La democracia que tenemos: lecciones de los Consejos de Juventud en Colombia

Diana Dajer, Democracy Manager, Corona Foundation

Camilo Recio, Advocacy Leader, Corona Foundation

Introduction

In January 2026, the new Municipal and Local Youth Councils took office in Colombia, elected in October 2025 by young people aged 14 to 28 from across the country. This transition not only inaugurates a new cycle of youth influence but also offers a window into Colombian democracy from two complementary perspectives, which are analyzed in this article: its institutional design and structure as a barometer of participatory democracy in Colombia, and the electoral results as a reflection of representative democracy from a youth perspective. Based on this dual analysis, the article identifies the main successes and challenges of this body and positions it as a case study on participatory and representative democracy in Colombia.

Methodologically, it contains the results of a case study on Youth Councils in Colombia at the national and local levels, using a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative evidence. On the quantitative side, the 2021 and 2025 election results are examined. On the qualitative side, the legal provisions that comprise the institutional framework of this body are reviewed, along with national and local assessments of the National Youth System and the Municipal and Local Youth Councils, and the enabling conditions for youth participation in Colombia, complemented by recent literature on participation and democracy.

The analysis reveals that the Youth Councils reflect a central tension within Colombian democracy. On the one hand, their institutional framework confirms that participatory democracy in the country has a broad normative commitment, supported by multiple bodies. However, it also demonstrates that the existence of this framework does not, in itself, guarantee its effectiveness, which depends on unequal local capacities and real-world conditions for influence. On the other hand, regarding representative democracy, the electoral data shows signs of uneven consolidation of the mechanism at the territorial level, revealing persistent gaps and differentiated conditions for exercising the right to vote.

The text is organized into four sections. Following this introduction, the next section analyzes the institutional architecture, structure, and functions of the Youth Councils and what they reveal about participatory democracy in Colombia. This is followed by an electoral review of the last two Youth Council elections and what the data reflects about representative democracy from a youth perspective. The text concludes with a summary that positions the Councils as a case study for understanding the challenges and opportunities of democracy in Colombia and for strengthening it in the future.

Youth Councils from their institutional architecture and participatory democracy in Colombia

This section analyzes the institutional architecture of Youth Councils to determine what they reflect about participatory democracy in Colombia. The first part reconstructs their normative origins and institutional development, from their initial legal recognition to more recent adjustments within the National Youth System, demonstrating how this body expresses the search for stable channels of representation, dialogue, and influence for young people. The second part examines their structure, composition, and main functions, along with the actual conditions of their organization and operation. Based on these two segments, a critical reading of Youth Councils is proposed as an expression of participatory democracy that boasts a broad structure but is nonetheless marked by gaps in genuine youth participation.

Origin and institutional architecture

Youth Councils did not emerge as a spontaneous concession to young people, but rather as the still-developing, yet consolidating, result of a demand from youth for stable spaces for dialogue, representation, and influence. Their first formal national recognition came with Law 375 of 1997, known as the Youth Law in Colombia, which created them as bodies primarily focused on facilitating dialogue between young people and the public administration on matters of interest to them. Prior to this legal establishment, Medellín had already explored this path with a Municipal Agreement in 1994 that promoted a Municipal Youth Council, demonstrating how, even before becoming a National Law, there were already earlier expressions of the importance of these spaces for democracy (Abad, 2002).

With the Youth Citizenship Statute (Law 1622 of 2013), the concept of youth councils ceased to be merely a legal mechanism and became integrated into a broader public policy commitment to recognize young people as subjects of citizenship, with their own agendas and the right to influence public administration. Youth Councils were then defined as autonomous mechanisms for participation, consensus-building, oversight, and control of public administration, as well as platforms for dialogue between young people and local institutions. Later, Law 1885 of 2018 adjusted the system's operation and strengthened the National Youth System and the Youth Participation Subsystem, creating better conditions for its electoral implementation and its coordination with other levels and bodies.

Within this framework, Youth Councils are part of the democratic infrastructure, providing a formal channel for youth participation to move beyond spontaneous protests or occasional consultations, allowing it to be channeled and aspire to become sustained influence (at least in their conception and design). Following some local elections in places like Medellín and Bogotá, the first official activation of this mechanism at the national level, to proceed with elections for these councils across the country, took place in 2021, after a wave of social unrest led by young people.

The early experience of Medellín, viewed in retrospect, is particularly useful because it anticipates several of the challenges that remain today. Abad's study (2002) shows that, although that first experiment opened up significant spaces for representation, it also generated expectations that were later frustrated by factors such as ineffective decision-making power, low visibility among young people, and high levels of absenteeism, among others. What happened there, more than two decades ago, is not an isolated incident; it is an early sign of something more structural: the gap between creating an institution and making it function effectively.

