"Debate over the running of society and the allocation of its resources"
Now for me that last section, "allocation of its resources" is the principle reason why the franchise should be extended to those aged 16 and 17. In a true democracy everyone should have the right to have a say in the running of the state, however there are obvious limitations to the extent of that franchise, clearly we could not enfranchise a five year old because they could not make a reasonable decision on the basis of logical thinking. However at 16 a young person can leave school, undertake employement and pay tax. In that point, the crux of the argument lies, because if someone can choose to leave education, undertake employment and contribute to the resources that society allocates, then it stands to reason in a true democracy they should also be allowed to decide on the government who distributes this money, because in this modern day society, the resource we talk about primarily consists of money. This should theoretically leave a simple position, either exempt the young from paying all tax or extend the franchise. However personally i would argue that franchise extention is the only option for several reasons.
Firstly we must take into account that many people will claim that it is a minority that leave school at sixteen to gain employment and thats a fair point with only 24 percent of people leaving school at gcse. This is a minority yes, however we do not stop the unemployed in this country from voting, nor do we stop university students from voting, therefore if the opportunity exists for young people to work then all young people should have the right to vote. Furthermore within british law we tell the young that they are not a real person till there 18 and are not mature enough to do certain things such as vote, however we decide that two 16 year olds can have a child, that a 17 year old can drive, that a 12 year old can get a bank account and particular institutions regardless of age, can charge you an adult rate (bus's , hotel's, cinema's). If someone is mature enough to have children , drive , set up a bank account aswell as pay more for services, then it is right for them to vote.
Also another point to consider is just how much power over their own life is placed into the hands of 16 and 17 year old, at this age they are expected to decide what subjects to take at sixth form and what to do at university, whether to leave school, have an idea about future career or start finding a job, they can eveb decide to enroll in the army meaning young people are considered mature enough to do something that could lead to their death one day, but are not considered mature enough to choose which government sends them to that death. Where is the justice in that?
Finally, and the reason this article is titled "Saving Society", by popular consensus, apparently society is in trouble. Apparently young people are out of control and we are in danger of having our society torn down. It occurs to me that if we actively incorporate young people in society we could solve this problem. Seeing as school is compulsory till the age of 16 that means that there is a captive audience, a radical renovation of citizenship to teach the young about society and about politics, the facts of politics, what each party stands for , how the system works and why it is so important to vote then we can ensure that the young will vote responsibly and consider it, because so many people in Britain today are not responsible when they vote , some vote for a random party , vote on an irational whim or for the party their parents voted for, by teaching them about politics and then making sure it matters to them because they will get to use that power of the vote and in actively being part of society, of building society it means they will think twice before destroying it.
very nice.
ReplyDeletecallum