ID: Is anonymous? Is organisation?

129 No Yes

Is form complete: Organisation name:

Child Rights International Network Yes (CRIN)

First name: Last name:

Child Rights International Network (CRIN)

Global catastrophic risks Risk multipliers managed Implementation timeframe mitigated

Climate change Institutions that lack inclusivity or Long

accountability Eco-system collapse

Poverty and inequality Remove age restrictions on the right to vote

Globally, most children are excluded from shaping the decisions that will affect their lives. Give under-18s the right to vote; for , for equality, and to include those who have the longest to live on this earth in solving its greatest problems.

DETAILS

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE

Under-18s hold a vast array of rights, but there’s one set that’s conspicuous by its absence: political rights. Best represented by the right to vote, political rights are a defining characteristic of any democracy, and one of their key purposes is to give voice to all citizens, including those who might otherwise not be heard. Without a vote, people wouldn’t be able to press their political representatives on issues that govern their lives and are important to them, including those affecting their human rights and those of others.

So where does that leave under-18s? If there’s one population group that’s routinely excluded from this entitlement all over the world, it’s children. Why? Because apparently Every - Single - Child, making up almost a third of the global population, is irrational, incompetent, and too young. And much like the arguments used historically to deny women the vote, these generalisations appear to require little justification.

If we take a look around the world, we’ll see that no country allows under-16s to vote in national elections and only a minority allow to those aged between 16 and 18 in national or municipal elections. While under-18s do have freedom of expression and association and the right to be heard enshrined in international , the occasions on which they can voice their opinions and have these carry weight in political decision-making are rare. In practice, under-18s have very little say in the decisions that govern their lives. And what rubs salt into the wound is that they can’t even challenge the conditions that exclude them from decision-making precisely because they’re not legally entitled to.

Political rights are an avenue through which under-18s can exercise their rights with the aim of improving other rights.

Giving them the vote would empower them to stand up for their own rights, rather than continue to leave this responsibility in the hands of well-intentioned but inevitably paternalistic adults. Of course, suffrage would not fix children’s rights issues or stop rights violations; but it would allow under-18s to use their vote to complement their participation in other settings and maximise their presence and influence. The automatic exclusion of most under-

18s from the electorate not only fundamentally undermines their political rights and engagement, it’s also an enormous waste of human potential.

CHALLENGING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT VOTES FOR UNDER-18s

Many people dismiss the idea of enfranchising under-18s out of hand, because of a series of assumptions. To address these assumptions, we’ve critiqued the logic behind them in order to debunk them, and thought about how well adults measure up in comparison to expose the hypocrisy.

“Children don’t understand politics”

Neither do many adults. But if knowledge of political affairs were actually a requirement for voting, we’d be given aptitude tests when we come of age, which isn’t the case anywhere. What’s more, if awareness were the issue, then the ignorant can always become more knowledgeable.

“Children would vote frivolously for politicians or for the wrong reasons”

Adults make poor judgements too. Prejudice, nationalism, propaganda and misinformation can all lead to questionable electoral choices. Nonetheless, the perceived rightness or wrongness of voting behaviour isn’t a requirement for voting because consider the right to vote as belonging to citizens regardless of how they might use it. It’s important not to confuse doing something right with the right to do it in the first place.

“Children aren’t mature or competent enough to vote”

Many adults, despite their older age, can be immature. Plus, if the argument were really about maturity and competence, then it’s not children who should be excluded from voting, but the immature and incompetent, regardless of their age.

“Children can’t handle the responsibility of voting”

This argument suggests that voting is a sort of burden that only adults can handle. But suffrage isn’t a burden, it’s a right. What’s more, in most democracies, no voter is forced to vote if they don’t want to.

“Children shouldn’t worry about politics; let children be children”

Let children be children is a cliché of political discourse. It assumes that children should behave a certain way because of their age. But this argument is simplistic, patronising, filled with preconceptions and out of touch with reality. The ages to 18 encompass an enormous range of skills, competencies, needs and rights. A 16-year-old is likely to have more in common with a 19-year-old than a three-year-old, but according to conventional accounts, all under-18s fall into the same uniform political category. Presuming what’s best for entire population groups without first hearing from the groups themselves is a classic case of paternalism.

“Children have other priorities besides politics”

If having competing priorities is really a factor determining a person’s entitlement to vote, then adults have many more competing priorities. This argument is also another patronising case of paternalism.

“Parents might unduly influence their child’s electoral choices”

Adults are also influenced by their family’s electoral preferences. And this influence persists whether we are 15, 25, 55 or 85 years old. What’s more, pressuring someone to vote a certain way is illegal anyway, yet the argument is being used unfairly to essentially punish children instead of the perpetrators.

“Children don’t need authority anywhere else in life”

Enfranchising under-18s won’t mean that they will take over the world. But it would democratise the electorate which would serve to benefit the community as a whole. “Children are too young to vote”

On similar age-based grounds, imagine removing the right to vote for people older than, say, 65 years old. Does the argument now feel and sound any different?

“Children probably wouldn’t vote anyway”

Many adults already don’t. Many abstain or are apathetic. But this argument is beside the point, as the right to vote isn’t obtained based on one’s likelihood to vote. In most democracies voting isn’t compulsory, so only those motivated to vote will do so.