Youth Councils, as a participatory democracy initiative that fosters dialogue between young people and institutions, become even more relevant when considered in relation to the current relationship between youth and democratic institutions. The most recent results of the Youth in Society Study (Cifras & Conceptos et al., 2026) reveal an ambivalent, and even fragile, relationship with democracy. Only 37% of young people believe that democracy produces results, 32% believe it is the best system, and only 20% are satisfied with how it functions. Furthermore, the same survey reveals that a third of young people think that democracy only benefits politicians, and a fifth believe they only participate by voting in elections. This, along with trust levels below 50% for governments, congress, and political parties, coupled with a feeling that their opinions are not valued, reflects discontent and frustration with institutions and formal channels of participation. In fact, only one-fifth reported having participated in spaces promoted by the national or local government in the past year. In this context, activating the Councils has been, in part, an attempt to close a legitimacy gap in youth participation and make more stable mechanisms for democratic participation available.

What this exploration of the origins and architecture of the Councils reveals about participatory democracy in Colombia is, at its core, a broader tension. On the one hand, the country has diverse and sophisticated normative frameworks for participation: it produces mechanisms, designs institutions, and multiplies channels. On the other hand, the difficulties with participation are not usually due to a lack of forms, but rather to the weakness of the conditions that make them effective. The architecture exists, but there is a lack of traction. There are written rules, but no effective institutional response or sufficient territorial conditions to implement them. As García Villegas (2009) explains, the legal provision alone is not enough; the problem arises when the architecture fails to translate into compliance, practices, capacities, and effective authority. Participatory democracy in Colombia opens doors, but it does not necessarily clear the way for what comes next. It recognizes young people as interlocutors, but it does not fully resolve the gaps that would allow them to participate effectively in a complex institutional framework and in a context with so many challenges.

Structure and functions

The structure of the Youth Councils reflects this institutional ambition. At its base are the Municipal and Local Councils, elected by direct popular vote by young people (ages 14–28). Their composition is odd and varies according to population density, ranging from seven to seventeen members. The electoral architecture seeks to distribute representation among independent youth lists, youth organizational processes and practices, and political parties or movements. From this base, the District, Departmental, and National Youth Councils are subsequently formed. The underlying idea is to build a system of youth representation that extends from the local level to the national level, without completely losing touch with local agendas.

Youth Councils are mechanisms for democratic participation with functions focused on dialogue, consensus-building, oversight, and control of public administration. In practice, the list of functions for council members reaches 17, increasing the complexity of understanding their role and advocating for their agendas with institutional authorities. These agendas, in turn, are understood as instruments for channeling needs and proposals related to youth contexts so that they can be translated into input for local and national governments. The complexity and expectations of the role challenge the effectiveness of youth representation. This has been documented by Mesa, Méndez, and Camelo (2024) in terms of the personal, institutional, collective, and contextual factors that limit the exercise of leadership in councils in Bogotá, a situation that is not unique to Bogotá (Leyton, 2024).

Herein lies a crucial tension: although elected by popular vote, Youth Councils are not public corporations in the same sense as a municipal council or a departmental assembly. They do not govern, they do not wield direct political power, and their members are not public servants. Legally, they are mechanisms for democratic participation aimed at shaping youth agendas. This difference, which appears technical, is profoundly political, because council members are expected to have an impact without being granted full decision-making power; they are recognized as legitimate, but they are not always sufficient tools to translate that legitimacy into results. Much of the subsequent frustration stems from this phenomenon.

In practice, the effective functioning of the Councils depends largely on territorial institutional support. The problem is that this support is not equally widespread across the country. In assessing the 2021-2025 cycle, Fundación Colombia 2050 & Asocapitales (2025) found that many municipalities continue to operate without a robust youth secretariat or coordination office; where one exists, it is often a department with a limited budget or staff. The contrast between capital cities, intermediate cities, and rural municipalities is not merely a perception, but rather an expression of differing state capacities. This, coupled with the lack of conditions for developing sufficient leadership skills for council members, also competes with the daily lives of young people, such as studying, working, or caring for others (Mesa et al., 2024; Leyton, 2024), hindering the effectiveness of their role.

What does this reveal about democracy in Colombia? Something uncomfortable, but useful. A democracy that is normatively sophisticated, but operationally unequal. The existence of mechanisms, but not always the capacity to sustain them. The existence of institutions that convene, but do not respond with the expected effectiveness.

