this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025

123 points (91.8% liked)

News

30730 readers

3138 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

admiralpatrick@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

123

Young Europeans losing faith in democracy, poll finds (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 11 hours ago by babysandpiper@sopuli.xyz to c/news@lemmy.world

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org 47 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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.]

[–] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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).

[–] Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

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.

[–] Ooops@feddit.org 21 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

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...

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Ooops@feddit.org 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

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.

[+] freshnup@feddit.org 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[+] freshnup@feddit.org 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

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.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 5 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

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

[–] 001Guy001@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

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).

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 5 hours ago

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.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

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.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Understandable if they can't reap the benefits.

[–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

And what are the benefits of authoritarian rule for its citizens? Given enough time, those rulers will cause harm in any circumstance.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago

Of course

[–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago

Germany highest at 71%...lol in the worst possible way

If this is any way true, we're in for a fuck of ride