Youth Is Leaving the UPC. But Who Will Let Them Into Politics?

July 27, 2026. Margarita Vorikhova connects to a Zoom call from Warsaw. Behind her – a white wall and a stack of papers. She announces her departure from the post of the United Transitional Cabinet’s representative for youth policy. Her voice is steady, without strain. She speaks of the need for renewal and the transfer of experience.

A few days later – a new position: chair of the International Commission of the Coordination Council. This is no longer an appointment. This is an election by delegates.

Formally – a personnel rotation. In practice – a change in the model of legitimation.

Vorikhova is not leaving the democratic movement. She is changing her institutional platform. And in this transition lies the main question for the entire system: is the Office of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and the UPC capable of turning young people into an independent participant in decision-making, or does it merely periodically appoint young people to individual positions?

Lead

Margarita Vorikhova is leaving her post at the UPC to take a position in the Coordination Council. Her departure is not a conflict but a transition. Yet this transition has exposed a systemic vulnerability: the youth direction turned out to be tied primarily to the personality of the representative, while procedures for succession and real participation of youth organizations remain insufficiently clear.

What happened

In August 2024, Vorikhova was appointed the UPC representative for youth policy. She was 23 years old – the youngest member of the Cabinet. Before that, she had already worked as an adviser to Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, engaged in youth policy in the Coordination Council, and participated in the structures of the Council of Europe.

In late July 2026, she announced her departure and simultaneously put forward her candidacy for the position of chair of the International Commission of the CC. Combining the two positions proved impossible under internal rules. After her election, Vorikhova definitively moved to a different institutional context. Her place in the youth direction was temporarily filled by deputy Aleksei Grakhovsky.

Fact and interpretation

Vorikhova publicly states that her departure is not connected to a conflict. She speaks of the need for renewal, the transfer of experience, and the creation of space for new leaders. This explanation cannot be ignored. There is no direct evidence of conflict in open sources. However, the absence of a public conflict does not mean the absence of institutional problems.

A strong specialist leaves a position tied to an executive body to take a position obtained through a vote. This does not prove a crisis of the UPC, but it shows that independent political subjectivity can form outside the Cabinet.

The youth direction as a personal project

The main vulnerability of the UPC’s youth policy is its personalization. During Vorikhova’s tenure, the direction became visible primarily thanks to her personal expertise, international contacts, and public activity. But the more strongly a direction is associated with one person, the higher the risk that after their departure it will lose part of its substantive weight.

An institution must maintain stability regardless of its personnel composition. This requires: a permanent team, an archive of decisions and contacts, a clear mandate, a system of consultations, measurable goals, a personnel reserve, and a succession procedure. As long as what is publicly visible is primarily a person rather than infrastructure, youth representation remains a position rather than a full-fledged institution.

Youth as a subject, not an audience

Vorikhova tried to change the very language of communication of the democratic movement. She spoke about the need to account for vulnerable groups, to use communication free of hate speech, to understand the specifics of LGBTQ+ communities, and to find common ground with young Belarusians who grew up in a European environment. This is important work. But changing the language is not the same as changing the structure of power.

Young Belarusians in exile face concrete problems: legalization, access to education, university enrollment, mobility, employment, security, and social protection. They need not only representation but also tools of influence. If youth organizations can express their views but do not participate in choosing the representative, forming the budget, and setting priorities, they remain an audience rather than a political subject.

An admission more important than reports

One of Vorikhova’s most substantive admissions concerns her attempt to make Europe genuinely open to young Belarusians. She said she was unable to achieve this. This statement is more important than formal reports because it reveals the gap between political intention and the institution’s capabilities. A representative can raise an issue, appeal to partners, and conduct negotiations. But without a sufficient mandate, resources, and access to the decision-making process, they cannot guarantee a result. This is the systemic limit of the youth direction. It can set the agenda but is not always able to turn it into binding decisions.

