The Intel

The strongest case for 'inter-generational approaches' is that right now the views and values of a large proportion of the population are being down-played and dismissed, undermining trust in democracy itself.

There is a growing and destabilising difference in the priorities of young people and those of the older people running the country. This is most notable on climate change and sexual identity, but also on housing and economic opportunity and the conflict in Gaza. In addition, younger people are much more ethnically diverse than 50 years ago, bringing very different experiences and views about Australia's place in the world and the actions and attitudes of our great and powerful friends. Little of this is yet reflected in policy debates or decisions that are still framed in terms of dated, post-war shibboleths.  

The tendency of late middle-aged analysts and policy makers to patronisingly dismiss ‘youth views’ as trivial and ephemeral, misreads the situation. The post-WWII realist universe is a powerful construct, but one that is going to be more seriously and more widely challenged in future, the actions of autocrats notwithstanding. AUKUS as a response is looking more and more like 'a god with feet of clay' - a misguided and dangerous attempt to cling to the old white world. Bipartisan support (much of it superficial and enforced) contrasts with deep and growing public scepticism in a dangerous and destabilising disconnect that must be resolved.

To deal with this, our democratic institutions must become younger, more diverse and more tolerant of dissent - more organised around rigorous deliberation, than perpetual tactical conflict. And we could improve decision-making if we flipped the model to have younger people leading more often - with crusty old hands my age who can shut the door and provide very frank advice if the Minister is about to do something unwise, serving as advisers.

First up: development is intergenerational. As World Bank President Ajay Banga said at the Lowy Institute this month, much like a cricket test match, development is a long game. Development practitioners must be patient, hit for singles, and capitalise on fours and sixes when they roll in.

It may be a long game, but politicians are hungry for short-term results. And aid money can stop flowing to important programs if runs on the board are few. Many programs need cultural change – gender equality most prominent – and the anthropologist in me argues meaningful change takes a generation to achieve. So intergenerational approaches are not just needed, they’re essential.

The Lowy Institute’s Emerging Leaders Dialogue, a leadership incubator for the project I lead (the Australia-Papua New Guinea Network), is a great example of intergenerational commitment to foreign policy. This annual, week-long Dialogue brings together a diverse group of 20 young people – from filmmakers to prime ministerial advisers – to explore issues important to both nations.

Impassioned young leaders often lack platforms to speak, mentors, and peer-support networks, leaving them feel powerless. The Dialogue circumvents this, providing changemakers opportunities to project their voices far beyond the week-long program, connecting them with established leaders, and with each other, across sectors and borders.

Although small in scale, the Dialogue is transformative for the bilateral relationship, building long-lasting bonds and bridging gaps in understanding.

This program is not about the short term. It’s an investment in the next generation of leaders, as evidenced by emerging leaders already becoming senior ones on both sides of the Torres Strait.  

Investing in youth has long-term foreign policy dividends. The challenge is ensuring development programs such as these are not driven by short-term results, but rather staying in the crease for just a little longer.

The growth of the Youth, Peace, and Security agenda demonstrates that there is interest in intergenerational approaches across the development and foreign policy worlds. In order to properly harness this, the inclusion of young people must move beyond the tokenistic to the status quo.

An intergenerational approach must start with consultation, as it already does, but then include stakeholders from every generation in the policymaking process. This means they must be at the table, contributing ideas, and being allowed to make policy decisions. There tends to be an assumption that young people lack the skills or experience necessary for policymaking, even sometimes from young people themselves. To truly utilise an intergenerational approach, policymakers must not simply focus on who is leading but who can lead. Young people are not just the “leaders of tomorrow” but are already leading today: with presence, powerful voices, pressing concerns, different ideas and valuable skills that must be harnessed.

Sustainably harnessing this approach must include the key to any successful policy shift –resourcing. Intergenerational initiatives must be well-funded and sustainably-resourced to allow them to thrive. Like any other policy approach, concrete support is the first step. Though there are already a whole host of innovative youth-led organisations (such as Foundations for Tomorrow and Oaktree) more resources are needed to help this sector grow and increase meaningful policy engagements. Funding across the development and foreign policy world is already scarce, but investing in an intergenerational approach will bring innovation and positive structural change.