Something interesting has been happening at the cinema lately. Between the superhero sequels and the animated sequels to the animated sequels, a new genre has been quietly making its way onto screens, into living rooms, and, most importantly, into the political conversation: the campaign documentary.

Democracy is losing ground in the very spaces where the next generation now spends most of its waking, feeling, and experimenting hours: games and game‑adjacent platforms. The people who will shape Europe’s democratic future are not gathering in party youth wings or town halls; they are leading guilds, moderating Discord servers, and arguing in Twitch chats. In those arenas, they learn how power works, whom to trust, and which stories about the world feel emotionally true. Politics, by contrast, still behaves as if the central stages of democratic life are parliamentary chambers and Sunday talk shows. The gap between where political meaning is made and where political systems actually operate is widening, and authoritarian actors are already exploiting that distance.

On 17 December 2025, the European Parliament adopted a resolution endorsing the European Citizens' Initiative "My Voice, My Choice: For Safe and Accessible Abortion" by 358 votes to 202, with 79 abstentions. On 6 March 2026, the European Commission published its response, opening the possibility for member states to use European Social Fund Plus money to improve access to safe and legal abortion services. The Commissioner for Equality, Hadja Lahbib, called it groundbreaking. The ALDE Party called it historic. Even the campaign organisers, normally allergic to triumphalism, allowed themselves a moment.

The foundational premise of democracy is that you campaign, voters decide, and whoever wins a free and fair contest assumes office. It is a convention that underpins legitimate governance. Tragically, in a growing number of countries, that convention is under sustained assault. Elections are held and votes cast, but not fairly counted. Numerous instances happen on Election Day which make the electoral process unfree and unfair. Incumbents in authoritarian states often cling to power not because the people chose them, but because they control the machinery. In too many countries these days, the actual election winner does not assume office.

The central problem for democratic governance in 2026 is no longer just disinformation; it is the opacity of the systems that move information, target voters and mediate participation. Political tech sits at the fault line: it can either harden that opacity or expose it, making power legible and accountable again.  In a Europe where elections are shaped on platforms headquartered elsewhere, the question is whether the continent can build its own infrastructure, legal, technical and civic, fast enough to remain sovereign over its public sphere.

Young people do everything these days online, from ordering clothes and vitamins, to self-diagnosing with ADHD and even getting married. They bank on their phones, sign leases without printing a single page, and make a living on social platforms. So why hasn't this massive migration to digital life carried over into one of the most fundamental civic acts we have: voting? And if it did, would it actually make young people care more about their democratic duty?