The Malawi National Youth Summit held in Lilongwe early this month was a highly anticipated event.
Held under the theme Harnessing Youth Innovation for Economic Empowerment and Sustainable Job Creation towards Malawi 2063, the summit promised to be a landmark moment for young people.
With over 800 youth delegates from all 28 districts, it had the numbers, the visibility, and the political support. But sadly, it missed something crucial—authentic youth participation.
As a participant (Joseph) and an observer (Chimwemwe), we come to this reflection with lived experience and critical distance.
What unfolded over three days was not without merit—logistics were well-handled, government ministers were present, and thematic sessions were diverse.
But beneath the polished surface was a concerning reality: youth were present, but not truly included.
To understand this, we draw on a useful framework by sociologist Roger Hart, known as the Ladder of Youth Participation. Developed in 1992, the theory describes eight levels of youth involvement—from manipulation at the lowest rung to youth-initiated, shared decisions with adults at the highest.
The model challenges us to go beyond tokenism, beyond consultation, and towards genuine co-leadership.
Where was the 2025 summit on this ladder? Somewhere in the middle. Youth were informed, perhaps consulted, but far from empowered. They did not co-design the programme. They did not moderate the key panels. Most importantly, they did not shape the outcomes.
Let us take Day One. The afternoon was dominated by the ceremonial launch of the Youth Innovation Fund by the President.
While symbolic, the session sidelined dialogue and delegates left knowing little about the fund’s design, access or accountability. Speeches and fanfare replaced policy discussion.
Day Two mirrored this pattern. Panels on economic empowerment were dominated by adults. Questions from the youth were limited, often dismissed with a polite “we’re out of time.” Breakout sessions, which could have been powerful spaces for peer engagement, became mini-lectures by experts racing through slides.
Day Three brought more ministers and more promises, but did not put the youth at the centre of what were supposed to be youth-centred conversations. Figures did not add up. Commitments were vague. One youthful panellist raised powerful concerns about exclusion, nepotism and the politicisation of youth programmes, but there were no meaningful responses. It was yet another panel, not a platform.
Let us be clear: youth were seen, applauded and photographed smiling—but not heard in the way that counts.
Participation was packaged as performance and presence was mistaken for power.
Across Africa, countries like Rwanda, Kenya and South Africa have moved towards institutionalising the youth voice. Elected youth councils, policy co-creation platforms and advisory boards are slowly transforming the engagement landscape.
Malawi can—and must—do the same.
If we are serious about Malawi 2063, we must stop treating young people as future leaders and start treating them as current partners.
We need fewer speeches and more structures. Less symbolism and more systems. Youth summits must be youth-shaped, youth-led, and youth-informed—not just youth-attended.
As we reflect on the investment made—transport, meals, accommodation, and allowances for hundreds—it is only fair to ask: what was the return? What tools were given to delegates to take back to their communities? What ideas were captured, debated, and taken forward?
This is not a dismissal of the National Youth Council of Malawi’s efforts. It is a call to recalibrate. Good logistics must be matched with good strategy and ambition must be anchored in inclusion.
The youth summit was a step. But whether it was forward or sideways will depend on how boldly we learn from its flaws.
Let us climb higher on Hart’s ladder. Let us empower, not just invite. Only then can Malawi truly harness the power of the youth.
