Written by Angelika Santaniello
Photography by Ryan Lee
With approximately 1.5 billion people voting in 2024, and the world now beginning to experience the implications of this ‘year of elections’, it seems impossible to avoid discussing the nature of elections and the future of democracy. Yet, generating an educational environment for these conversations can be challenging, particularly as many citizens attempt to reconcile empirical evidence with media headlines and their own opinions on the state of democracy. This is foregrounded in a university environment, as an attempt to unpack the ‘year of elections’ involves an interplay between the voices of academics and, crucially, students.
‘The State of Democracy After a Year of Elections’ public panel, held in December 2024, was the culminating event of the LSE Global Politics series, channeling textured analytical commentary from LSE academics. Scattered among the 400 seats of the Sheikh Zayed Theatre were LSE alumni, students, external academics, and sixth-form students.
I found myself sitting between an A-Level student interested in politics, and an LSE alum, who had been following the research project. The panel was clearly designed to encourage political dialogue across generations; however, the proportionally limited number of LSE students who actually engaged in the discussion throughout the evening led me to question how well the external academic perspective on elections reflects student opinions.
The speakers each alluded to the growing importance of the ‘young voter’. For instance, Professor of Social Anthropology and inaugural director of LSE’s South Asia Centre, Mukulika Banerjee, emphasised that the 2024 Bangladeshi General Election “was dominated by students”.
Professor Sara Hobolt, Professor of Geography at LSE and Sutherland Chair in European Institutions, noted that challenges to political institutions have in part reflected a reality that “Young people are much more likely not to be supportive of liberal democratic institutions, [which is] concerning when you have that in conjunction with political leaders who clearly don’t have these strong norms.”
Qualifying discussions on young people, an A-Level Politics student, Jess, raised a question about the correlation between the rise of technology, social media, and right-wing populism. In response, Professor Banerjee articulated that “there is a whole political economy and industry of [those] who are creating a genre of music whose lyrics are as hateful as one can imagine—this is what plays at weddings, political rallies, demonstrations so it is in [everyone’s] subliminal subconsciousness.”
“It’s not just the trolls on social media. It’s not just the misinformation. It is the actual pushing through [of] aesthetics that is appealing to people. That is the real danger.” Hence, greater attention must be paid to educating young voters, who drive an online political presence, in detecting online propaganda and misinformation.
This reveals that the student-voter perspective is becoming increasingly pivotal in shaping electoral campaigns and outcomes, yet continues to be largely omitted from political analyses. Understanding the fibres of a ‘year of elections’ therefore requires active participation in political conversations.
A few weeks into the Winter Term, I asked LSE students to dwell on the changing political stage. Initially, several students expressed discomfort in discussing politics-related matters. Perhaps this reluctance alludes to a pervading influence of detachment from global political issues, or individuals feeling insufficiently politically informed about certain matters, and a concern with being cancelled—all inhibiting factors to productive educational discussions.
As I interviewed six students about the implications of a year of elections on the LSE community, particularly on its international student body, I enquired about their perspectives on the interplay between global and domestic political issues.
Ethan, a first-year Politics and International Relations student, focused on unilateral military action, observing that “political attitudes toward conflict and risk, particularly to civilians, [haven’t] really changed […] This shows no sign of changing unless we advocate for a more informed and aware electorate.”
Victor, a third-year International Relations student, proposed an alternative perspective: “I wouldn’t say international issues have influenced my outlook on domestic politics at first glance because I have always seen them as critically important [but] fundamentally [global political issues force] you to understand that politics is diverse and nothing is impermeable to the world.” He added, “You can’t act like an ostrich and pretend the sand of international issues doesn’t affect you.”
In other words, it is critically important to discuss politics in everyday conversations to digest the complex facets of a rapidly changing political scene.
Nour, a second-year Law student, offered a more introspective lens: “Growing up in the Arab world, I’ve always been aware of how outsiders perceive us […] Seeing how the media and politicians in the West reduce us to conflict and extremism has shaped the way I think about politics—not just in terms of how my own country is governed, but also how global power structures control narratives.” This emphasises the importance of humanising an analysis of elections, democracy, and politics through ordinary discourse.
Farah, a second-year Law and Anthropology student, built on this. “The likelihood that someone is from a country that had an election this year is so high,” she stressed, asserting the benefit of focusing on “countries that are less hegemonically powerful or even less studied in international relations and politics […] Their elections were overshadowed by the UK, US, [and] Indian elections.”
Nour elaborated on the above, sharing that “elections aren’t just about who wins and loses: they shape how entire regions and peoples are perceived.” This foregrounds the importance of framing a discussion on elections around the issues posed by problematic rhetoric, countering dangerous narratives with ordinary conversations, not only by processing academic perspectives.
Addressing the direct implications of the ‘year of elections’ on LSE students, Michelle, a second-year Law undergraduate, emphasised the role of university-provided resources in “fostering active youth citizenship.”
“[Public lectures and research hubs] encourage LSE students to engage in informed debates. [This shows] that active youth participation is crucial for ensuring that democratic decisions reflect the interests and needs of all generations,” she said. This arguably indicates a need to contextualise political discussions within the student experience.
However, Aiza, a second-year International Relations and Chinese student, points to a more damaging implication for the community: “For our generation, most of whom have lived our entire lives in uncertainty and anxiety around global politics, I think 2025 will be very hard mentally for a lot of people […] I think now more than ever the community needs to look out for each other.”
Reflecting upon the above students’ perspectives, there is a need to exceed detached academic analyses of elections. What the small sample of students collectively revealed is the importance of everyday debates in processing the personal – and communal – nuanced implications of the rapidly changing global political scene in 2024. While the panel interwove discussions of the successes of democracy and the simultaneous pervading erosion of it, it is through healthy, everyday political discussions and exchanges of views that the consequences of ‘a year of elections’ can be understood and properly acted upon. As Ethan remarked, “making our goal to ‘know the causes of things’ [is] ever more important for us.” Certainly, 2024 cannot be marked as ‘the year of elections’ if one avoids addressing all facets of elections, and if the views of the increasingly important student demographic are undermined or omitted from discussions on democracy.
