Karl Jaspers' idea of the age of the axis describes how, at certain moments in human history, ways of thinking, believing and living together change radically. The transformation we are experiencing today resembles a similar rupture, but this time the center of change is not religion, metaphysics or philosophy alone, but technology and the social relations shaped by it. The internet, social media and digital platforms are not only communication tools but also a new ground of reality. On this ground, politics inevitably changes its form.
Classical forms of political organization-parties, trade unions, associations-have long been the most effective means of organizing societies. The logic of these structures was based on an orderly, hierarchical and rule-bound bureaucracy, as described by Max Weber. In a political party, for example, decisions came from the top down, members acted within the framework of specific tasks, and political participation was mostly concentrated during election periods. This model suited the rhythm of industrial society: slow but steady, rigid but predictable.
Today, it is enough to look at everyday life to understand why these structures are inadequate. A young person no longer has to go to a party meeting to express an opinion on an issue; they can reach thousands of people on social media in a few minutes. Instead of organizing for months to launch a campaign, they can mobilize large masses with a single video or hashtag. This is the concrete equivalent of what Manuel Castells calls “network society”: power is no longer concentrated in a center, but circulates between connections.
In this new order, organizing takes place through flexible and temporary networks rather than through fixed and permanent structures as in the past. For example, digital movements on issues such as the environment (ecology), women's rights or freedom of expression are often shaped around a common sensibility rather than around specific individuals. People can join and leave these movements at any time. While this may seem disorganized at first glance, it is actually based on a different logic: intensity rather than continuity, interaction rather than belonging.
It is not difficult to understand why the youth are more prone to this new structure. Because this generation already experiences the world in this way. Their identities do not fit into a single mold; they can be part of different communities at the same time. Their access to information is fast and unfiltered, which makes them more questioning but also more selective. This is why traditional forms of politics often seem slow, closed and distant to them. To adapt Hannah Arendt's idea of the public sphere to the present day, for young people the public sphere is no longer a square or a parliament, but a screen, a stream and a constantly updated debate.
However, the limits of this new form of organization are also becoming apparent. While digital movements can grow very fast, they can also fizzle out just as quickly. It is still challenging to build lasting structures, develop long-term strategies and produce concrete political results. Moreover, the algorithms of social media platforms can indirectly direct these processes by determining which issues are visible. This creates a new form of power: invisible but effective steering. Zygmunt Bauman's concept of “fluid modernity” makes sense at this point, because in a world where everything is changing rapidly, it becomes increasingly difficult to produce permanence and depth.
In conclusion, the question of whether youth will participate in politics or not is actually a misplaced question. Youth are not outside politics; on the contrary, they are transforming the form of politics. Instead of adapting to the structures presented to them, today's youth are building new structures in line with their own experiences. Therefore, the real issue is not how to integrate the youth into existing parties, organizations and carrier institutions, but how existing parties, organizations and carrier institutions will adapt to this new reality. If we are indeed in a new era, and many concrete signs point to it, the defining characteristic of this era is not so much how people will be governed, but how people will connect with each other and redefine how they will act together. This definition is now largely shaped by digital networks, instantaneous interactions and new collective practices developed by younger generations.
At this point, perhaps the most critical question is this: Will these new forms of organization remain only as structures that produce immediate reactions, or will they be able to transform into a long-term semantic political mind? If these networks can generate continuity, responsibility and a sense of common direction from within themselves, they can reconstruct not only the means of politics but also its meaning. Otherwise, it is inevitable that they will remain as waves that flash rapidly but fade just as quickly. It is precisely in this tension - this fine line between transience and permanence - that the fate of the new era will be decided.