Politicians are getting older and while younger voters are passionate about some current events, they are not inspired to become involved. Something needs to be done, argues Malcolm Byrne.
The Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, was first elected to the Dáil at a time when it was not unusual for young people to enter political life. Bertie Ahern, Enda Kenny and Mary Harney were among those in the 1970s and 1980s who found themselves as TDs or Senators in their twenties. (Bertie Ahern was 26 when first elected, Enda Kenny was 24 and Mary Harney was 28, having been a Senator at 24).
Irish politics, however, is becoming distinctly middle aged. There is not a single Cabinet member under 40.
That trend has been continuing for the past quarter century. In the November 1982 general election, 33 per cent of those elected to the Dáil were under 40. That fell to 30 per cent in 1987, 29 per cent in 1989, 25 per cent in 1992, 20 per cent in 1997 and just 14 per cent in 2002. A brief recovery in this year's election saw the figure rise to 15 per cent.
That trend does not just apply to Ireland. The average age of a Canadian parliamentarian is 52. In Finland, it is 47 (interestingly, a majority, 101, of the 200 members of the Finnish parliament in 1909 were under 40). In the "youthful" Australia, just 26 of its 150 representatives are under 40, while nine of its 76 senators are in their 20s or 30s. In the United States, the average age of a senator rose from 59.5 two years ago to 62 following November's elections (just 11 are under 40), while the House of Representatives saw the average age rise from 55 to 56 between 2004 and 2006 elections. This makes it the oldest US Congress in history.
There has been a variety of reasons put forward for the lack of involvement of 20- and 30-somethings in elected life: the opportunities for success and to influence Irish life are perceived to be in areas other than public office; the perceived irrelevancy of the Irish political system to real life; the apathy that has resulted from economic success and a general political consensus; the failure of the political parties to realistically involve young people. The language of our political leadership is often not encouraging.
The younger generations (so-called generations X and Y) are interested in politics, contrary to popular belief. Issues ranging from globalisation to house prices to the environment to the price of fuel will feature in pub or club discussions or over lunch. But consumer power is often seen as more effective than going out to vote and traditional political organisations such as party or trade union branches are seen as toothless in comparison to raising an issue through the media. This article could stimulate more discussion than most motions I'd try to raise through party structures.
For our political system to survive, however, and for it maintain credibility, we need to involve people of all backgrounds and all ages. The social contract that forms the State requires the acceptance of the 20-year-old who spends her evenings skateboarding or hanging around with her friends as much as the 50-year-old who goes for a drink with his local politician. In shaping our society, we also need to encourage that 20-year-old to consider a career in civic life.
The Civic, Social and Personal Education programme at second level (similar to various civic education programmes in other states) has sought to place greater emphasis on building political awareness among students, and the young wings of political parties are probably more active than they've ever been before.
But perhaps it is time to be more radical. Teenagers today have had experiences of the world, the workplace and life far broader than those of a generation ago. Most have worked or are working at least in part-time employment and are contributing to the economy, including through taxes. They have a perspective on life that has been shaped by the phenomenal changes in Ireland of the past decade or so. Increasingly, they are being asked to take on more responsibilities by their families and society generally.
In most western countries, the right to vote starts at 18.
Why not consider also extending the right (and duty) to vote to those young people, or at the very least, reducing the voting age to 16? At 16, a young person is very much part of their community and it is an easier time in which to start voting than at 18, when young people start to move out of home, to college or to work - setting out on their own journey in life. The earlier in life a habit is formed, the more likely that it will continue through later life.
Arguments against allowing teenagers to vote are exactly the same as those used against the working classes and women in the past. "They are not intelligent or mature enough." Young people are smart and will make decisions independently of their families or school pressures.
By lowering the voting age, it will also force the political establishment to pay more attention to the views and concerns of young people. Nothing makes a candidate pay attention more than someone with a vote. Letting teenagers vote will end the practice of "Is your Mammy or Daddy at home?" during an election canvass.
In the House of Commons, over 100 MPs in all parties have now signed a pledge committing support to reducing the voting age in the UK and Gordon Brown has indicated in public that he is not opposed to the idea. Last year, the Tynwald in the Isle of Man voted to reduce the age to 16. (It should be noted that the Isle of Man was one of the first territories in the world to give women the right to vote, in 1881).
While for general elections, constitutional change to reduce the voting age is required, it merely requires an Act of the Oireachtas to so do for local elections in two years.
Such a legislative change would be a most powerful signal to young people that you are not just "Our Nation's Future" but also very much part of its present.
Malcolm Byrne is a Fianna Fáil councillor in Gorey, Co Wexford