If children had the right to vote…

Do you want to combat the climate crisis? Fight authoritarianism? Improve education and healthcare? Do you want less poverty and inequality, and more green spaces and safe streets? Let children vote.

The crisis of democracy occurs when people stop believing that it can address fundamental problems.  This usually happens during periods of rapid industrialization, uncontrolled deepening of inequalities, economic depression, mass migrations, and wars – it is precisely then that democracies regress, succumbing to the charms of authoritarianism. Ultimately, however, new democratic norms and practices develop.

The current global crisis of democracy revolves around issues concerning one of the most disempowered social groups, one-third of humanity – children. Because it is primarily children who feel the most immediate and long-term consequences of climate change. Children from rich and poor countries are equally victims of disproportionate poverty caused by global neoliberalism. Youth are mass casualties of terrorism and modern warfare methods targeting civilians. And it is precisely young people who are most affected by new digital technologies, which addict, manipulate, and disinform.

Nevertheless, children remain essentially invisible in political life. And their invisibility causes children's issues to be marginalized in democratic decision-making processes.

Childism: what is it?

In recent decades, an movement called childism has begun to develop within academic circles and among activists (ang. childism). This movement is a reaction to the situation of children within the democratic system. Childism critically approaches society, similar to feminism, anti-racism, or decolonialism. It seeks to empower children, give proper weight to their concerns and experiences, and change long-standing deeply rooted beliefs and structures. Its goal is to reconstruct social norms so that they truly include everyone regardless of age.

The term “childism” appeared in the early 2000s in literature related to the then-emerging field of childhood studies, which aims to understand children’s agency and experiences as children, not as developing adults. In the 1990s, the term temporarily became established in literary studies in relation to reading as a child. Recently, it has also been used in a negative sense, similar to terms like “sexism” or “racism.” However, in science and among social activists, its positive meaning prevails: empowering children.

The main issue addressed by childism is deeply rooted adultism: the assumption that the measure of a person is an adult. Adultism is often an overlooked aspect of patriarchy, the historical authority of the “pater,” meaning the father, who not only has a specific gender but also a certain age. Like sexism, adultism is deeply embedded in history, culture, and language. It particularly appeals to the binary opposition between supposedly rational and independent adults on one side, and supposedly irrational, dependent children on the other. It thus divides social relations across all levels, from families and communities to human rights and legal regulations.

Children themselves are also guided by childism, often unconsciously. Pro-climate youth protesters demand that environmental policies include everyone regardless of age. Union activists call for recognition of the work of minors. Youth fight to prevent violence in schools. Transgender children try to influence how their environment perceives their gender identity. Children and youth in dozens of countries where youth parliaments operate call for considering children’s perspectives on what safety on streets means, accessibility for people with disabilities, or what school reform should entail.

The right of children to vote

As marginalized groups have realized over the centuries, the most important right guaranteeing political inclusion is the right to vote. It does not solve all problems, but it grants those who have it the status of first-class citizens with equal political dignity. It is about the right to participate in shaping laws – which is why it was so difficult for the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, women, and landless people to fight for it. That is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights demand “universal and equal suffrage,” without any access thresholds.

Children have been fighting for the right to vote since at least the 1990s. They organized campaigns and took legal steps within groups such as We Want the Vote and KRÄTZÄ in Germany, National Youth Rights Association (NYRA) in the USA, Young Pirates of Europe (YPE), or Green Youth. Adults joined the fight, offering academic and political support through initiatives like Children’s Voting Colloquium, Amnesty International UK, Freechild Institute, National Association of Large Families, and Child Rights International Network (CRIN). Furthermore, children and adults in Germany, California, and Massachusetts in the USA, as well as in Sweden and Canada, filed lawsuits against governments, demanding recognition of their voting rights regardless of age.

The argument for unrestricted voting rights is that it is a necessary condition for the well-being of both children and democracy. Children’s lives and perspectives would finally be taken seriously by politicians, who would no longer base their calculations solely on adult pressure. Democracies would benefit from allowing the full spectrum of human ideas to influence decision-making, leading to more conscious choices.

The issue of competence

The main argument against granting children the right to vote has always been that children lack the competence to vote. It is believed that minors do not possess the capacity for democratic thinking, are not independent, and are easily manipulated. It is assumed they lack the experience and knowledge that would facilitate making difficult decisions on complex political issues such as war, healthcare policy, or immigration.

These assumptions stem from a misunderstanding of both democracy and childhood. From the perspective of democracy’s goals, it should be noted that the right to vote is about enabling political expression. The purpose of democratic elections is not to entrust decisions to those with specific competencies, but to ensure that elected representatives fulfill their obligations to those affected by their decisions. Therefore, everyone who wants to influence what politicians do should have the right to vote.

If we understand voting competence correctly, children have much more of it than generally thought (and adults much less). It is hard to deny democratic competence to millions of children protesting for pro-climate policies, fighting against racism, sitting in children’s parliaments, belonging to children’s unions, and other political organizations. Children worldwide participate in political debates over dinner, read or watch news, and have diverse opinions on current issues. There is no magical stage in neurological development when the ability to hold political views suddenly emerges. It is a general skill of anyone interested in what is happening in the broader world.

