(20)16- The New Age of Empowerment?

Headlines are still blaring about the aftermath of the Brexit referendum. The tragic saga of the likely consequences, from an obsessively controlling prime minister (today’s newspaper headlines,) to the depressing rusting of the sterling, are also increasing. Never have American dollars gleamed so brightly, or Euros, for that matter. And initially there was a high chance that I might not have had to write this. Not if the 1.5 million 16-17 year olds across the country weren’t denied their chance to voice their opinion. 70% of young voters (aged 18-24) voted remain. If this trend had continued with the potential -17 year old voters, perhaps the result might have been different. Maybe there wouldn’t be angry bumper stickers slapped on car windows, (“Don’t blame me, I voted remain”) or a sudden inflation in t-shirts with the EU symbol, and doleful conversations among many about what the future could have been.

Perhaps. But should those 16-17 year olds have even be given those rights to vote? Overwhelming evidence suggests “yes”: and for those who suggest that they would simply squander the chance to vote, unfortunately for your pride, this is simply not true. In Austria, those aged over 16 can vote in national elections, and the turnout for them is typically between 70-80%. This is in line with the average turnout (in 2013, the most recent example available, it was 74.91%). Is one example not enough? Perhaps you’re concerned that those yodelling Austrians are not a suitable comparison to the English? Fine, take the Scottish independence referendum, much closer to home, last year. The average turnout for 16-17 year olds was 89%. Higher than the overall average of 84.5%. Who is letting the side down now? So the question of actual participation, one of the leading arguments against lowering the age boundary is, clearly, not relevant.

At Wellington, pupils are often drive themselves to college, and with this comes a huge amount of responsibility, particularly for their actions on the road, and for the safety of themselves and others. And teenagers aged over 16 have many other responsibilities too: as a military school, most of us are aware that it is then possible to join the forces. To kill a person, even in the name of your country, is a demanding duty, for the psychological effects alone. This shows the trust that the armed forces have. And from this age you are deemed as an adult in terms of criminal prosecution, marriage and taxation. It is ridiculous, though, for anyone to be taxed without representation. Across Europe, millions are having their own money taken away from them, and spent on things which they have no say over. Considering that the money inherently belonged to them, it is only fair, if not logical, that they, like everyone else who pays tax, has the opportunity to decide where it goes.

Across Wellington last term, many students across all year groups became involved in activities concerning Brexit, voicing their opinions, attending debates and even voting in the internal referendum, as for many, it was the only place they could. The outcome of any political debate will affect the lives of a 16-year-old as much as it will those 2 years older. When the teenagers are, 24 months after their eligible voting peers, sent into the world of industry, they will be enforced by the same laws, restricted by the same rules, as everyone else. But there is one key difference: they had no choice what their limitations would be, where their country would stand. Instead, they missed out on something that could affect them for the rest of their lives, just because of a couple years’ difference, whereas those who are elderly, could present their thoughts on the situation, even if it was their last legacy (or curse).

The general opinion is that teenagers are disengaged. Uninterested. Recklessness trickling from them like the tinny music spilling out of their headphones. But we are part of society based around youth, and know that this is not true. Although this could be because the school’s selection policy has been designed to allow only the most attentive students, with many of them eventually taking Politics at A level and IB, and with all leavers potentially carrying a promising future ahead of them.

Bearing this in mind, I’ll examine the other side of the argument nevertheless, to represent the entirety of those involved, those who don’t have access to the academic resources available to those at Wellington. How can you expect anyone to express an interest in a matter they are shunned from? By opening up the voting age, teenagers will finally feel willing to take an interest, because finally politics is applicable to them, and is not some distant theory associated with the trials of adulthood. They would have the opportunity to empower themselves by taking control of their future. And, in turn, as potential supporters, politicians will finally cast them a fair share of consideration when deciding their policies. Also, here in the UK we are a democracy, are we not? The Cambridge dictionary definition of democracy is: “the belief in freedom and equality between people”. People. If, by the age of 16 you aren’t even considered a person, I am not entirely sure when you are. This country is supposedly built on democracy. It’s a shame they don’t follow through on this pretense then.

But I’m not suggesting that by ‘people’, I am referring to 10 year olds. There is, with all things (including my patience concerning this subject), a limit. People younger than 16 are very easily influenced and are susceptible to peer pressure, (of course everyone is, at any point in their life, but at this age the desire for social approval- to follow the lead of their parents and friends, is considerably more overwhelming, and this therefore wouldn’t allow for an accurate representation vote-wise). And they are in crucial stage of mental development too. On the subject of mental development, this is a key counter argument for 16-year-old voters, but research has specifically shown that brain development doesn’t stop until around the mid-20s, or even early 30s. (As said by clinical psychologist, Sarah Helps.) With the evidence in the open, the voting age is not raised to accommodate this, though. And education still ends at the same age regardless of this, with people in their twenties exploring the professional world and living in their own homes. So maturity, or the capability to vote, is evidently not based on brain development. Actually, you could even name several adults who have absolutely appalling levels of maturity, and virtually no civic knowledge, (they vote for the people with the funniest name) and yet they have more rights that serious, good intentioned people don’t. The fact that are notably younger than their elders in comparison does not take away from their level of judgement or intelligence.

I am 14 and I believe that people aged 16 should be allowed to vote. But I don’t expect adults to listen to my opinion. How can I? They didn’t care about the opinion of 1.5 million people. Not enough to let them answer a simple “yes” or “no” question, which would have a direct impact on their future.

#GlobalizedIssues