© The Guardian — Nepal bans 26 social media sites including X, WhatsApp and YouTube (8 September 2025)

The Problem of oversimplification

The concept of „Gen Z protests“ is appealing to the media and political communication, offering a seemingly straightforward and transparent framework for interpretation, focusing on the younger generation of citizens. But, it is this very use of the concept of „generation“ as an interpretative filter that reinforces stereotypical narratives rather than recognizing the multiplicity and complexity of these movements.

This oversimplification leads to a perception of identical uniformity, implying a shared experience and a common political imagination, whereas in reality the young people participating in protests come from different social strata, classes, genders, and cultural backgrounds, making the recognition of internal diversity a prerequisite for justice. This is because the elimination of heterogeneity in the name of a „generation“ leads to a form of „political silencing“ of those who do not fit the stereotype, but also highlights the problem of political capitalisation because, at the end of the day, if these issues are shifted from their political content to a pseudo-demographic narrative, the power relations that make movements active are sidelined. 

This difficulty in the political capitalization of movements has to do with how they are perceived—because when they remain „Gen Z protests,“ they are defined in an apolitical narrative, presenting them more as a generational expression of „rage“ and less as conscious politics on the one hand, while on the other hand, the underestimation of their limits, loading them with utopian exaggerations as harbingers of a radically new society, without recognizing that utopia does not exist; but what exists are problems that societies must deal with a political horizon. In the end, when the inevitable disappointment comes, the movement is stigmatized as a failure. Overall, the framework of „Gen Z protests“ functions as a schematization that depoliticizes or treats the issue superficially, does not illuminate the complexities of collective action, but rather incorporates them into a category that is accessible to media communication but poor in theoretical value.

The name itself is already a classification of reality; characterizing a protest as „youthful“ places it in a specific value framework, and this framework is twofold: it emphasizes the freshness and dynamism of youth but at the same time it often reduces it to a temporary, almost frivolous outburst of emotion. The result is the creation of a myth about youth that carries both positive and negative connotations but does not generate political dialogue with serious political consequences, where young people are deprived of their status as political subjects, turning them into a mass without a stable identity that needs interpretation and control. The power holders have every interest in presenting the protests as the result of a „rebellious,“ „naive“ generation, let’s say rebels without a cause—downplaying the demands, the criticism of institutional corruption, the inequalities, the accusations of police violence. If, in the end, the political, the concept of the political, is constructed around the concept of friend-enemy, then by viewing these movements as a by-product of Gen Z, we remove them from this spectrum, undermining them as „social noise.“

Finally, we should recognize that the framing of „Gen Z protest“ produces a post-political mythology, making the protests digestible in a narrative about „the rebellious generation,“ while at the same time rendering them expendable. Criticism of „Gen Z protest“ is not merely literary; it is political, allowing us to reflect on how the terms of public discourse determine what is understood as political action and who is considered a citizen. The generational label distracts attention from political and social demands, transforming complex movements into a cultural phenomenon that can be easily consumed and quickly forgotten, where a „generational“ rebellion can go viral overnight and by the following week has already been assimilated into the news cycle, giving way to the next trend.

The issue, of course, is not just the rejection of labels, which we must be critical of, but rather the need for movements to develop forms of organization and political imagination that transcend the labels and narratives imposed on them, creating structures that endure beyond the initial explosion, inventing ways to exert constant pressure on the state and institutions, and building intergenerational and cross-class alliances. Post-politics is the field where words and images replace action, so what we need to do is return to action as something that creates reality. This means imagining politics not as a „moment of youthful spontaneous outburst,“ but as a long process of forming new forms of collectivity and new ways of participation. 

When even movements themselves adopt a “Gen Z identity” as self-definition, there is a risk that this generational label will serve as a substitute for political content. While issues such as transparency, accountability, and the replacement of corrupt elites are fundamental, the absence of a broader political horizon leaves open the possibility that mobilizations will become trapped in a narrow generational narrative. Thus, instead of functioning dialectically and leading to consensus or creative synthesis, ideological pluralism can become a field of fundamental differences and internal ulta-fragmentation. Generational identity, rather than empowering, can limit the horizon of political imagination if it is not linked to clear strategies for social change. In other words, mobilizations will acquire historical depth and political significance when they manage to be recognized as part of an ongoing struggle for the redistribution of discourse, power, and social resources, and are transformed into processes of continuous transformation.