[ad_1]
CAMBRIDGE, Dec. 29 (Dialogue) Most people think democracy is something grown-ups do, and think the prospect of children voting is too silly to even consider.
In the early 20th century, many democracies introduced (ostensibly) universal suffrage, ensuring that adults were no longer denied the right to vote because of wealth, gender or race. But the age threshold persists, and children continue to be excluded from democracy—an exclusion based on their age (being young) and assumptions about what it means to be young as an adult.
However, in a 2020 report to the United Nations, the UK Children’s Commissioner concluded that the UK government “does not prioritize children’s rights or voices in policy or legislative processes”.
As a result, the report argues, children are often less economically well off than older adults, and their insights and needs are being overlooked during crises such as the COVID pandemic. They have no say in Brexit and their environmental concerns are generally sidelined, although children will bear the brunt of it.
Read also | Uzbekistan claims 18 children died after consuming cough syrup made in India.
Many countries allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote, but I think we should think more seriously about why we disenfranchise even very young children. If we unfairly exclude them, the credibility of democracy is at stake. Here are three common arguments against child voting. In each case, I believe the reasons for exclusion are less secure than we might think.
1. Kids don’t know enough about voting
The most common response to the question “Why can’t kids vote?” is that kids are too ill-informed or irrational to do it properly. While adults are able to understand what they voted for, too much is expected of children, and their cognitive abilities are underdeveloped. Children are less likely to think for themselves and instead mimic the views of authority figures such as parents and teachers.
This may be true. But when is knowledge or rationality relevant to voting, and what does a voter need in order to vote “good” or “responsible”? Is it the ability to identify candidates or parties? Or the ability to analyze a politician’s past performance and future promises? Must voters understand the legislative process and the role of various branches of government?
While these insights may be useful, there is no consensus on what is necessary. And because we’re not sure what is needed, it’s impossible to say that adults have it — whatever it is — and kids don’t.
In fact, the difference between children and adults may be smaller than we usually think: 35% of adult voters in the UK are unsure of their local MP, while at various times, 59% of Americans are unsure which their governor is Political party affiliation, only 44% were able to name government departments. We let these adults vote, rightly so, but disqualify all children for clearly displaying the same traits.
The fact that adults are not required to show franchise credentials or be independent of mind suggests that voting is not a privilege of ability but a right of citizenship. Therefore, all citizens including children and even infants should be entitled to the franchise.
If this seems flippant, consider that very young children who cannot walk or hold a pen are extremely unlikely to exercise their right to vote in practice – just as many adults refuse to exercise their right to vote for various reasons Same. What matters is that whenever citizens have a propensity to vote—a motivation that presupposes an understanding of what elections do and how they work—there should be a choice. It doesn’t matter if they’re 4 or 94.
2. Child voting leads to policy confusion
Another argument against child voting is that it leads to policy confusion. If children are irrational and incoherent, but they are still allowed to vote, then election results, and the policy decisions they generate, will surely reflect or be distorted by their ill-considered and incoherent votes.
However, this misunderstands the role of elections. Voting is not the same as making laws. Voting is not about deciding what happens or getting your own way, or even necessarily setting a political agenda. Distilling public opinion is a messy and complex process. And because the link between what the public wants and what it gets isn’t always direct or obvious, outlandish voter beliefs won’t necessarily be echoed in policy.
This is why representative democracies can operate with large numbers of uninformed and irrational citizens. In fact, overcoming voter ignorance is what representative politics—where the people elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf—is what it is all about.
Voting is thus a statement of equality, a recognition of equal moral status. More specifically, it’s a (loose) guarantee that one’s concerns and views are not systematically ignored by politicians. The fact that children cannot vote means that they do not receive this respect and protection. As the historical experiences of excluded women and minorities tell us, this is not a good place to be.
3. Voting rights should not take precedence over other rights
A third argument against giving children the right to vote has to do with the order in which certain rights and responsibilities are acquired. Voting is a serious business, the argument goes, and so the right to vote should be consistent with, or followed by, the right to engage in other activities of similar importance and consequences, such as smoking and drinking, marrying, or joining the military.
However, it’s worth asking why any of these rights were delayed in the first place. The basic answer is that exercising these rights can be harmful, so they are only granted to individuals who understand and are likely to be aware of the risks.
We deprive children of such rights because (we assume) they are often unable to consider the consequences of their actions. However, we will not prevent careless adults from exercising their freedom in self-destructive ways. So why not give children the same freedom?
The answer has to do with the potential to protect children. We deprive children of detrimental liberties so as not to jeopardize their future freedoms and ensure that they have as many opportunities in life as adults.
This rationale applies to the right to drink, or age of consent. But it doesn’t work as well for voting rights, which is clearly not dangerous, nor does it pose an immediate threat to children’s future well-being.
So the kids seem to be being treated unfairly: they’re being denied votes without good reason. At the same time, young people are very dissatisfied with democracy, partly because they are ignored in democratic decision-making.
Suffrage is not a panacea. But unless the place of children in democracy is improved and deepened, political division and democratic mistrust are sure to worsen. (dialogue)
(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from a Syndicated News feed, the content body may not have been modified or edited by LatestLY staff)
[ad_2]
Source link