Why voting rights at 16 is the way forward

Hindustan Times

3 days ago

The United Kingdom has decided to permit 16-year-olds to vote in general elections. Incidentally, they can already vote in elections to the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales.
That's one of the interesting quirks about Britain. And there's no doubt this will happen. It's a Labour manifesto promise and Prime Minister Keir Starmer has the numbers to push it through.
Now, what it does is create a rather interesting situation for British 16-year-olds. In addition to voting in national elections, they can also marry with parental consent, enter into a civil partnership, consent to lawful sexual intercourse, leave home without their parent or guardians' permission, join a trade union, pay taxes and work as a waiter or waitress. They also have to pay full train fares.
But there are also things they can't do. For instance, they can't buy a lottery ticket, drive a car on their own, purchase alcohol from an off licence or drink a pint of beer in a pub. Paradoxically, they can't stand for elections. So, they can't vote for themselves.
If this creates a confusing picture, you would not be the first to say so. That seems to be the response of the opposition Conservatives.
However, the essential question is: Are 16-year-olds mature enough to decide who should rule the country? You'll notice I haven't qualified that question by including the adverb intelligently.
Do people in their 20s and 30s or 50s and 60s decide intelligently? Or do they do so emotionally? Or just out of habit and prejudice? If it's ok for them, why not 16-year-olds?
That still leaves the core question: Are they mature enough to vote?
Some clearly are. The BBC interviewed Alex Nurton, the chair of the UK Youth Parliament's Vote at 16 Campaign, and, frankly, he was better informed and certainly more thoughtful than most adults I know. Leave aside granting him the right to vote, he could even be given the right to rule!
But are people like him an exception? I tend to think so. Perhaps because I'm more than half a century older, I'm inclined to believe 16-year-olds are still in the process of making up their minds. They're feeling their way. Learning through experience what could be right or what might turn out to be wrong.
That was certainly true of me in the early '70s. If I was eligible, would I have been able to sensibly choose between Indira Gandhi's Congress and the opposition's Grand Alliance? Or would I have been swayed by my parents' opinion and, as young people often do, make it my own?
Of course, there are young people who think for themselves. I wouldn't deny that. But I suspect the majority accept the view of the adults around them and hold on till they realise they disagree or just grow beyond it.
Now, should you be voting when that's how you approach politics? It's easy to say no because we assume a vote is cast only after carefully considering the choices on offer.
But think again. Is that really what adults do? Aren't we influenced by others just as 16-year-olds might be? Are we any more committed to or convinced of the person we vote for than a 16-year-old would be? I don't think so.
In fact, in 1989, when India gave the vote to 18-year-olds, these very issues and concerns were debated. Time has proved the doubters wrong. Wouldn't you say that's likely to happen again?
The truth is — and it's probably difficult for the elderly to accept — young people today are far more astute and intelligent than we were at their age.
Actually, that was also true of our grandparents and us and their grandparents and them. Every generation is brighter than its predecessor. Just watch a four-year-old with an iPhone and you'll know I'm right.
So I applaud the Brits for what they intend to do. Is it time for us to consider something similar?
Karan Thapar is the author of Devil's Advocate: The Untold Story. The views expressed are personal.