Sticks and Stones

“Just as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This is my idea of democracy.”

This idea expressed by Abraham Lincoln is a simple but fundamental one to the workings of a democracy. In order for it to function properly, it must include everyone capable of voting, and take them as equals.

So, do 16 and 17 year olds fall into this category? Do they deserve representation, and are they mature enough to use it responsibly?

Why should anyone have an interest in being represented? People should care because representation ensures your opinions are voiced on areas which affect you and that government listens. These are applicable to 16 year olds just as they are to 18 or 45 year olds. But what is more important, still, is that this demographic needs a voice on issues which are specific to them. The availability of youth facilities, the quality of schools, of children’s hospitals, policies towards combating youth crime and drug abuse: these are all aspects of society and politics on which many young people have a strong view, and a view which is relevant in informing policy. Few adults, it seems, can boast such an insight into these areas, and how best to solve them.

Representation is also desirable simply for the purpose of a more thorough democratic count. Since 16 year-olds do have to pay taxes, they are contributory members of society. Should they not have a say into how their money is spent, or how highly it is taxed in the future?

But we must strike a balance. It is clear that one should possess a certain level maturity before being allowed to vote. Have sixteen year-olds developed a sufficiently rational mind to be making such an integral decision?

Scientific research shows that, whilst there is evidence to suggest the development of the frontal lobes past sixteen, there is no discernible difference in the ability to weigh up different options and reach a reasoned judgement between sixteen and eighteen year-olds.

Young people do not go uneducated in political matters either. Many take Economics, Law, History or Politics at Advanced Level and it is compulsory to receive grounding in ‘Citizenship’ until the age of sixteen.

Yet the strongest argument, by far, for giving young people the vote is to look at what they can already do. I, at sixteen, am able to leave school, join the army, get married, have children, and, if that were not bad enough, hand over a good proportion of that directly to the Tax man. A discrepancy on this scale is simply unacceptable. Why is it that I am able to die for my country but have absolutely no means of influencing whether I go to war in the first place?

Admittedly, even if many sixteen and seventeen year-olds are politically astute and interested, perhaps far more are totally uninformed and irrational. Is it wise to extend suffrage to such a demographic? No less wise than to allow adults of all ages to vote despite the same level of knowledge and interest. As Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” If this is true, it is sadly true for the entire electorate, and not merely pubescent teenagers.

Those who truly have no interest in deciding their future will more likely not bother to vote than vote irrationally. Thankfully, it seems too much bother for such people to register to vote and go to their local polling station. Those who are disenfranchised with their party are increasingly likely to not vote at all, out of protest, than they are to vote for a rival party.

This is a trend that needs reversing. In Hamburg, when this scheme was introduced, not only did 16-17 year-olds turn out in greater numbers than their 18-21 year-old counterparts, as they grew older they retained these good habits of voting, and turnout on the whole went up.

Young people need to learn how to be part of our democratic system whilst still young; whilst still enthused about issues which affect them. ‘Citizenship’ is only a ‘Mickey Mouse subject’ so long as it won’t affect you for another few years. But when it becomes important, now, young people start to sit up and listen. And this is what they need to do, if they have any desire in shaping the world in which they are to grow up.

No Comments

This week, following the convictions of two high profile murderers using DNA evidence, senior police officials have called for the introduction of a national DNA database in the UK. The mandatory database would include the genetic code of all residents and visitors to the UK, regardless of innocence or guilt. The Government was quick to dismiss the suggestion, and I am inclined to support their decision.

It is revealing that the Home Office raised mostly practical concerns with the proposed scheme. Aside from the huge potential cost, they seemed to have realised that the public is becoming distinctly displeased with their losing of data on a truly impressive scale. Storing the DNA information of everyone in the country (even tourists) would, needless to say, pose serious problems were the information to get into criminally-minded hands. Aside from the (not improbable) possibility of the data accidentally being mislaid, we ought to be wary of who would have apparently legitimate access to the data. In early 2007, five civil servants who operated the database were arrested on charges of trying to steal information. The prospect of information loss, then, is not wholly unimaginable.

Even if the Government have learnt from their mistakes in data security, the so-called ethical issues are worrying nonetheless. It is all too easy to cry ‘civil liberties’ as an all-purpose, throwaway remark. Nevertheless, we are not unjustified in maintaining an inexorable opposition to being forced to give our details to such a database. It would erode both our privacy and our position as free individuals in a nation which has always prided itself in peoples’ right to be free from the prying eyes of the state.

Yet there is more to fear than an instinctive dislike. With a government which already seems bent on imprisoning innocent people who somehow have a predisposition to crime, we should be very worried about potential ‘genetic profiling’, even if it is only a distant worry. That it is becoming increasingly possible to uncover the predispositions and characteristics of a person from their DNA alone could make it a devastating weapon for anyone who wanted to weed out potential villains. These would not be thought crimes; worse, they would be genetic crimes: one could be guilty merely of having a genetic propensity to be evil. Once information is collected, it seems, there is no turning back.

Finally, the alarming chance for anomalies with the technology the database would use (Low Copy Number testing) is too great to detail here, but means that it will not stand as evidence in a US court. Reliance on such an unreliable system by the police could in practice hinder the chances of successful prosecutions in important cases.

It is not often that this Government decides in favour of our civil liberties. We should be mighty thankful therefore, that on this lonely occasion, it has.

No Comments

It was with considerable audacity that Pervez Musharraf told the world that today’s elections in Pakistan would be “the Mother of all elections.” In fact, since the assassination of Pakistan Peoples Party leader Benazir Bhutto, it has been eminently clear that this would far from be the case.

Following Bhutto’s death, rioters took the streets in droves and estimates place the death toll from political violence at over 450 thus far. On Saturday a suicide bomb attack left 46 dead and only yesterday a candidate for Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League party was shot and killed in Lahore.

We should not be surprised to hear then, that fewer than 35% of Pakistani voters are thought to have ventured to the polls today. In one province in Lahore, for example, where 800 women were registered to vote, by midday, only three had arrived to do so, leaving the presiding officer of the polling station to reflect, “God willing, the ladies will come out after they’ve finished their house work.”

But it is not just widespread violence (or ‘house work’) that is to blame for voters’ reluctance to queue up at polling stations; fears of extensive rigging seem also to have stymied many. Aside from prevalent reports from the two main opposition parties of electoral corruption, Human Rights Watch also claim to have a telephone conversation featuring Pakistan’s Attorney-General, Malik Qayyum, boasting that the election would be “massively rigged” in favour of Musharraf’s party. Stories of Police firing at journalists and roadblocks set up outside polling stations (to keep out voters in opposition strongholds) will do nothing to dispel such reports.

In the event of a vote in which each of the main parties placed their confidence, a hung parliament would seem the most likely outcome, with the possibility of the two main opposition parties mounting a formidable opposition to the incumbent’s regime. However such political concord in Pakistan seems wishful thinking. More likely, dissatisfaction and frustration will see Pakistan’s streets once again ablaze and Musharraf’s pledge to see that “nothing of the sort will be allowed” will only serve to exacerbate violence.

The Mother of all elections? Perhaps not. But Pervez Musharraf kindly reassures us that he will nonetheless co-operate with whoever is elected ‘harmoniously’. It’s just a shame no-one believes him.

2 Comments