Participation & Citizenship, Society & Issues

7 Responses to “When is a Young Person Not a Young Person?!”

1. Tim Davies responded on 07 Oct 2007 at 10:33 am #

   One clarification: You can now stand for election (local and parliamentary) at 18, rather than 21.

   And a few thoughts:
   It does seem as though lowering the voting age to 16 would bring 17 and 18 year olds out of provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the ‘legal’ framework of Children’s Rights) as that provides in Article 12 that: “For the purpose of the prevent Convention, a child means every human being below the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier”.

   The particular range of ages we have in English law for different acts is confused, and not based on very coherent principles, but the idea of having a graduated range of ages for different acts seems sound. The alternative of one birthday ‘unlocking adulthood’ seems unattractive and to set up far too much of a line between being a young person and being an adult.

   But ultimately, the right to participate has a slightly different basis from being a young peoples equivalent of voting. It is the right to be listened to and to have ones views taken into account. As an adult, if someone doesn’t take my views into account (perhaps when I’m trying to decide with my house-mates whether we should redecorate or not), I have, in many cases, the right to disagree and act upon my disagreement. Children are, in most cases, denied the ability to act upon their disagreements - being subject, it is argued, to the authority of their parents.

   Voting is one form of acting upon my disagreement, and so, if we consider voting to be enough, lowering the age to 16 may undermine the right of a child to particular participation rights in the public sphere. But unless the ages that retain children’s subjection to adults in the private sphere (e.g. gaining permission of parents to get married whilst under 18) change, the right to be listened to and to have ones views taken into account continue to be valid here.

   Ok. Philosophical ramblings aside - what am I trying to say?

   >The right to participation is not just about political participation.

   >The right to be heard (which is at the core of the Article 12 ‘participation’ right) is a significant aspect of Children’s Rights - and a right which depends on context - but not just upon voting ages

   >A political participation right (the right to be involved …) is different from a Child’s participation right…

   >Political participation has many different roots, not just rights, and so we need to carefully unpick why communities, projects and organisations are really engaging with young people to see how that engagement might be affected by age-based laws…

2. mas responded on 07 Oct 2007 at 7:38 pm #

   Hi Tim - thanks for the correction I’ll update it in a mo

   I agree the ‘gradual introduction’ of different responsibilities has a lot going for it (providing people are aware of them).

   I think the interesting thing about the lack of power that ‘children’ have is that participation isn’t necessarily about granting them adult rights. The challenge for people supporting children and young people is to help them participate as they are - as children and young people - so you could even argue that the votes for 16 campaign isn’t completely relevant in this context - maybe the efforts and resources should be targeted instead at how those young people can participate in the political process effectively without the right to vote?

   Its also this distinction which was my main line of thought for this post - that there should be a differentiation between ‘children’, ‘young people’ and ‘young adults’ who are all a different stages of life, with different outlooks and concerns, involved with different parts of the ’system’, and with different legal responsibilities and rights. Yet largely they’re treated under the broad category of ‘young people’ and its not clear what that means according to the various different organisations that work with them.

   I wholly agree that participation is about more than political participation. I had a chat about this with Steve the other day - what would lead to the stronger society? - a society in which everyone knows their democratic rights but cares little for their neighbour, - or a society in which people don’t vote during elections in huge numbers but care deeply about the people they live with and the area that surrounds them?

3. Ade responded on 09 Oct 2007 at 8:05 am #

   Whilst I agree with Tim’s comment about the fact that there should be no magic age when adulthood is unlocked for young people, there is no getting away from the fact that the position as it currently stands for young people is unnecessarily complicated (mainly because no obe has conducted a comprehensive review of the law as it relates to young people eg family law, negligence law etc as well as all the things you’ve mentioned)

   My broader comment though relates to your point about political participation - whilst I agree that voting is not the most effective form of participation, political participation which is much wider than a responsibility to vote is the highest form of participation.