How a successor is chosen

After Vorikhova’s departure, duties are temporarily performed by Aleksei Grakhovsky. His candidacy for the transitional period was recommended by Vorikhova herself, who emphasized that he is a representative of a new generation of activists and directly faces the problems of young Belarusians in exile. However, a temporary solution does not replace a transparent permanent procedure.

According to published reports, the candidacy of the new representative is to be proposed by the Coordination Council and finally approved by Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya as head of the UPC. This scheme creates a dual system of legitimation. The CC represents a collegial political body, while Tsikhanouskaya retains the right of final approval. Formally, this can be a balance. But for an external audience, important details remain unclear:

whether there will be an open call for candidacies;
who defines the professional criteria;
whether candidates’ programs will be presented;
whether youth organizations can influence the choice;
whether the CC can propose multiple candidacies;
whether the head of the UPC is obliged to explain a rejection;
who will be responsible for the work of the appointed representative.

Without answers to these questions, the process looks like a sequence of approvals rather than a full-fledged democratic procedure.

Criticism of Tsikhanouskaya’s Office

The Office of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya should be criticized not for the very fact of final approval of a candidate. The head of an executive structure must have certain personnel powers. The problem is different: the criteria for exercising these powers remain insufficiently public.

When a decision is made within a narrow political center and the public learns only of the final result, personalization of governance arises. The system can act lawfully in terms of internal rules while remaining politically opaque. For structures in exile, this is particularly sensitive. They have no territory and no full national electoral mandate. Therefore, trust must be compensated by open procedures, accountability, and real participation of the represented groups. If this is absent, an uncomfortable construction arises: the Coordination Council proposes, the Office approves, and youth organizations observe from the sidelines.

Interim administration as permanent practice

The scheme of temporary performance of duties is convenient in the moment. It allows avoiding a vacuum and maintaining current work. But if temporary solutions become a habitual method of governance, they turn into a sign of organizational immaturity. A full-fledged institution must know in advance: who replaces the head, how the personnel reserve is formed, how documents and contacts are transferred, who makes decisions during the transitional period, within what timeframes a permanent head appears. In the case of the youth direction, these elements are not yet publicly presented. Therefore, Vorikhova’s departure looks not like a pre-planned stage but like a situation that has to be urgently resolved.

Transition to the Coordination Council

Vorikhova’s new appointment in the Coordination Council may become a more independent political platform for her. Unlike a position in the UPC, this position was obtained through a delegate vote. It is important not to overstate the significance of this transition. It does not prove that the UPC is unable to work with young leaders, and it does not confirm a conflict between Vorikhova and the Office. But it shows the difference between two models: a model of top-down appointment and a model of election through a collegial procedure. For the democratic movement, this is a fundamental difference. The smaller the direct electoral mandate, the more important participation, competition, and explanation of decisions.

What needs to change

For Vorikhova’s departure to become the beginning of renewal rather than another change of face, the UPC should publicly formalize the entire succession procedure. Minimum set of steps:

Publish the mandate of the representative for youth policy.
Describe the powers and limits of autonomy.
Announce an open call for candidacies.
Conduct consultations with youth organizations.
Present the programs of candidates.
Explain the procedure for proposal and approval.
Publish a reasoned decision.
Set timelines and performance indicators.
Introduce regular reporting.
Create a personnel reserve and a mentoring system.

Only in this case will the youth direction cease to depend on the personal trajectory of one officeholder.

Conclusion

Vorikhova is no longer a UPC representative. She is the chair of the International Commission of the Coordination Council. Her new mandate comes not from the Office but from the delegates. This is neither a victory nor a defeat. It is a transition that demonstrates two modes of legitimation. And in this fork lies the fate of the youth policy of the Belarusian democratic alternative.

Youth is already ready to take on responsibility. Now the Office needs to prove that it is ready to provide them not only with a place in the structure but also with participation in shaping the structure itself. Until this happens, youth policy remains a showcase of renewal under the old system of decision-making.

Sources

KKliment Vileysky