Modern liberal democracy rests on the notion that citizens are able to vote for who they wish to represent them, and by extension, the nation.
No-one disputes this idea, and indeed people rightly champion it. However, there has always been a debate about where the threshold should be, to be granted a vote.
Here in the UK, it took from 1836 until 1928 to achieve universal suffrage for every man and woman. Beyond that, it took until 1969 for the voting age to be dropped from 21 to 18, where it still remains at a UK level.
However, in Scotland we have done things slightly differently. In the run-up to our independence referendum in 2014, the decision was made to lower the voting age to 16. Of course, there were cynics who claimed this was merely a ploy by the Scottish National Party to boost support for independence, but as someone who opposes independence, I was fully in favour of this change.
The decision to lower the voting age in New Zealand is one for the New Zealand Parliament, and voters to decide. It is not my place to tell New Zealanders one way or the other. However, I can tell you what happened in our experience in Scotland.
During the referendum campaign, 16- and 17-year-olds more than rose to the occasion. I think everyone, including those who had supported the reform, were pleasantly surprised by the level of constructive engagement that took place. Many events throughout the referendum were aimed specifically at young people and the engagement was always excellent.
After the referendum, there was little doubt that the move had been the right one. Indeed, the then leader of the Scottish Conservative Party (our equivalent of the National Party), Ruth Davidson, dropped her opposition to the idea and reversed her party’s policy.
The decision was then made to lower the franchise for both Scottish Parliament elections, and local council elections. Again, all elections in which 16-17-year-olds can vote has seen good engagement from the cohort. Although 16-17-year-olds are unable to vote in UK general elections, Keir Starmer, leader of the UK Labour Party has promised to go ahead with the reform if he is to become prime minister.
In my view, it is critical that democratic institutions reach out to young people. The decisions the Scottish government makes have massive impacts on the education system and schools, along with local services and healthcare. A young person’s engagement with the political sphere does not begin when they turn 18.
One of the major parts of the Independence Referendum, back in 2014, was the engagement with schools. Both the Yes and No campaigns made it a priority to engage and involve schools and ensure those who had the vote, and even those who didn’t, felt part of the process. During the referendum, I spoke to hundreds of school pupils at events across Edinburgh and was always amazed by the intelligence of the questions I was asked. Even today as a member of the Scottish parliament (MSP) I welcome schools into parliament. In my experience, involving young people and schools into the democratic process only strengthens democracy.
An institution which represents this desire to ensure young people are engaged in our politics is the Scottish youth parliament. Although the UK parliament is known as this ancient institution, packed with archaic traditions and gothic architecture, the Scottish parliament is relatively young. It celebrates its 25th anniversary this year. The Scottish youth parliament was actually founded the day before the Scottish parliament first sat. So, from the outset, it has always been a large feature of Scottish democracy and my job as an MSP — to engage with young people and ensure democracy and politics are as much about them as any adult.
Now of course, nothing is perfect and there are no silver bullets to creating the perfect democracy. There are issues that extending the franchise to 16-17-year-olds has not managed to address. Turnout among young people is still lagging behind older cohorts. Turnout is also still lower among all cohorts for local elections, and Scottish parliament elections, compared to UK general elections. More must be done to ensure young people learn about democratic institutions and their power to change lives, if we are to see a change in this field.
However, there have been some notable changes. According to recent data, those who started voting at 16 and 17 years old are more likely to turn out than those who received the vote at 18. Social class is also much less of a factor in determining if someone will vote among those who started voting at 16 and 17 years old, compared to those who voted at 18. These are all positive changes that illustrate a tangible positive impact on Scotland’s political climate.
As I said before, I would never dream of telling New Zealanders what they should do, regarding lowering the voter age. I hope, if anything, this account proves a useful insight on how those reforms can be a strong plank in engaging young people more effectively in the political process. Overall, in Scotland, there is no regret across the main parties about enacting the reform and no plan to reverse it, but of course, with most things in politics, it is not the silver bullet to fix all ills. However, I am glad to have supported the change back in 2014 and think it has been good for Scottish democracy.
- Sarah Boyack is a member of the Scottish parliament for the Lothian Region.
