rather than fostering diverse viewpoints, become echo chambers where only a limited range of ideas are heard. Promises are often made, but follow-through is rare, leaving young people disillusioned and frustrated. When things go wrong, blame is quickly shifted to external factors or the young people themselves, rather than taking responsibility for systemic shortcomings.

Ultimately, the ripple effects of gatekeeping in youth offices are devastating. It creates a generation of disillusioned young people who feel unheard, undervalued, and powerless. It perpetuates inequality, leaving marginalised communities further behind. Most importantly, it robs society of the innovative ideas, fresh perspectives, and passionate energy that young people bring.