https://arab.news/887ed
The headline feature of the UK government’s new policy paper to reform and modernize the democratic system is legislating for 16- and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in the next general election. This proposal was already in Labour’s manifesto before last year’s election, albeit surprisingly not featured in the government’s first King’s Speech last summer, which is regarded as the blueprint for the government’s intentions for the following year. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, in her usual plain-speaking manner, justified the move by saying: “I was a mum at 16; you can go to work, you can pay your taxes, and I think that people should have a vote at 16.”
She was not wrong, although parts of her argument might be more convincing than others. This decision, which is quite radical, has implications beyond voting rights — and on how we perceive at what age young people cross the threshold into adulthood. It was met with some skepticism regarding Labour’s intentions, with the claim that from a completely utilitarian standpoint, analysis of the last election’s voting patterns by age shows that Labour could gain most at the ballot box. According to an Ipsos poll, 41 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds supported Labour compared with 16 percent who supported Lib Dems and a mere 5 percent who voted for the Conservatives. In this case, adding even younger people to the poll of voters is likely to strengthen the current party in government, especially if it attends to their needs and wishes.
Yet we should not let cynicism distract us from the merits of empowering youth and giving them a meaningful voice in deciding who is to lead the country — and in this case the process of voting in elections also brings forward a rite of passage into adulthood, of becoming proactive and aware citizens of their country and equally as global citizens. Historically, whenever the right to vote was extended to wider segments of society, it had its opponents, especially those who already enjoyed this exclusive privilege and would rather not share it with a wider population.
In the history of the right to vote, there were times when it was conditioned, for instance on reaching a certain income or social status, and times when ethnic and religious minorities, and women, were blocked. But when the right was extended to all in 1918, it has never been seriously contested again, since the democratic system thrives on inclusivity. Immediately after the First World War, men had gained the right to vote if they were over 21, whether or not they owned property; however, women had to be aged over 30, and also had to meet minimum property-owning criteria, a situation which was rectified a decade later. Then it was regarded as revolutionary, but the trend did not stop there and eventually, in 1969, the UK became the first country to lower the age of franchise from 21 to 18, setting a new benchmark for adulthood.
Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that today’s under-18s are much more aware of social and political issues, saturated with information, even if not necessarily accurate and helpful, and engage in social-political debates. Additionally, extending the franchise to young people, as research has found, increases their overall participation in the democratic processes and increases their sense of responsibility. This is a welcome step, although it should not be seen as merely an act of gesture politics or to curry favor with young people to get their vote.
The infusion of new, young blood could be just the powerful jolt that our stale democracies desperately need.
Yossi Mekelberg
In the decision to extend voting rights to younger people, there are elements of expediency and of fairness. To begin with, most of the youth will still be in education, and granting them the right to vote would be an opportunity to enhance the citizenship curriculum, which includes learning about the rights and the duties that come with adulthood, and about being part of their community and wider national and international societies. For this, the school curriculum will have to be adjusted so that 16- and 17- year-olds become included in the learning process of becoming responsible and critical voters. This is especially important in the age of social media when the flood of information too often distracts from more profound social and political issues or is presented in a distorted way.
The privilege of voting, and it is a privilege, must come with a well-thought-out introduction to life as an inquisitive and proactive voter. It is also an opportunity, in a world where the art of civilized and constructive debate falls victim to toxicity, and where winning the argument takes precedence over a mutual understanding of the issues, to revive the skills of constructive and respectful discussion.
But there is also the issue of fairness. For instance, in the UK, 16-year-olds can join the army, something that, incidentally, has been criticized by the UN Committee of the Child. But as long as this is the case, those who can serve their country in uniform, even though under 18, are not permitted to be deployed on the front line. However, once they become adults, and continue to serve based on a commitment they made as a minor, they should be entitled to influence the country’s foreign affairs trajectory, which might find them engaged in wars and conflicts, through the ballot box.
Similarly, those who either left school and are in full-time employment, or those who work part-time and also study or take an apprenticeship, are paying taxes, and although the notion of “No taxation without representation” is taken from the American Revolution in defiance of the British colonialists, it still rings true on this side of the Atlantic. It is also the case that in Scotland and Wales, those aged 16 or 17 have for some time been able to vote in Holyrood and the Senedd, their respective national assemblies, as well as in local council elections, and the proposed change will bring England and Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK.
In recent elections we have witnessed the rise of extreme political ideologies throughout Western societies, which to a large extent stems from questioning not only the wisdom of policies, but also the legitimacy of those who create them. To overcome this crisis of legitimacy, which also manifests itself in low turnouts at elections, the system badly needs shaking up, and the infusion of new, young blood, of nearly 10 million 16– and 17-year-olds who are interested, and aware that their decisions can affect them for decades to come, could be just the powerful jolt that our stale democracies desperately need.
- Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg