The debate over youth protests has moved from the streets to television studios, where the clash over representation, ideas and social discontent is taking clearer shape. In a discussion held on Monday evening, lecturer Ervis Iljazaj questioned the way the student movement is being labeled, while young participants spoke about a lack of transparency, threats and the burden of inflation.
Iljazaj rejects the idea of students as a “new class”
Iljazaj argued that students cannot be treated as a new social class, but rather as a group with different beliefs, interests and orientations. According to him, the term “students” is being used in an overly generalized way, as if it referred to a single political and social body.
He insisted that the real divide in politics is not determined by age, but by ideas and socio-economic affiliation. Along those lines, he said that students can hold opposing positions on fundamental political, economic and social issues, which makes the claim of a single representative subject questionable.
Young participants speak of lack of transparency and pressure
On the other side of the debate, the young women taking part described their engagement as an attempt to test something that, in their view, had previously not been allowed to develop normally. One of them said that young people often do not know exactly what they want, but they do want things to be transparent.
It was also claimed that previous initiatives had been shut down away from the public eye, through pressure and threats. This pushed the debate beyond the usual rhetoric about “youth energy,” linking it to a climate in which activism says it faces obstacles that are not always visible.
Idealism, protest and the rejection of political cynicism
Another voice on the panel cited Albin Kurti in his political beginnings to defend the idea that figures who initially seem peripheral can later become central actors. From this perspective, protest was presented as a space where idealism still survives, even when traditional politics is viewed with distrust.
The discussion also voiced the belief that part of the younger generation considers Prime Minister Edi Rama’s political cycle to be over. This remains a political reading by the young people in the studio, not a proven fact in the electoral field, but it shows the level of dissatisfaction and the strong language being used by certain segments of the youth.
Inflation and housing at the center of younger generation’s discontent
One of the most concrete moments of the debate came when the cost of living was discussed, especially housing prices. According to one of the participants, her generation is facing a reality in which a home that once cost 30,000 euros now reaches 300,000 euros, making ownership almost unattainable.
It is precisely here that protest moves beyond symbolism and into economics: not only as a moral revolt, but as a reaction to a market that, for many young people, seems disconnected from wages, opportunities and prospects. Alongside this, it was also emphasized that this is the first generation to have grown up entirely with the internet in hand, with greater access to information and less patience for old excuses.
Clash over “narratives” and the limits of representation
The debate also grew tense over the way studies and sociological concepts are interpreted. When the young participants raised the possibility that certain narratives might be pushed, Iljazaj replied that he was referring to researchers’ conclusions and not simply expressing a personal opinion.
At its core, the clash highlighted two approaches: one that seeks to place the protest within theoretical frameworks and classic political representation, and another that sees this as limiting or diluting real discontent. This remains the strongest point of the debate: is the youth protest an unformed energy, or a signal of a deeper social rupture?
Beyond the strong tones in the studio, the discussion showed that youth protests are raising questions that organized politics has long avoided: who represents them, what they really want, and how much of their anger is tied to idealism and how much to the concrete costs of living.
It is precisely in this mix of political disappointment, social pressure and economic crisis that the real weight of this debate appears to lie. Not in the label “students” as a single bloc, but in the reasons why more and more young people are feeling left out.