Ed Miliband has recently backed a call from Democratic Audit and a range of youth organisations to lower the voting age in the UK to 16. In this post, the latest in our series on youth participation in democracy, Andy Mycock and Jonathan Tonge make the point that votes at 16 will not be a panacea to the problem of youth disengagement, and suggest we need wider reform of a political system that has become increasingly insular, self-selecting, and unrepresentative

Mycock, Andy

Tonge, Jonathan

LSE Research Online

By Democratic Audit UK 2014-5-2Ed Miliband should recognise that 16 and 17 year olds canbe part of our democracy even if they do not have the votedemocraticaudit.com /2014/05/02/ed-miliband-should-recognise-that-16-and-17-year-olds-can-be-part-of-our-democracy-even-if-they-do-not-have-the-vote/Ed Miliband has recently backed a call from Democratic Audit and a range of youth organisations to lower the votingage in the UK to 16. In this post, the latest in our series on youth participation in democracy, Andy Mycock andJonathan Tonge make the point that votes at 16 will not be a panacea to the problem of youth disengagement, andsuggest we need wider reform of a political system that has become increasingly insular, self-selecting, andunrepresentative.Ed Miliband has proposed extending the franchise age to 16 and 17 year olds. Credit: Plashing Vote, CC BY-NC-SA, 2.0Gordon Brown established the Youth Citizenship Commission (YCC) as Prime Minister in 2008, and the LabourParty’s  laudable concern with youth disengagement has continued in Opposition. In 2013, Labour established the‘People’s Politics Inquiry’, designed to examine aspects of political culture, democratic participation and how toreconnect people to parliament, as part of an attempt to address Britain’s ‘flat-lining democracy’.Usefully, the Inquiry does not seek refuge in denial of the challenges in reconnecting with young citizens and itsupports the YCC proposition to develop alternative modes of political discussion, such as encouraging politicaldebate and decision-making through social media. Labour’s Inquiry is not however sufficient in addressing the needto revitalise traditional forms of engagement. This is, in part, is because the development of Labour’s youthcitizenship policy appears to have been pre-empted by the party’s determination to lower the voting age.In his 2013 party conference speech, the Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, expressed his desire to ‘give a voice’ toyoung people by giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds and ‘make them part of our democracy’. Miliband’s support1/3for lowering the voting-age was rightly grounded in a belief that voting in elections is important – a merciful rejectionof over-publicised Russell Brand-esque inanities concerning a precious right for which many people died. Manycitizens who get into the habit of voting early in life may well continue to do so as they get older. But while there aresome serious arguments for lowering the voting age in an ageing society, it is not a panacea to issues of youthengagement and could actually prove more damaging in the long term to youth political activism.The primary drawback with the proposition to lower the voting age is that it is a response to the symptoms of politicaldisengagement – declining turnout – rather than the causes. Adjustment of the voting age, whatever its merits ordeficiencies, will not redress the numerous issues which impair civic engagement amongst young people. The YCCfinal report noted that young people do not feel politicians or policy-makers take them or their concerns seriously.Political parties develop few youth-centric policies in elections that might resonate with younger voters – or fulfilsuch promises once in power. Young people feel elected politicians are often inaccessible to them and are poor atcommunicating policy in terms they are familiar. Moreover, there are few young politicians that younger voters canemphasise with and the political culture that drives local and national democracy is often perceived as infantile andinsular. It is clear that democratic participation is hindered by issues of trust and efficacy of politicians and thepolitical system.Moreover, Miliband’s focus on possession of the vote as the key determinant of democratic citizenship wouldsuggest that those under the legal voting age – regardless of whether it is 16 or 18 – are not part of ‘our democracy’.This is a deeply segregated approach that appears to simply seek to shift the ‘glass ceiling’ of full citizenshipdownwards without recognition that ages of responsibility do not coalesce around the age of 16. Proponents of‘votes at 16’ regularly cite issues of marriage, taxation, and army service as evidence of the right to vote. Suchclaims are open to contention in terms of universality across the UK and overlook a wider age inconsistencies withregards to citizenship rights. Furthermore, the YCC undertook an audit of the ages of responsibility and notedsuccessive governments had encouraged an upward trajectory. For example, young people between the ages of 16and 18 are now compelled to continue in education or training, a state-imposed restriction not applicable to oldercitizens. It appears rather at odds to deny potential young voters unfettered access to the rights and freedoms of fullcitizenship but argue they are politically mature enough to vote.Some proponents of ‘votes at 16’ appear to believe that structural reform in terms of voter eligibility will transformhow government and political parties engage with and represent young people (see chapter four by Adonis andTyndall). By expanding the electorate, politicians will radically alter their attitudes and actions towards young voters,encouraging a shift with regards to policy focus towards younger voters and more young people standing forelection. Such optimism is laudable but speculative, based on assumptions that political elites will voluntarily reformestablished forms of practice and representation due to moderate expansion of the youth electoral constituency. It isnot explained why political parties and politicians have typically overlooked or sought to engage with the large groupof 18-24 year-old voters.The points raised above do not preclude the possibility of lowering the voting age at some point in the future. But theenhancement of youth political engagement to encourage life-long modes of participation requires a moresophisticated review of the quality as well as the quantity of participation. Supporters of ‘votes at 16’ rightly seek toenhance our democracy but fail to acknowledge that focus on the reform of the franchise places the responsibility fordecline in democratic participation squarely on the shoulders of the electorate. The detrimental impact of an under-reformed political system and culture that has become increasingly insular, self-selecting, and unrepresentative isclearly a significant contribution to political disengagement. Suggestions that young people should be compelled tovote in their first eligible elections, as recently proposed by the IPPR think-tank, similarly seek to address thesymptoms not the causes of youth political disengagement.There are lessons to be learnt from other countries where evidence suggests that lowering the voting age to 16 haslittle negative impact on overall turnout levels, with newly-enfranchised young voters voting in similar numbers astheir older counterparts. The benefits can be short-term though. For example, the experience of Brazil suggests that2/3Read all posts in our series on youth participation.disillusionment amongst 16 and 17 year-old voters can quickly set in if the political system and its actors are notprepared to reform their attitudes and behaviour. This has seenyouth turnout decline, even though voting is compulsory (afterthe age of 18). More worryingly, evidence from Norwaysuggests that youth political literacy and engagement beyondelections is not significantly enhanced when the voting age islowered. The failure to undertake reform of our politicalinstitutions, culture and policy frameworks to represent youngpeople more proportionally before lowering the voting age couldfurther diminish the legitimacy of elections and the widerdemocratic process in the UK in the long-term.—This post is part of a series on youth participation based on thePolitical Studies Association project, Beyond the Youth Citizenship Commission. For further details, pleasecontact Dr Andy Mycock. An electronic copy of the Beyond the Youth Citizenship Commission: Young People andPolitics volume can be downloaded here.Note: This post represents the views of the author and does not give the position of the LSE or Democratic Audit.Please read our comments policy before commenting. Shortlink for this post: buff.ly/1flCjNy—Jonathan Tonge is a Professor of Politics at the University of Liverpool.Dr Andy Mycock  is a Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Huddersfield.3/3

Ed Miliband should recognise that 16 and 17 year olds can be part of our democracy even if they do not have the vote

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online