With responsibilities must come rights -The vote at 16 debate.

(c) Rama

In the last few days a paper has been published by the Think Tank Demos entitled ‘The New Frontier- Votes at 16’. The paper, by Richard Reeves and Thishani Nadesan, sets out to argue in favor of reform.

It puts forward the case for lowering the ‘Age of Majority’ (the age when a person legally becomes an adult) to 16, as a response to the fact that political engagement with younger people has been falling for decades.  A possible reason for this is that young people are not allowed to be involved in the political community until they are 18, at which point apathy may well have already set in. Additionally it cites the argument that many 16-18 year olds actually want to vote and that importantly, 16 year olds are allowed to join the armed forces. Demos points out that of the first 100 soldiers to have been killed in Iraq at least 6 were too young to have ever voted in a general election.

Furthermore, 16 and 17 year olds are liable to pay income tax, which points to one of the most fundamental principles in democracy: that of ‘no taxation without representation’. This is the idea that if you are being taxed by the government then you should have a say in the election of your representatives. Arguments are also made that younger people are becoming more politically aware in part due to the addition of citizenship classes to the national curriculum and that there is evidence to suggest that people who fall between the cracks of an election being called during the time they are 16-17 may well not bother to vote come the next time there is an election.

It is also argued that lowering the voting age could help redress the imbalance of inter-generational voting patterns. Younger people having become more apathetic vote tend to less often, whilst older people continue to vote. The paper also points to the fact that the pattern of voting rights is changing internationally and domestically. Several German states, as well as Austria and Brazil, have lowered the voting age to 16 and the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales favour the same move but lack the power to enforce it.

The arguments against come from several angles. First,  public opinion is more staunchly opposed to lowering the voting age the older the person asked. In other words, older people are quite significantly not in favour of reform. Secondly, scientific evidence suggests that younger people just are not developed enough mentally to vote, their brains and bodies are still going through changes and they have neither the knowledge nor the capacity to be trusted with the Right to Vote.

Despite such arguments, the Paper concludes that it would be a progressive move to enfranchise 16-17 year olds, who should be considered suitably aware and mature  to handle the responsibility to vote.  They are already considered responsible enough to join the armed forces, pay their taxes, direct a company and get married and therefore so too should they be considered responsible enough to vote for their parliamentarians. It should not be thought the case that lowering the voting age will be a magic wand curing youth disengagement in one move however.

As a side note to this debate it should be mentioned that 17 year old soldiers have in the past found themselves being sent to Iraq despite the fact that Britain has ratified ‘The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Involving Children in Armed Conflicts’, thereby promising not to send under 18’s into battle field situations. When asked a parliamentary question on the subject the defence minister at the time Adam Ingram admitted in a written response that 15 under 18 year olds had been sent to Iraq between June 2003 and June 2005.

In summary it can only be felt that lowering the voting age to 16 so that Rights fall in line with responsibilities at the 16-18 age range is the right thing, the progressive thing and the morally just thing to do for the health of Democracy and the well being of British society.