Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Political candidacy, age of
Section B. Constitutional/governance
In the USA, a candidate must be 25 to stand for the House of Representatives, 30 for the Senate and 35 for president. In Italy, a candidate must be 50 or more to stand for president; and in Germany, the age limit is 40 to stand for chancellor, though the country allows 18 year olds to stand for other positions. Are all these restrictions ageist and should the age of candidacy for all positions be the same as the voting age? In countries such as Australia and Denmark, 18 year olds may stand for any office. In Britain, the minimum age to stand for parliament was lowered from 21 to 18 in 2007. Is this more democratic and representative or is it reckless?
Pros
[1] There is no logical reason to prevent 18 year olds standing for parliament. They can marry and they pay taxes and so are fully fledged members of society. If the democratic system is designed to reflect the views of those aged 18 and above (the electorate), then it is only proper that 18 year olds should be allowed to be representatives. It is ageist and discriminatory to exclude them from that role. It implies that they are second-class citizens.
[2] Being an MP or representative is not the same as being a business person. An elected representative merely needs to present an open and articulate channel of communication for those whom he or she represents. Intelligence, listening skills, openness, integrity and articulacy are all skills that can be well developed by the age of 18. If the electorate does not want to trust a particular 18 year old, it will not vote for that person.
[3] Elected assemblies are too often stuffy, pompous and out of touch with the public, especially with the needs and interests of the young. Allowing 18 year olds to be democratic representatives will give a voice to those concerns and do something to bring the democratic process closer to real people. Even if very few, or none, were elected, their voices during the election would change the campaign and put pressure on other politicians to appeal to young voters. The idealism of young people would be a benefit in an ever more cynical political world; 18 year olds could bring dynamism, idealism and values to bear in the political system.
[4] It is undemocratic to have arbitrary restrictions on the choice of the electorate. If an electorate wishes to have a 20- year-old parliamentarian or a 28-year-old president, why should it be denied its choice by the constitution? If it values age and wisdom, it will vote elsewhere, but a younger candidate should be given the opportunity to see if they can win the electorate’s vote.
[5] Students in schools, colleges and universities are already involved in politics and representation at a high level through student unions. Through these organisations, 18 year olds could have accumulated much relevant knowledge and experience, campaigning on educational, social and environmental issues.
[6] Lowering the age of candidacy would not change the issue of career politicians as at present, young people start as political aides until they are old enough to run for office, so do not gather experience of the wider world during this time. At least if they are campaigning, they will be meeting ’real’ people on the doorsteps.
Cons
[1] It is misleading to present standing for parliament and voting in an election as comparable democratic functions. Being a representative, unlike simply voting for one, requires a level of life experience and maturity that an 18 year old cannot possibly possess. Many complex issues and different groups need to be understood and represented. A democratically elected assembly is required to represent the views and interests of the electorate, but not to resemble that electorate in every detail of demography, such as age.
[2] The electorate of a constituency cannot be expected to trust an 18 year old to fulfil such a demanding role. People aged 18 with little or no experience of life or work are not given highly responsible jobs in industry and commerce; nor should they be in politics. Local parties would probably not select them and the electorate would probably not vote for them.
[3] There is no significant sense in which 18 year olds are more ’in touch’ with reality than 21 year olds or indeed 61 year olds, or more idealistic or dynamic. This is just ageist rhetoric. The sort of 18 year old who wanted to run for office would most likely be a precocious and pompous young person who might be out of touch with youth culture. It is also questionable whether wide-eyed naive idealism is truly an attractive trait in a representative when what is needed is political pragmatism, informed by worldly experience and deep thought.
[4] There are other restrictions on candidacy which vary between jurisdictions. but include nationality, place of residency and whether the candidate has registered as bankrupt. A minimum age is in line with this. The logic behind this policy of exclusions, besides, would suggest there should be no minimum age at all in case the voters want to support a 13 year old.
[5] The narrow range of issues that concerns student unions (mainly education and its funding) is not sufficient experience for the broad issues and challenges of being a representative. The sort of people who would want to be elected politicians at the age of 18 would most likely want to go to university — this would not be compatible with the huge demands on time and commitment of being an elected politician.
[6] Reducing the age of eligibility would only fuel the problem that many countries are seeing of career politicians. If an 18 year old has a desire to be a politician, they should go out into the world first to get some experience of life.
Possible motions
This House would allow 18 year olds to stand for office.
This House would give the young a voice.
Related topics
Term limits for politicians
Voting age, reduction of
Mandatory retirement age