State and Politics in Germany

Despite the fact that universal suffrage is guaranteed in Germany one in every five Germans is not allowed to cast his vote. Young people under the age of 18 are denied the right to take part in German general elections; in regional and local elections the age limit never drops below 16. “Common sense”, say some people, as children do not possess the necessary maturity; others are of the opinion that it is “undemocratic”, because this “maturity” is not necessarily a given among adults, either.

This exclusion of children and teenagers from the right to vote, set out in the German constitution (Article 38, II), prevents them from being adequately integrated in the political decision-making process. This was the reason stated in an interfactional motion submitted to the German Bundestag that was rejected by the plenary assembly. It demanded a lowering of the minimum voting age and its motto was “For More Democracy - The Right to Vote From Birth On”. It was tabled by 47 members of parliament of all political leanings on 11th September 2003 – ranging from the Martin Hohmann of the conservative CDU (Christian Democrats), Antje Vollmer of Germany’s Green party to social-democrat, Wolfgang Thierse, who is also the President of the German Bundestag. The main initiators were Klaus Haupt, MP for the FDP (German Liberal party), and his party colleague and Vice-President of the Bundestag, Herrmann Otto Solms. They were all united by the idea that minors are as important a part of the electorate as citizens in the prime of their lives or senior citizens.

Fears for the political system

“In Germany demographic developments are threatening the future of our society,” was the way it was worded in the motion. The problems can only be overcome, if the young are taken into consideration by the intergenerational contract, if children and parents are granted a status in line with their significance for society. “Society in general has to become more child-oriented; the willingness of young adults to start a family has to be supported and consolidated and the many problems and disadvantages that families are confronted with today have to be eliminated.”

It is however not only the increasing decrepitude of German society that is the driving force behind the motion. It is above all the fears for Germany’s “democratic constitutional structure based on the principle of liberty”. “Suffrage is an inalienable right of any democracy. If children and teenagers continue to be denied the right to vote, the principle of all men being equal before the law is on the one hand called into question and, on the other, fosters a form of politics that is given to shifting the pressure onto the next generation.”

Prestigious advocates

The idea behind it all is that, if the voting age is lowered, the chances for promoting more family and child-oriented policies in the political decision-making process would improve. The political parties would have to make a clearer effort to target these voting blocks than they have done up to now. One conclusion to which the renowned expert in constitutional law, Dieter Suhr, came at the end of the 1980s was – “Our democracy is based on the fallacy that the people is made up of only adults. Although families and parents bear more of the burden and responsibility, in parliament they have increasingly less of a say in view of the growing numbers of old and childless people.”

The fact that suffrage for children is not such a hair-raising idea as most people might think is clearly illustrated by the retinue of prestigious advocates backing the project – top of the list being former German Federal President, Roman Herzog, and Paul Kirchhof, both of whom used to be constitutional judges at the Bundesverfassungsgericht. The fact however that they are still in the minority on this issue clearly indicates why any legal action taken so far to change the existing law on voting rights has failed.

Complaints of unconstitutionality rejected

The most recent case of a complaint of unconstitutionality going belly-up at the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe was that of the Familien-Partei Deutschland (Family Party) on 12th August 2003. The bourgeois splinter party was legally represented by Kurt-Peter Merk who is one of Germany’s indefatigable champions of more justice in generation issues and the right to vote from birth on. The Munich lawyer and political scientist is convinced that if a pluralistic political decision-making system is to function, one of the indispensable preconditions is that the interests of all members of society are voiced and organised – in the case of children this is, objectively speaking, quite definitely not the case. He holds the idea of Germany qualifying as a pluralistic democracy to be, as such, a fallacy. “It is nothing but a myth with which the systematic ageist discrimination of the child generation is hushed up.” The minimum voting age of 18 that is laid down in the German Constitution, as Merk sees it, is a violation of human dignity and the right to universal suffrage.

Apart from that, a fundamental right is “inalienably” and existentially related to the human condition. At the same time a right implies the right to exercise it. This is why Merk advocates allowing the children’s parents to represent them and vote for them in proxy. This would mean a couple with two children would then have four votes, for example. According to Merk, the concept of a child being represented from birth on by his or her legal guardian in the exercising of his or her rights – fundamental rights, as well – was common practice and statutorily legitimate. This was a view that the German Constitutional Court was not prepared to entertain. Merk’s complaint of unconstitutionality was in any case rejected, as well as his appeal against its denial of acceptable that he submitted later. After the rebuff from Karlsruhe the plaintiffs took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, but they are still waiting for a decision to be taken.

Majority rather than the quality of the votes

The case is reminiscent of a similar venture undertaken by a youth project in Berlin called “Kinderrächtszänker” (K.R.Ä.T.Z.Ä.) that also met with a crushing defeat in Karlsruhe eight years before. They did not want to accept the fact that children are denied the right to vote although they are legally responsible before the law; although even as infants they can possess company shares and assets; although they are criminally responsible at the age of 14; although they are allowed to decide which religion they want to believe in and although they can choose which political party they want to join at the age of 16.

The argument propounded by declared opponents of lowering the minimum voting age that minors are too immature to grasp the complexities of politics is counteracted by the youth project with the following question, “Why are well-informed young people not allowed to vote, when adults who do not even understand the electoral system are?” Being politically savvy is desirable in a democracy, but not essential. The vote of a political expert counts equally as much as that of a political ignoramus. Controversial issues are decided on democratically by the ballot box and in the end it is only the majority that counts and not the quality of the votes cast.