Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

In the context of the Constitutional Convention, Fianna Fáil supported holding a referendum to allow for the voting age to be reduced to 16. Today's debate and views and opinions from outside the House show that there is an interesting discussion to be had, at the very least to see what young people are thinking. Very often, we say people who are most entitled to vote are people who have a stake in society. It can be argued that the people who have the biggest stake in any society are the young people, because they are the ones on whom policies that are being developed now will have an impact for a longer period. It is an interesting proposal that is being put forward in the context of the Constitutional Convention and by Deputy Stanley's Bill.

This leads to broader issues of making voter turnout more attractive to citizens in general, and informing and educating citizens about their obligations, duties, rights and entitlements in the context of a modern democracy. Any debate that would facilitate that type of engagement would be very welcome. The studies and surveys that have been conducted in countries that have engaged in the process of reducing the voting age - Norway, Austria, Scotland, Australia and elsewhere - reveal varying opinions if one goes through the detailed research.

It is still open for discussion and a constitutional referendum would bring all this to the fore so people could make an informed choice. Of course, the people who would be most affected by this would not be able to vote in the constitutional referendum and that in itself would open up further debates among young people as to why they would not be allowed to vote on something that affects them more than anyone else.

All modern western European democracies go through various phases of high and low voter turnout. Apathy is probably the biggest threat to any democracy in terms of the lack of voter participation. Over a long period, as voter turnout drops, the equivalent quid pro quois that there is a lot of disenfranchised anger out there that is not represented in the political system. That has to be addressed in most modern democracies in western Europe. It can be addressed through debate, changes to our electoral system and changes in the context of electoral reform in general. It also concerns the way we do our business in this House, how we are perceived as a Parliament and as governments and how the citizen engages with the State, not only in the context of voting but in the services provided to the citizen by the State and the obligations of the citizen to the State. With a right come entitlements, but equally there come responsibilities. That is an area about which we as a people have to have a long discussion in terms of our obligations and duties to the State. Very often, there is a view that the State is abstract, exists somewhere else and must provide everything. The State is the collective of the people themselves. I often find, even in the context of debates in this House, that the State is seen as existing at a distant remove.

If citizens see this as the reality, we will have a major problem with engagement and in having people view the State as a collective. That is why there is an issue with disenfranchisement, disillusionment and apathy which could, in essence, be the greatest threat to democracy, particularly the idea of a strong representational view in any parliament. People who do not vote have views and opinions, too, and would like certain matters to be raised; they view the current structures as not reflecting anything in which they are interested. If there is a large cohort of such individuals, it could lead to an unhealthy and unrepresentative democracy.

There is a broader issue of whether it should be mandatory to vote. My view is that it should not be mandatory, but in an election there could be a turnout of 65% or 67%, although the figure has hit the 70% mark and above from time to time. That means that 30% of the electorate have no view or do not believe anybody on the ballot paper represents their views, or they may see everybody on it as being the same. Collectively, we do not know what these people think, as they have not cast an opinion on the candidates before them. That issue must be addressed. It is hard to say if there is any empirical evidence on reducing the voting age to 16 years. There is some evidence which suggests there is an interest in voting among those who are 16 years old. One might ask why there is more interest among young people who are 16, 17 or 19 years than there is among those who are 21 and 22. Perhaps it arises from the structured form of education or the fact that when they live at home, parents encourage them to vote. That is a distinct possibility.

The Minister of State has indicated that a subject entitled "politics and society" is to be introduced as part of a suite of subjects available to students in the senior cycle. We must ensure there is a strong education system in place in schools that encourages young people to become interested in politics, society and how the people are governed. However, we must never allow schools to be politicised. This issue can be elaborated on in a broader debate when we have a referendum on the issue. We cannot have cases where schools or teachers in schools would be able to express their views and opinions in a way that would lead to schools becoming politicised. That would be very dangerous, as it would put too much power in the hands of a small number of individuals in influencing young people in the structured and formal surroundings of a classroom. We must give a certain amount of thought to this in a broader debate. That is not to say 16 year olds cannot make up their minds, but there is no doubt that it is easier to influence them if one is a teacher or another person in authority. This issue must be examined and although it is not a reason not to reduce the voting age, there would have to be a certain suite of measures in place in the education system to ensure such politicisation did not happen. We should encourage full debate and engagement in participatory politics in schools in order that people will become aware of and interested in the institutions of the State and what society and the collective are about. We must do this without exerting undue political influence which can be seen in other parts of the world.

We should have a referendum and full engagement, as it would be healthy for society in dealing with the broader issue of participatory democracy and the obligations, rights and duties of a citizen. It would equally deal with the rights, obligations and duties of parliamentarians, governments and all other arms of the State in order that, collectively, we would have a society in which people always felt represented and which had its views reflected in the Chamber through debate and the participation and make-up of Members. The broader issue of the disenfranchisement of large tracts of communities is one we must address. There is not much point in people being angry if it cannot be expressed in a democratic forum such as this. Such problems have brought other democracies down a slippery path; therefore, anything that encourages participation and makes people feel like casting a vote and expressing an opinion at the ballot box is good. They must believe their votes will be represented.

Parties and Members must do what they say they will do and live up to the commitments they make. The great apathy we have witnessed very often comes from parties stating one thing and doing another. They may campaign on one issue and change their mind the following day for a political reason. Such actions gnaw at the body politic and the confidence people have in the democratic system. I welcome the Bill, as it is a good idea for us to move towards holding a referendum on the issue. There should be a good, incisive and coherent debate. Broadly, the concept of giving young people a vote is welcome. On a wider level, our society should see parliamentary democracy as a meaningful way of expressing views. I hope the debate will also encourage this.

See this speech in context