POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN
by Kurt-Peter Merk, Munich
The discussions on the legal and political situation of children which were for a long while only half-hearted, have received a new impetus.
This is motivated by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In its Article 12 para. 1 the contracting states accept to „assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age an maturity of the child“. To implement this right of participation, Article 12 para. 2 of the Convention stipulates that the child shall be provided the opportunity „to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting the child either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.“
This provision acknowledges that children, like adults, have a right to be recognised as a person before the law. (Art. 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). With reference to these provisions (which, however, only commit the states and do not provide the peoples concerned with enforceable rights), initiatives have increasingly been taken to implement the interests of children in society an to involve children, particularly in town planning, insofar as this is justified by their experiences. The German legislator has in its new Law on Assistance for Adolescents and Young People (KJHG) provided the legal tools for such participation by inserting an Article 1 para. 3 N° 4 which confers on the assistance for young people the task of contributing to processing or creating positive living conditions for young people an their families and an environment friendly to children an families. In this way the term of „child-friendliness“ has a legal basis. In the explanatory memorandum to the bill the German Federal Government explains that this provision aims at ensuring that assistance for young people has an ever greater bearing on the fulfilment of all public duties which decisively influence the lives of children, adolescents an parents. This applies in particular to decisions in the fields of town planning, of labour market policies and of housing policies. The German Federal Government explicitly asks for an initiative in this connection.
Unfortunately there are considerable shortcomings with respect to the enforcement of the new provisions. Many initiatives have failed through lack of money. At the same time the German courts of auditors increasingly reprehended the excessive indebtedness of the State, particularly for reasons of consumption. Therefore the creation of child-friendliness is still only of secondary importance.
Child-friendliness has two dimensions. Firstly it is important to implement the age-related interests of children and adolescents concerning the use to be made of their immediate living space, i.e. their housing environment in the framework of the town or local planning. In the economic field it is important not only to help but to give priority in the framework of social benefits to families with many children an to single parents. The second dimension of child-friendliness is that of not being burdened with political decisions which in the interest of present consumption carry major disadvantages in the long run. They are, in addition to problems of state indebtedness, mainly environmental matters, which have been laid down in the new article 20 (a) of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) as state goals and which, moreover, are rightly taken into consideration in connection with the responsibility for future generations. Art. 20 (a) of the German Constitution (Basic Law) reads:
„The State shall also protect through legislation and in responsibility for future generations the natural resources in the framework of the constitutional order, and in conformity with legislation and law through the executive and the justice“.
It follows from this provision that children’s interests in a wider sense are identical with fundamental state interests.
Since in political practice the long-term consequences of present decisions are not, however, taken into account, the questions arises what are the reasons for such political practise which gravely neglects present and long term children’s interests. The starting point is that the members of the legislative organs have been democratically elected and that there cannot be any reasonable doubt about their legitimacy. However parliaments take decisions which, with respect to the facts, frequently cannot be changed and which have timely effects which exceed not only the current legislature but often also the remaining life expectancy of the actors.
Depending on the duration of the legislature, the elected politicians are representatives of their electors for four to seven years. But they can only represent the citizens entitled to vote and living during this period. There is a timely incongruence between the duration of the term of office and the scope of a multitude of decisions, the disadvantages of which will only become manifest in decades.
The problem is therefore that the effects of current political decisions widely exceed the legitimacy of the actors. In other words: the order for a political decision is limited by the mandate given from the represented people. But they may only give a mandate for themselves and it follows therefore, that they cannot give their representatives a mandate for political decisions to shape conditions for the future. Mid-term and long-term situations are therefore not necessarily the subject of political discussions. Those who carry political responsibilities should strive to give absolute priority to the welfare, i.e. the interests of those they are representing. This means that they should take decisions which have such effects that they are positively evaluated by a relatively large number of voters as otherwise they run the risk of not being re-elected. The frequently advocated „future generations“ cannot elect, as they do not yet exist. The same applies to minors who in Germany correspond to 20% of the population. These are excluded from voting. But this group is obviously the subject of the long-term interests concerning the environment and children. For lack of the right to vote this group does not exist in the political sense.
This group is therefore the „first future generation“ in the political sense. The division of the people in one part which is entitled to vote and has broadly short-term interests and another part not entitled to vote and having mainly long-term interests is the core of the legitimacy deficiency which is characteristic of the contemporary understanding of democracy. The principle „one man - one vote“ is still not implemented and it should read therefore „one adult - one vote“. This dilemma can only be solved by eliminating the division and the consequential granting of a voting right since birth. Only then would the noble principle „one man - one vote“ be implemented. In all other areas of life it is recognised that children are holders of human rights as adults are.
In view of the long-term consequences of today’s political decisions there is no objective reason to justify the existing age discrimination to the detriment of those who are under 18 years. This does not mean however, that children in the biological sense should be entitled to vote and to stand themselves for elections. But it is unacceptable that they are completely excluded from representation as this would lead to political decisions the consequences of which they have in practise to bear exclusively.
How can the representation of children be guaranteed in practical terms? One possibility would be to lower the minimum age for voting from 18 to 14 years. Another fact is that children are represented by their parents in all areas of life. There is no objective reason which could justify a departure form this principle in just the central area of political participation. Until they have reached the age of fourteen the parents would vote as representatives to their children.
It is true that this would not rule out decisions which are detrimental to the future, as also in this case democracy is only a system of relative justice at the level of procedures. But in this way interests for the future are represented through the first future generation and introduced into political discussion. Such widening of the right to vote would have various effects. The position of families (and of single parents) within society would be sustainable strengthened. It is also to be hoped that parents, having a further vote in elections for each of their children, would assure a greater responsibility for them as this was the case hitherto. Moreover it is to be expected that personalities would participate in political discussions who already now have the political will to represent long term interests but who, for lack of a basis for representation, do not see possibilities for their realisation. Those individuals would, because of the then available potential voters, have the opportunity to present their programme in a positive manner (also in the media) an to influence the awareness of the young parents.
Those three factors would reinforce each other in the sense of synergy and lead to a consciousness of the parents and children concerned of the need to give priority to long-term (children’s) interests to the detriment of current consumption interests. Only in this way could the necessary political participation of children be realised in a democratic and orderly manner. Otherwise there will be a risk that today’s generation of children, when they will finally reach the voting age, have no other choice than to manage the constraints which have been decided earlier.