Electoral balance of the Youth Councils

This section presents and analyzes the results of the two most recent national elections for Municipal and Local Youth Councils (2021 and 2025) to answer what they tell us about representative democracy in Colombia from a youth perspective. The first section offers a descriptive overview of the main comparable indicators, such as voter turnout and distribution of votes by party list. The following section interprets the data and proposes conclusions based on various findings, such as signs of consolidation of the mechanism alongside persistent territorial gaps, barriers to access, and risks that affect effective equality in the right to elect and be elected.

The electoral thermometer of the Municipal Youth Councils

Prior to the 2021 national elections, local experiences with electing youth representatives to Youth Councils already existed. In Bogotá, for example, the Electoral Observation Mission (MOE) observed the 2008 Local Youth Council elections (the third election of 184 local councilors) as a process aimed at representing youth interests before district bodies (MOE, 2008). This precedent allows us to situate the 2021 and 2025 national elections within a longer trajectory of trials and adjustments to the mechanism at the local level.

According to data from the National Civil Registry (2021, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c), between 2021 and 2025, the Youth Councils show various changes. First, as an example of the decline in Colombia's demographic dividend, the electoral roll decreased from 12,282,273 eligible young voters in 2021 to 11,702,436 in 2025. However, the number of votes cast increased from 1,279,961 in 2021 to 1,500,444 in 2025, representing an increase from 10.42% of the electoral roll in 2021 to 12.81% in 2025. Meanwhile, invalid votes decreased from 23.11% in 2021 to 1.98% in 2025.

However, according to the cited references, the number of registered candidates increased from 41,792 in 2021 to 45,183 in 2025, while the number of elected candidates was 10,837 in 2021 and 11,012 in 2025. Furthermore, in 2021, the distribution of votes by sector was as follows: political parties and movements 523,110 (40.87%), independent lists 269,613 (21.06%), and organizational processes and practices 134,860 (10.54%). In 2025, the distribution was: political parties and movements 780,185 (53.35%), independent lists 411,679 (28.15%), and organizational processes and practices 270,398 (18.49%).

The EOM's election observation reports also highlight relevant conditions for the process. In 2021, in addition to recording low voter turnout at polling stations and an atypically high percentage of invalid votes, the EOM (2021a and 2021b) drew attention to the need to strengthen voter education and adjust the ballot design; it also documented operational difficulties associated with the voting procedure for young people between 14 and 17 years old. By 2025, the EOM (2025b) documented risks associated with violence and threats against candidates in some areas and reiterated challenges related to voter education, informed voting, and the training of poll watchers, especially for independent lists and youth-led processes and practices.

Based on this data, the 2021 elections can be seen as a starting point for consolidating the electoral mechanism at the national level, although some challenges remain regarding the design and adoption of the electoral procedure, such as the high number of invalid votes. In contrast, the decrease in invalid votes by 2025 is associated, among other factors, with the redesign of the ballot and operational improvements to the process. The role of the National Registry and civil society organizations in electoral education and information also stands out as a key support for youth voting. Taken together, this reinforces the idea of a gradual consolidation of the mechanism based on accumulated lessons learned, albeit with persistent challenges related to participation, territorial equity, and competitive conditions.

What does the data reveal about representative democracy?

The Youth Council elections allow us to observe how this institution has evolved over time and what it reveals about Colombian democracy. The results indicate that youth representation is not an isolated event, but rather a process that is tested, refined, and institutionalized through accumulated lessons learned. The main findings are presented below, based on the data compiled in the previous section.

First, there are signs of consolidation of the mechanism, but its legitimacy is still limited by its electoral reach. Between 2021 and 2025, despite the reduction in the youth electoral roll, the number of votes and participation as a percentage of the census increased. This growth is especially relevant because 2025 was not marked by a climate of massive youth protests like the previous cycle, characterized by the 2021 social uprising in Colombia. This suggests that the mechanism is beginning to sustain itself beyond specific periods of mobilization. Even so, the majority of eligible young people do not vote, reflecting the high rate of voter abstention in Colombia, which is around 50%.

Second, the drastic reduction in null votes suggests real improvements in the “quality” of the vote and the operational efficiency of the process, but it also confirms that institutional design matters. In 2021, the proportion of null votes was exceptionally high. By 2025, null votes had fallen to 1.98%, and the Electoral Observation Mission (MOE) attributes this improvement, among other factors, to the redesign of the ballot and operational adjustments to the process. In terms of what these data reveal about representative democracy in Colombia, this drop indicates that when the procedure is understandable and operational, youth preferences are more accurately translated into representation, frustration decreases, and trust in the electoral system increases.