Already in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, articles 12, 13, and 15 recognize children’s capacity to participate in democratic life. These articles guarantee children the right “to freely express their views in all matters concerning the child,” “to freedom of expression” without undue restrictions, and “the right to freedom of association.” Denying children the use of their democratic potential violates all these rights.

Among adults, there are also significant differences in knowledge, democratic competence, and susceptibility to influence. Yet adults can vote even if they are thoughtless, easily manipulated ignoramuses. They have the right to do so, even if they suffer from serious cognitive disorders, intellectual disabilities, or dementia. And as history shows, adults often make tragic electoral decisions. Moreover, no adult possesses in-depth knowledge of all issues involved in voting – from economic statistics to military potential, medical innovations, classified information, legal precedents, and so on.

Preventing children from participating in elections is, in fact, a manifestation of systemic discrimination. It demands that they meet a standard of electoral competence that no one else is required to meet. According to the European Court of Human Rights, discrimination means “treating comparable situations differently without an objective and rational justification.” Restricting voting rights solely to adults excludes children as a whole class of citizens for reasons beyond the objective requirements of voting itself.

Stronger democracies

However, children should be given the right to vote primarily because it would improve their own lives and those of adults, and strengthen democracy.

Children would live in a political environment that must consider their interests and cannot marginalize them. Currently, they cannot influence the removal of politicians from office, which means power has no real motivation to take their experiences and concerns seriously. Children could be subjects of democratic generosity, but just like adults, they should also be recognized as subjects with democratic agency.

If children had voting rights, they would surely pressure politicians to, for example, seriously address the climate crisis, take action to combat child poverty, regulate digital platforms, invest in meaningful school reform, ensure universal healthcare, improve street safety, and expand green spaces. Children would also have greater opportunities to fight social discrimination, such as banning social media use, curfews for minors, restrictions on divorce participation, corporal punishment, school discipline, access to healthcare, and more.

Granting children the right to vote would also benefit adults. We would all benefit from better climate policies. Greater economic support from children would ease parents’ situations. Teachers, with proper educational solutions, could better respond to children’s actual life circumstances and experiences. Doctors would have more resources for treating and researching children’s health. Entrepreneurs could hire better-educated workers.

Moreover, democracy itself would be strengthened – it would gain the capacity to respond more comprehensively to the real-life situations of people. Politicians in power would have to care about everyone’s interests, not just a segment of voters. On the political screen of democratically elected leaders, there would be – figuratively speaking – one-third more pixels, and this increased “resolution” would give them a more precise picture. Decisions on war, budget expenditures, and judicial reforms would be based on broader, richer knowledge.

Furthermore, the right of children to vote could serve as an antidote to the current trend of democracy shifting toward authoritarianism. Universal suffrage would undermine the belief that some people are inherently predestined to rule others. It would eliminate the problem of citizens being told for a quarter of their lives that their opinions do not matter, making them vulnerable to the charms of authoritarian simplifications. Instead of seeking model “fathers of the nation,” democracies would turn to human rights defenders with broad horizons.

Lowering the voting age is not enough

Childism demands not only a change in the approach to voting rights but also a new understanding of electoral practices. Movements for voting rights often also change the way votes are cast. The days are long gone when landowning men chose their representatives at the tavern.

Initially, it would be worth lowering the voting age. In countries where voting was lowered to 16, it was observed that more minors than young adults came to the polls, and the percentage of voters among those who crossed the age threshold increased. Thanks to young voters, politicians began to consider children’s interests in their decisions.

However, from the perspective of childism, lowering the voting age is still not enough. It would mean granting the right to vote only to those children who are deemed to already possess competencies typical of adults, but true democracy must break the barriers of adultism.

Several practical proposals have emerged on how to address voting rights without age limits. I personally advocate for voting through a guardian. I support the idea that all citizens should have the right to vote via a guardian from birth to death, with their legal guardian – parent, guardian, close relative – casting the vote on their behalf. Voting through a guardian would most often be used for infants, younger children, children and adults with cognitive impairments, adults with significant disabilities or health issues, and elderly people with dementia. At the same time, all citizens should have the right to vote independently. Anyone who wishes to vote personally should be able to do so regardless of age or health status.

There might be an objection that voting through a guardian would favor larger families, but in reality, it would be beneficial for the children themselves in those families, as they deserve their own equal representation. Some might also think that voting through a guardian is fundamentally undemocratic, but it is already used in most countries for adults with disabilities (or traveling adults), so why not extend it to the youngest children?

Even from the perspective of those who believe that voting doesn’t matter much, isn’t it unjust to deny one group even the possibility of making a decision or participating in elections?

Childism demands systemic inclusion and empowerment of children. Like the first wave of feminism, it claims that the right to vote is a fundamental human right. But voting rights are only the first step. Childism initiates systemic critique of societies based on adultist prejudices in legal systems, social-political arrangements, culture, and family. It argues that children are not second-class citizens and that they bring humanity into our societies.