One thing that was drilled to me when I was in [university] was that we [as student activists in the 1990s] are agents of change. I think any student, everybody would say that youth are agents of change because you’re still young, you’re learning, and then eventually you will end up, hopefully, being in positions of … importance.
This quote comes from an institutional representative from ASEAN, now in his 40s, reflecting in an interview with the authors about his time as a young person who participated in the 1998 student-led movement that ended the 30-year rule of General Suharto in Indonesia. He was subsequently inspired to work at an institutional level to impact development and peace.
This evolution, from student activist to institutional representative, illustrates an overlooked feature of regional governance: that many of those now making the “rules” were, earlier in their life, those who were organizing to break them. In our recent article in The Pacific Review, we refer to this as the paradox of youth engagement in Southeast Asia.
The political engagement of young people has deep roots across the region. Long before formalized youth agendas appeared, young leaders were shaping the regional political landscape. In Indonesia, youth movements such as the kaum muda played a defining role in the anti-colonial struggle and later in pivotal moments of political transition. In Malaysia, student activism in the 1960s and 1970s pushed for social justice and gave voice to under-served communities. In the Philippines, young people played a central role in the anti-dictatorship resistance during martial law and the broader movement for national democracy.
Time and again, youth have been critical actors in reshaping political futures across Southeast Asia. This history laid the foundation for current debates about youth participation and leadership in peace and security in the region.
This year, 2025, marks a decade since the adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace, and Security, which represented the first international framework to recognize young people’s positive and central role in peace and security. Over the past decade, this agenda has been institutionalized and localized. ASEAN has recently experienced significant momentum in this area, with developments including the 2021 ASEAN Regional Forum Joint Statement on Youth, Peace, and Security and the Track 1.5 Dialogue of the ASEAN-IPR-UN Regional Workshop on Youth, Peace, and Security in 2022.
Amid this growing regional institutional focus on youth in peace and security, the paradox of youth engagement is brought into sharp relief. Youth are increasingly recognized yet remain marginalized in practice. Understanding the current dynamics of regional peace and security can be enhanced through situating the youth leadership of today within its unique historical context in the region.
Despite formal recognition through the Youth, Peace, and Security agenda, many young people in Southeast Asia continue to face what “The Missing Peace” (the first progress study on Youth, Peace, and Security) in 2018 labeled the “violence of exclusion.” This refers to the structural and psychological barriers that prevent meaningful youth participation in peace and security. Rooted in mistrust and reinforced through political, economic, and cultural systems, this form of exclusion limits access to decision-making and resources.
Importantly, this exclusion is not only passive. It is actively reproduced through the rules and practices of institutions that restrict access, such as accreditation requirements for civil society, limited funding for youth-led initiatives, and tightly-managed engagement channels.
Even when young people are invited to participate, they often face strict selection criteria, such as English fluency or institutional affiliation, which routinely excludes those most affected by conflict and marginalization. This creates a troubling disconnect. Further, within many Asian socio-cultural contexts, “traditional” privileges are embedded within age, gender and seniority, and reflected within institutional systems.
Although ASEAN has forwarded an institutional narrative of a “durable ecosystem of peace,” this may obscure deeper inequalities and exclusions. Many young people who contributed to peacebuilding efforts in the region during post-conflict transitions, natural disasters, or periods of democratic reform have been left outside of formal regional governance processes.
In taking the “violence of exclusion” experienced by young people seriously, Southeast Asia presents an opportunity to examine how historical and contemporary political dynamics intersect with the persistence of colonial frames and discourses. These are reflected within the region’s colonial legacies of hierarchies of race, class, gender, and generational authority, which laid the groundwork for current institutional structures that favour seniority and elite participation.
Regional institutional representatives often recognize this contradiction experienced by contemporary youth. They understand the value of youth inclusion because they have lived it themselves. Many shared in interviews with the authors how their earlier activism informed their current roles. Yet despite their belief in youth leadership, they often find themselves conflicted and constrained by institutional systems, hierarchy, and rigid policymaking environments.
This disconnect lies at the heart of the paradox: the very systems that once resisted youth are now led by former youth activists, yet the bureaucracies policymakers now navigate still operate with constraints toward youth-driven movements. Exclusion becomes systemic – sustained through lack of funding, limited access to policymaking spaces, and persistent doubts about youth credibility, particularly in the political-security domain. Youth exclusion in Southeast Asia is not a static phenomenon but one that is deeply entangled with shifting forms of power.
Yet despite these complex issues around institutional engagement, young people across the region are not waiting for permission to contribute to peace. This is evident in movements such as the Milk Tea Alliance, which unites youth activists across borders in their pursuit of democracy and human rights, as well as in young women mediators conducting inter-religious dialogues.
In the Philippines, youth helped drive support for the Bangsamoro peace process. In Myanmar, young people are at the forefront of the ongoing resistance against authoritarian rule. These efforts often unfold outside of institutional frameworks – through digital organizing, community-building, and local peace initiatives. They are decentralized, intersectional, and often deeply embedded in lived experience. However, without structural support or political legitimacy, these movements remain precarious.
Across Southeast Asia, youth-led forums and networks – such as the ASEAN Youth Forum and the ASEAN Youth Organization – are engaging with regional institutions on issues of peace and security. These forms of contemporary resistance echo the activism of earlier generations, yet they also reflect the changing realities of how young people mobilize, advocate, and build peace across Southeast Asia today.
A focus on youth in peace and conflict studies is crucial – not because of the so-called “problematic youth bulge” or high “demographic dividend,” but rather to explore opportunities for breaking cycles of intergenerational violence and achieving just and lasting peace. The paradox of youth engagement is not unique to Southeast Asia. It can shed light on broader dynamics of power, hierarchy, and institutionalization, revealing universal patterns and complexities that emerge as young activists transition into institutional roles. Understanding these layered challenges of exclusion across time enriches our understanding of why youth continue to be sidelined, even within the systems they helped build.
This article expands on the findings of a research paper published in The Pacific Review; an international relations journal covering the interactions of the countries of the Asia-Pacific.