Third, territorial disparities show that youth representative democracy depends on unequal local ecosystems. Thus, where there is capacity and support, the mechanism grows; where there is none, it stagnates or regresses. Although the national trend is positive, various civil society actors, such as the Colombia 2050 Foundation, have identified a heterogeneous territorial consolidation. In 2025, participation increased in 770 municipalities but decreased in nearly 300 (with declines ranging from 10% to 15%), and large cities drove the overall result, while serious challenges persist at the municipal level. These differences are explained by structural conditions such as the digital divide in rural areas and unequal territorial accessibility, given that the number of polling stations and voting booths is adjusted to the size of the youth census, which can increase participation costs in some places. Security risks are also a factor. The MOE reported acts of violence and threats against candidates in some municipalities, recalling that representation also depends on guarantees to compete and vote freely (MOE, 2025a; MOE, 2025b).

Fourth, the 2025 results reinforce a key public policy lesson: when the National Registry and civil society work together effectively, information and the voting experience improve. This highlights the work of multiple actors in education, communications, and training. Examples of this collaboration include local efforts to strengthen youth participation, led by NuestraBarranquilla and Colombia Líder; technological platforms such as Candidateados, which aim to enhance electoral participation; and the systemic work of organizations like Fundación Colombia 2050, Foro Nacional por Colombia, Fundación Bolívar Davivienda, Ethos BT, Exstituto de Política Abierta, CIVIX Colombia, the Electoral Observation Mission (MOE), Fundación Mi Sangre, Movilizatorio, Fundación Origen, Fundación Grupo Social, Fundación Smurfit Westrock, NIMD, Profamilia, the European Partnership for Democracy (EPD), the School of Government at Universidad de los Andes, the Youth Democracy Cohort, Asocapitales, Corporación Viva la Ciudadanía, and Fundación Corona. This shows that investing in civic skills and access to information improves the quality of voting and can broaden participation.

Overall, the assessment suggests that the Youth Councils operate as an early laboratory for representative democracy: they register measurable progress, for example, in participation and valid votes, but they also expose structural limitations such as territorial disparities and risks to the freedom and security of the process. The trajectory, from local experiences to the 2021–2025 national cycle, reinforces that consolidation depends not only on repeating elections, but also on strengthening the institutional and civic conditions that allow representation to function more equitably and effectively throughout the country.

Conclusion

This article analyzed Youth Councils in Colombia as a window into the country's democracy. To this end, it examined the Councils from two complementary perspectives: their origin, structure, and operation as an expression of participatory democracy, and their electoral results as a way of observing representative democracy from a youth perspective. Based on this dual analysis, the text examined the institutional design of the Councils and the outcome of the elections that have established them.

The main conclusion is that the Youth Councils embody a central tension in Colombian democracy. On the one hand, there is a broad regulatory framework: laws, institutions, and channels exist for youth participation. On the other hand, a gap persists between this framework and its implementation. Colombia has been able to design mechanisms, but not necessarily to guarantee the conditions for them to function effectively. This reveals a democracy rich in form, but unequal in opportunities, capabilities, and outcomes.

In terms of representation, the electoral results paint a mixed but encouraging picture. Between 2021 and 2025, voter turnout increased and the number of invalid votes fell dramatically, suggesting lessons learned, design improvements, and greater ownership of the electoral mechanism. At the same time, the data show that its legitimacy remains partial due to high abstention rates, unequal competitive conditions, and territorial consolidation progressing at different paces. Not all municipalities offer the same guarantees or possess the same ecosystem to sustain youth participation.

The value of these findings serves to guide adjustments to public policy, institutional decisions, and strategies for strengthening democracy. This analysis shows that consolidating the Councils depends not only on holding periodic elections, but also on clarifying the scope of their role, strengthening youth leadership skills, ensuring minimum resources for their operation, expanding electoral education, and creating conditions for more effective advocacy in local communities. This work, while primarily the responsibility of the public sector, must be shared with the private sector and academia to meet the needs of the council members and reduce the barriers to their leadership.

There are still opportunities to delve deeper into this topic, and this article is an invitation to better compare different regions and understand why some Youth Councils achieve more effective participation results, to track the trajectory of the newly elected council members, and to explore the relationship between participation, mistrust, and different forms of youth collaboration. Youth Councils are more than just a regulatory framework; they are an expression of participation that reflects the strengths, opportunities, and challenges of Colombian democracy. Investing in this mechanism is investing in the country's democratic consolidation.

Article published in the magazine of the National Forum Foundation for Colombia 🇨🇴. Available in its free, open-access digital version: https://foro.org.co/revista-foro/