Generation Z Political Engagement in Tanzania (2022–2025): Consequences for Political Polarization and Social Cohesion
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15642/politique.2026.6.2.153-173Keywords:
Generation Z, youth politics, Tanzania, political polarization, social cohesion, digital activismAbstract
Abstract This qualitative study examines the emergence and consolidation of Generation Z (Gen Z) political engagement in Tanzania between 2022 and 2025, with particular attention to its implications for political polarization and social cohesion. As Tanzania’s youngest politically active generation, Gen Z has increasingly relied on digital platforms, informal networks, and issue-based activism to participate in political discourse and civic life. Drawing on qualitative document analysis, discourse analysis of social media content, policy statements, media reports, and relevant scholarly literature, the article explores the forms, dominant narratives, and broader societal implications of Gen Z political engagement. The study argues that Gen Z politics in Tanzania represents a significant transformation in patterns of political participation, characterized by digitally mediated activism, generational identity framing, and strong demands for accountability directed at political elites. While these developments have expanded political voice, civic awareness, and inclusion among young people, they have simultaneously intensified political polarization, heightened generational tensions, and contributed to the fragmentation of public discourse. The findings reveal a central paradox: Gen Z political engagement enhances democratic participation while at the same time posing challenges to social cohesion and deliberative politics. By situating the Tanzanian case within broader debates on youth politics and digital democracy in Africa, the article contributes both empirically and theoretically to scholarship on political socialization, digital public spheres, and social cohesion. The study concludes by emphasizing the importance of inclusive institutional channels, digital civic education, and dialogue-oriented governance strategies to harness the democratic potential of Generation Z while mitigating its polarizing effectsDownloads
References
Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428
Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Polity Press.
Chan, J., To, H. P., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research, 75(2), 273–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-2118-1
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56(1), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Freedom House. (2023). Freedom on the Net 2023: The Repressive Power of Artificial Intelligence. Freedom House.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1962)
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and their parents. Princeton University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee (Version 2.0). Association of Internet Researchers.
Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge.
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Valentine Flavian Ruhangisa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