   Political participation means being involved in the decisions that affect your life. That could be at school, at home or in your local community. It is about engaging with decision-makers (people who have the power to make decisions that affect you and the way you live etc) so for example, being involved in discussions and more importantly decisions around changes in school uniform at your school would be an act of political participation.

   Participative democracy is about the relationship people have with their decision makers on a daily basis, shaping policies not just by voting buy by being involved in helping to find solutions to problems/ issues that affect them or their community.

4. mas responded on 09 Oct 2007 at 9:32 am #

   I suspect the term ‘political participation’ itself would put off a lot of people (I mean everyone not just young people!). I agree with your definitions in the strict sense but I think most people would regard political participation as engagement in party politics (local or national).

   In the sense you’ve defined it I’d agree that political participation is a ‘higher level’ of participation in so far as it means being directly involved in the decision making processes.

   However if you regard political participation as the involvement in party politics I don’t agree that this is necessarily the highest form of participation. Whilst ultimately it is on the basis that the ‘victors’ become Government I think that in a comfortable democracy like the UK (ie. there’s little risk of war or a military coup to take power) there are many ways that people can ‘participate’ that make an extremely important contribution to a strong society but are in no way political. A clear example being something like supporting an air ambulance scheme.

   I think the problem then with the definition of political participation as you put it is that it doesn’t allow for people that do participate at a high level but are not involved with party politics - so what would you call that? Personally I would define political participation as related to party politics, and community participation as related to action in the local community.

   I also wonder whether a lot of people that do take part in party politics (ie. by voting) actually don’t feel as though they’ve participated at all? I’ve never felt as though my vote made a difference - perhaps this is because when we vote in a general election many of us vote on the basis of who will be the Government not voting for our local MP and so it feels like a very detached process (perhaps this is a different discussion for someone else to start!)

5. Tim Davies responded on 11 Oct 2007 at 8:35 am #

   I certainly agree that the particular list of ages we have at present isn’t neccessarily coherent. A review would perhaps be welcome (as long as we get obe + good participative methods of course…)

   Turning to the politics question - hows about these distinctions:

   * Individual participation right - the one I was getting at in my original post. Not the ‘right’ for a child to have adult ‘rights’, but the right for the child’s voice to be taken as valid, weighed against other concerns, and to influence outcomes (not to definitively direct outcomes though) in individual situations without a wider political impact.

   For example:
   The right of a child in care to have influence over their subject choices at GCSE or choice of college.

   The right of a child to be involved in discussions about whether the family should move house to a different area or not.

   The right of a child to be heard in family law proceedings.

   These are only ‘political’ in the sense that they should involve discussion, decision and action… but are a distinct aspect of the Article 12 right - and arguably a key building block for democratic politics at the next two levels (below).

   * political participation (small p) - being involved with others in seeking or creating change in a community through a myriad of different forms of action.

   Wherever there are competing options for change (or non-change as the case may be) and one takes action to support a particular option, there are the beginnings of small-p politics. The will to see a particular set of arrangements prevail…

   * Political participation (big P) - parties, elections, formal structures. The systems for dealing with power.

   Where the power lies and how we get involved in distributing it (voting, engaging in action directed at politicians / appeal to public etc.) at the big P level often affects what can happen at the small-p level. But not always (or at least, not to a meaninful extent).

6. Boozing or Voting? | The (late) Breakfast Society responded on 16 Jun 2008 at 11:51 am #

   [...] won’t be able to purchase alcohol. It seems to be yet another inconsistency in deciding at what age young people actually become adults. Although of course its already accepted throughout the world that you don’t need to be an [...]

7. Supporting the Transition to Adulthood | The (late) Breakfast Society responded on 25 Jul 2008 at 11:33 am #

   [...] there should be a gradual transition of responsibilities - in fact perhaps there already is if you look at this post showing the different ages at which young people gain legal [...]

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Similar blogs

• Supporting the Transition to Adulthood
• Children Grow up Too Fast?!…..
• Boozing or Voting?
• Indoctrinating Children
• Playing Consultation