FURTHER READING: https://medium.com/and-beyond/childrens-right-to-vote-a-manifesto-a06c4996035e http://home.crin.org/issues/civil-and-political-rights https://medium.com/and-beyond/silent-citizens-de0842e9f3da https://archive.crin.org/sites/default/files/crin_report_2018_edition.pdf (p.10-11) https://archive.crin.org/en/library/publications/right-vote-countries-where-under-18s-can-vote.html

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Alleviating poverty and inequality

Under-18s don’t enjoy equality with adults on many fronts: from that prohibit violence against adults, but not against children; to laws that allow employers to pay children less than adults. Their lives are also shaped by adults’ prejudiced ideas and assumptions about young people; that they are anti-social, lack maturity, should be seen and not heard. However, they lack the power to challenge this inequality. Enfranchising children would provide the means to challenge these conditions, which are rarely discussed by adults, as well as challenge adults’ attitudes towards them, and make them more respected as fellow citizens.

The likelihood is that youth suffrage would be good for efforts to tackle poverty and inequality of other groups, too.

While the right to vote should not be based on the voting choice that someone would make, the indication is that children would use their political voice to press for action on issues that matter to them. According to several youth surveys, such issues include:

-Poverty

-Poor quality of education or lack of access

-Economic instability

-Climate change

-Terrorism

-Treatment of refugee and migrant children

-War and armed conflict -Violence against children

-Feeling disenfranchised

-Distrust in adults and world leaders to make good decisions for children

Conversing effect of increasing conflict and political violence

Not that we can foresee. If anything, enfranchising more of the population and including them in democratic decision-making could have the effect of reducing conflict.

Enhancing inclusivity and accountability in national and global governance

As under-18s lack the right to vote, and their other civil and political rights are often undermined, they are largely excluded from national and global governance. Initiatives to include them - often in the name of “participation” - are usually under adults’ control and often result in tokenism, as it is ultimately up to adults whether to listen to and act on children’s opinions or not.

Giving under-18s the right to vote would make politicians accountable to all their citizens, rather than just adults. This would be an important step towards suffrage that is truly universal (not universal adult suffrage) and democratic.

Democracy proclaims that all citizens are equal with equal rights and opportunities, so picking and choosing which groups should have which rights flies in the face of this principle and is therefore undemocratic.

THEORY OF CHANGE

Implementation strategy

States should remove arbitrary age restrictions on voting, and allow individuals to vote when they choose to do so and are able to register for voting. While clearly babies and toddlers are unlikely to register to vote, older children and adolescents might, depending on their circumstances, experience and interest.

This reform would not be costly or practically difficult to implement. In individual countries, it would be brought about through law reform; changing or removing the in national legislation or the constitution.

Countries already have voter registration processes in place, which they could open up to children. In countries with online voter registration, children might even find it easier than many adults to register to vote, as they are often more technologically capable. Should a first-time voter require any guidance in the process, then the adults in their lives (parent, guardian, teacher, older sibling) or polling station staff could lend them a hand. As for election day itself, voting usually takes place in public buildings - often schools, libraries, halls - that children regularly visit.

The main obstacle is the lack of political will behind extending suffrage to children. Political will exists to realise this proposal null

What if political will does not exist yet null

Realisation by implementing or making adjustments to current roadmaps null

Decision makers and implementers

Votes for under-18s would most likely be achieved in individual states, at different paces in different countries.

National governments would therefore be key decision-makers, although pressure from international bodies would also be needed.

While no state has yet removed age restrictions on voting, a number of countries - including , , ,

Ecuador, and Scotland - are leading the way, allowing young people to vote from age 16. States who are progressive on this issue can change international norms, by lowering and eventually removing age restrictions in their own countries.

Why is this a long term proposal

Although the practical obstacles to giving under-18s the right to vote are small, realistically this is a long term proposal because of the lack of political will behind the issue. No country in the world currently gives children under the age of 16 the right to vote. A minority of states allow children between the age of 16 and 18 to vote, but some of them only in local elections or if under-18s are employed or married.

Votes for children is a neglected issue even in the children’s rights world; it is rarely discussed. To achieve this reform, we would need to create a wider, sustained conversation about the issue, leading to concerted international pressure. This issue would massively benefit from the efforts of Together First’s campaigning and advocacy coalition.

MITIGATING RISKS

Mitigating climate change

There is a lack of political will to take the urgent action needed to prevent climate crisis and ecosystem collapse; processes which science shows have already begun. Children will be one of the most affected groups, as their developing bodies are more vulnerable to many environmental harms (e.g. air pollution), and because they will live the longest with the consequences of current inaction. As the school strikes for the climate and the voices of young activists show, children are demanding that decision- makers focus on “what needs to be done rather than what is politically possible” (Greta Thunberg). But beyond protest and civil disobedience, they have little power to influence the decisions being taken now; little power to make adults listen to their demands and act on them.

Enfranchising under-18s would force decision-makers to listen to their opinions on how society should approach the challenge of climate change and ecosystem collapse; some of the most important issues to under-18s, according to surveys. This reform would require politicians to take seriously and give equal consideration and respect to under-18s as citizens. It would also give political voice to the age group - almost a third of the world’s population - which has the greatest interest in radical, long-term solutions to these threats

Mitigating eco-system collapse

See above