Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/732282
9 maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2016 Editorial Lowering the voting age MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN ACTING EDITOR: JURGEN BALZAN Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt A proposal to lower the voting age to 16 for general elections seems to be gaining traction among political parties. All four parties – the PL, PN, AD and PDM – now agree with granting voting rights to 16-year-olds. AD proposed the same thing in 2012, while Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has al- ready introduced the lower vot- ing age for local elections. The PN is likewise in favour, and this week a petition was presented jointly by Nationalist MP David Agius and MP Marlene Farrugia, representing the PDM. From the political perspective, the issue seems to be already settled. And this is just as well, for to change this section of the Constitution, a two-thirds parliamentary majority is mandated. Recent history has amply illustrated how difficult this target very often is to reach. On this occasion, however, there doesn't seem to be a dissenting voice. Yet the concept appears to be unpopular at street level. Online polls suggest that a sizeable majority opposes the idea; and while polls may be unreliable as indicators, they remain the only indicators we have on this issue. Outside the immediate sphere of party politics itself, public commentary has been few and far between. One must perforce question the emergence of a cross-party consensus, on an issue which has at best divided the rest of the country (at worst, engendered an outright majority against). Why is Malta's political establishment so firmly united behind an ini- tiative that has little or no public support? Part of the answer is obvious: political parties live or die by the extent of their inf lu- ence over voters... having more voters also means having a wider sphere of possible inf luence. A cynic might also add that the age-bracket itself – 16 to 18 years old, a notoriously difficult and impressionable age – makes this voter segment that much easier to inf luence politically. One cannot accurately ascribe reasons as to why many people are clearly unenthusiastic about the idea; but it is highly likely that a majority would consider 16 as too young to form a rea- soned opinion about political is- sues that affect others. (Whether that is a politically correct thing to say or think is naturally an- other matter, which we need not go into here. It would however be superf luous to argue that this perception, however f lawed or unfair, does not exist.) The political parties them- selves reason otherwise. Present- ing their petition, Dr Farrugia and Mr Agius argued that it would be fair to allow 16-year- olds a voice, in view of the fact that they can legally work, pay taxes and contribute towards generating wealth and economic growth. They can also legally get married and raise a family – the backbone of the Maltese society – therefore they should be given the chance to vote for who rep- resents them in Parliament. The observations in that state- ment are correct, but the logic doesn't necessarily add up. The same 16-year-old who works and pays taxes cannot drive a car either. Nor join the Armed Forces of Malta, which have an 18 minimum age limit. The fact that reaching a certain age permits one to do certain things, in itself, does not imply that the same age should permit one to do all things usually reserved for elders. Each case has to be taken on its own merits. The examples cited above can, of course, be amended; there is room for discussion for amend- ing the driving age limit, for instance, not to mention other issues such as drinking alcohol or buying tobacco products. One would however expect valid argumentation to support any proposed change. The AFM age limit is a particular case in point: any proposal that would permit 16 year olds to bear arms and (in theory, at least) fight and die for their country, would require a lot of very convincing arguments. Lowering the voting age is nat- urally a lot less polemical... but the same principle applies. As all other aforementioned issues, there are possible implications and repercussions. Without en- tering the merits too deeply, one might reasonably question what impact the proposal might have on an already deeply confron- tational and pervasive political context. We have already seen how ruthlessly the political parties have exploited certain vulnerable voter segments in the past – the most iconic example being regular attempts to have elderly or infirm voters stricken off the electoral register on grounds of insanity, until the practice was stopped only two elections ago. Having said that, the pro- posal cannot be dismissed out of hand either. The Commis- sioner for Children shares the view that lowering the voting age to 16 constitutes a right for young people everywhere. It is even possible that the experi- ment may prove salutary, in the sense that what the electoral system needs may in fact be the injection of a younger, fresher perspective. But if we are to proceed with such a discussion, it cannot be limited to parliamentarians who have a clear vested interest in the outcome. Let us discuss the proposal by all means... but one would expect a thorough debate on the issue, making full use of the Parliament's interface with the community: its committees, where the public can join the discussion.