Moderator: This is a response to a previous post by James Graham.
Claire Fox (London, Institute of Ideas): James Graham from Unlock Democracy wants to go further than Gordon Brown and reduce the voting age to 13. I'm afraid, if we follow his advice, we won't be unlocking democracy, but rather undermining it. James argues that it is a matter of civil liberties. But is he seriously arguing this is what is driving Brown and others who are clamouring to lower the age of suffrage? If that were the case, surely those concerned with the erosion of liberty for the young would shout louder about the abolition of ASBOs or the proposed expansion of compulsory schooling / training until 18.
Let's be honest about what this debate is really reflects. It has hardly been due to a militant campaign by modern day youth suffragettes. Rather it's a top down initiative. As Gordon Brown admits, the main motivation for considering extending the franchise has simply been to see "whether lowering that age would increase participation in the political process". What politicians want is to reel in citizens ever younger where they have failed to inspire their fully franchised elders that politics today is worth participating in.
It is within this context that we should consider the discussion about maturity. James is right to be wary of those who cite brain development as a reason to oppose lowering the voting age. However, his trite comment about eugenics misses the point. Even he has chosen an age limit of 13. Presumably he thinks 12 year olds are too immature to vote. Context is everything and my concern is that the reason why middle-aged politicians are chasing 16-year-olds is because of their political immaturity. The political elite is obsessively worried about how indifferent the general population is to party politics and elections. Younger people seem attractive precisely because they are not yet old enough to be cynical and young enough to be manipulated.
We know politicians see those under eighteen as immature because it is they who treat teenagers as children in relation to child protection legislation, their right to buy cigarettes or alcohol, even their decision about whether they want to remain in education. In fact the targeted teenagers are often treated as less than equal citizens. When the Electoral Commission consulted on lowering the voting age a few years ago, they produced a 'yoof' version of the document: 16?-18?-21? (opens pdf). With no sense of irony, in order to encourage young people to participate in a grown-up discussion about whether they were adult enough to vote, this document was shortened, child-friendly and contained lots of pictures and big writing.
The point about maturity is that it is not a matter of biology but of how we view the democratic mandate. The ideal of a deliberating, mature citizen is dependent on their capacity to act independently. Yet in much of the discussion it seems extending the franchise to the young has support precisely because they are dependent enough to have their views moulded and shaped by their elders. James himself talks about how "citizenship education and the right to vote can be combined in a genuinely complementary way". So you get the vote if you learn the right lessons. It is as if we hope the kind of politics that has been rejected as unworthy of adults can be more easily spoon-fed to children. That's an insult to the young and to democracy.
