Response to Article; ‘Young people say they’d elect a strong leader’
Dear editor,
The article “Young People Say They’d Elect a ‘Strong Leader’. I Say Give More of Them the
Vote” presents a compelling argument in favor of lowering the voting age and improving
citizenship education. The author suggests that young people’s support for authoritarian
leadership is rooted in frustration rather than a rejection of democracy. While this perspective is
thought-provoking, the assumption that lowering the voting age will resolve this issue requires
deeper consideration. Would granting younger individuals the right to vote truly empower them,
or should the focus be on strengthening their understanding of democracy first?
The article states that “a significant number of 13- to 27-year-olds believe the UK would be
better with a strong leader who does not have to work with parliament.” This suggests
dissatisfaction with the political system rather than an endorsement of dictatorship. However,
frustration alone is not a sufficient reason to alter voting laws. Democracy demands informed
participation, not just emotional responses to political inefficiencies. Instead of simply lowering
the voting age, would it not be more effective to provide young people with greater opportunities
for civic engagement, such as youth councils or policy discussions?
Another argument in the article asserts that “we should respond to young people’s frustration
not by restricting their rights but by extending them.” This appeals to emotion (pathos), framing
voting as a fundamental right rather than a responsibility. However, responsible voting requires
knowledge and critical thinking. Many young people are politically aware, but others may not
have enough experience to make informed decisions. Wouldn’t it be wiser to first strengthen
their understanding of governance before expanding their political influence?
A particularly strong point in the article is the call for “restoring citizenship education in schools
to ensure young people develop critical thinking, problem-solving, and media literacy skills.”
This is a practical and necessary step, but simply adding it to the curriculum may not guarantee
student engagement. Schools already teach many subjects that students do not always
absorb—how can we ensure that citizenship education will be different? Perhaps a more handson approach, such as debates, mock elections, and community involvement, would be more
effective.
The article also argues that “giving young people the vote at 16 will establish lifelong voting
habits and strengthen democracy.” This appeals to logic (logos), suggesting that earlier
participation leads to long-term engagement. While this idea has merit, it does not account for
external influences on young voters, such as social trends or peer pressure. A more effective
approach might be making political discussions more accessible and engaging for all young
people, regardless of their voting eligibility.
While the article raises valid points, it overlooks some crucial concerns. If young people are
expressing support for authoritarianism, should we not first investigate why this is happening
before expanding their voting rights? If schools are failing to teach students about democracy
effectively, should that issue not be addressed before any changes to voting laws? Lowering the
voting age may not necessarily resolve these deeper problems.
The article sparks an important debate on youth political involvement, but its proposed solution
is not without flaws. While lowering the voting age could increase participation, it must be
accompanied by effective education and engagement efforts. Rather than focusing solely on
voting, a broader strategy—one that includes practical citizenship education and civic
involvement—may be a more sustainable way to ensure young people feel heard and
empowered in a democratic society.
Yours sincerely,
Advita gautam.