Africa has become increasingly enthusiastic about organising youth-focused conferences, dialogues and policy forums. Across the continent, young people are invited to discuss innovation, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, entrepreneurship and the future of the Internet. Political leaders, government representatives and institutional officials are also invited to participate.

This is encouraging. Young people deserve access to the spaces where decisions about their digital future are discussed.

But there is a question we should be willing to ask: When political leaders attend Youth Internet Governance Forums, do they come to listen to young people, or simply to speak to them?

My participation in the Africa Youth Internet Governance Forum (Africa Youth IGF) 2026 in Accra brought this question into sharper focus. The purpose of a youth-focused Internet governance platform should extend beyond bringing young people and decision-makers into the same room. It should create opportunities for meaningful dialogue, constructive disagreement and, most importantly, influence.

Being present is not the same as listening. Delivering a speech is not the same as engaging. And inviting young people to participate does not necessarily mean their contributions will influence decisions.

The Microphone Should Not Always Belong to Those in Authority

At many youth-focused events, the format is familiar. Senior officials are given the opportunity to deliver opening remarks, outline government achievements, explain policy priorities and encourage young people to become active contributors to national development.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Political leaders and public officials have important perspectives to share, and their participation can give youth forums visibility and institutional relevance.

The problem emerges when the event becomes dominated by speeches from those in authority, leaving limited space for the people the event is supposed to empower.

Young people are not simply an audience waiting to be addressed. They are students, researchers, entrepreneurs, developers, community organisers, digital rights advocates and technology professionals. Some are already building solutions, managing digital infrastructure and responding to the challenges facing their communities.

They do not attend these forums merely to hear that they are the leaders of tomorrow. They come with questions about the challenges they are experiencing today.

A youth forum should therefore not be judged by the number of influential personalities on its programme or the length of their speeches. It should also be judged by the quality of engagement between young people and the institutions responsible for shaping their digital environment.

Young People Have Questions That Require More Than Encouragement

Across Africa, young people are navigating a digital environment filled with both opportunities and structural challenges.

They want to know why reliable Internet access remains unaffordable for many communities. They want to understand how digital policies will translate into employment and economic opportunities. They are concerned about online safety, data protection, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence governance and the concentration of digital power in the hands of a few global technology companies.

They also want to know whether governments are prepared to invest in the infrastructure, skills and institutions needed to support Africa’s digital ambitions.
These are not abstract conference topics. They affect education, healthcare, entrepreneurship, public services and the ability of African communities to participate meaningfully in the global digital economy.

When young people raise such concerns, they deserve more than general encouragement to innovate, acquire digital skills or become change-makers.

They deserve substantive responses.

If a government representative cannot immediately answer a question, there should be room to acknowledge the concern, explain the institutional constraints and identify the appropriate process for addressing it. Not every question requires an immediate solution, but every serious contribution deserves to be treated with respect.

The willingness to engage with difficult questions is part of meaningful leadership.

Youth Participation Must Go Beyond the Conference Room

One of the persistent challenges in youth engagement is the gap between consultation and influence.

Young people are invited to contribute to discussions. Recommendations are developed, declarations are published, and photographs are shared. Yet an important question remains: what happens after the event?

Do the recommendations reach the institutions responsible for implementing digital policies?

Are young people informed about which proposals were accepted, which were rejected and why?

Are they included in the working groups, consultations and decision-making processes that follow?

Without these connections, youth participation risks becoming an event rather than a continuing process.

Internet governance itself is built around the idea that different stakeholders should contribute to decisions affecting the Internet. Governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia and users all have roles to play.
Young people should not be treated as an additional audience within this model. They are part of the Internet community and should have meaningful opportunities to shape its governance.

This requires more than invitations to attend annual forums. It requires sustained access to policy discussions, institutional processes and opportunities to contribute to implementation.

What should change?

Africa Youth IGF and similar platforms can strengthen their impact by making listening and accountability central to their design.

1. First, organisers should create dedicated spaces for direct questions from young participants. These sessions should not be treated as optional additions to an already crowded programme. They should be protected parts of the agenda, with sufficient time for genuine exchanges.
2. Second, youth representatives should have a meaningful role in shaping the agenda. If young people are expected to contribute to discussions about their digital future, they should also help determine which issues receive attention.
3. Third, organisers should establish a mechanism for tracking recommendations. A public record could identify the concerns raised, the institutions responsible for responding, the commitments made and the progress achieved. Such a mechanism would help connect annual discussions with ongoing policy processes.
4. Fourth, government institutions and other stakeholders should provide feedback after the event. Where recommendations cannot be implemented, the reasons should be communicated. Where action is possible, responsible institutions should identify practical next steps.
5. Finally, young people should be included beyond the conference itself. Participation in national Internet governance initiatives, policy working groups, technical communities and relevant institutional consultations should become a more consistent part of youth engagement.

These measures would help move youth participation from visibility towards influence.

Young People Must Also Be Prepared to Speak

However, the responsibility does not rest entirely with political leaders or event organisers.

Young people must also recognise that meaningful participation requires preparation, confidence and courage.

It is not enough to occupy a seat at a conference or take photographs with influential personalities. Young participants should understand the policy issues, study the institutions involved, ask informed questions and support their arguments with evidence.

They must be willing to challenge assumptions respectfully, question commitments and follow up when promises are made.

Most importantly, young people should not become silent simply because someone with political authority has entered the room.

Respect for leadership should not mean surrendering the opportunity to ask difficult questions. Constructive engagement requires both sides to listen, respond and remain accountable.

Young people should also move beyond demanding inclusion as a general principle. They should demonstrate the expertise, initiative and sustained commitment needed to contribute meaningfully to Internet governance.

The objective is not confrontation for its own sake. It is meaningful dialogue that can produce better policies and more responsive institutions.

From Political Speeches to Meaningful Engagement

Africa needs political leaders who understand that youth engagement is not simply about giving young people a platform to speak. It is also about creating institutional pathways through which their contributions can influence decisions.

Likewise, Africa needs youth forums that measure success not only through attendance figures, high-profile speakers, media visibility or published declarations, but through the quality of dialogue and the actions that follow.

The Africa Youth IGF should be more than a gathering where political leaders speak and young people listen. It should be a space where young people can question, challenge, contribute and receive meaningful responses.

The real test of political leaders’ participation is not how long they hold the microphone. It is whether they are prepared to hear perspectives that challenge their assumptions, respond to concerns they may not have anticipated and support actions that give young people a meaningful role in shaping policy.

Young people do not need another reminder that they are the leaders of tomorrow. They need institutions that recognise their contribution today.

If political leaders are willing to attend Youth IGF, they should also be willing to listen.