Last year’s general election produced a turnout of just 59 percent, the lowest since the introduction of universal suffrage. But within this wider story of political disengagement, the attitudes of one particular group have become the dominant motif. Just 38 percent of eighteen to 25 year-olds bothered to use their vote. For a generation of politicians, whose cultural reference points include the global événements of 1968, this failure to connect with young people was as inexplicable as it was worrying: finding ways to re-engage citizens, and young people in particular, became a priority for Labour’s second term.
There are a number of difficulties in trying to grapple with this issue. There is, for instance, a tendency to treat low turnout, voter apathy and political disengagement as inter-changeable descriptions of the same phenomenon. In fact, they mean something very different.
Although turnout remains the most obvious measure of the vitality of the body politic, in itself, it is a crude proxy for wider political engagement – not least because it only captures the attitudes of those aged eighteen and over.
‘Voter apathy’ is another term applied too uncritically. It suggests indifference, that young people don’t care about political participation. This is a long way from the truth. The real problem seems to be that young people are unwilling or unable to develop the political literacy they need to engage with the ballot box model of political engagement. Many attach enormous symbolic importance to the act of voting. Indeed, they feel it would be irresponsible to exercise their right to vote when they feel unable to reach a considered judgement.
What we are really talking about then is political ‘disengagement’ or, more specifically, disengagement from formal political processes and institutions. For too many young people, government is seen as distant and remote; politics as something that only affects adults (and tax-payers in particular); Parliament as boring and irrelevant; and voting as an ineffective vehicle for change.
Of course, social attitudes surveys have always pointed to a ‘lag effect’, where people become more political and more likely to vote as they get older, but the gap between the most and least interested age groups has widened dramatically in recent years. Young people are either not becoming political as early as they used to or, perhaps more likely, a greater number of them are not becoming political at all.
Whilst we recognise the challenge of re-engaging young people, we remain stuck with a mindset that sees the problem as a temporary mismatch between the needs of young people and a set of political institutions which are otherwise operating perfectly well. We talk about reforming these institutions around the margins but cannot imagine that the widening inter-generational splits might demand a more fundamental rethink of politics’ values, institutions and channels of communication.
One answer to the disengagement conundrum is that a fundamental values shift has taken place: young people are interested in a different kind of politics. In particular, young people often seem to be more concerned with ‘post-materialist’ issues including the global environment, animal welfare, international development, corporate ethics and the social libertarian agenda. The myriad organisations that make up the anti-globalisation ‘movement’ have proved much more effective at engaging the hearts and minds of young people than mainstream institutions. Debates on issues as varied as fox-hunting, the repeal of Section 28 and the reform of drugs laws have left many young people feeling their political representatives are out of touch.
But by concentrating solely on these issues there is a danger of ghettoising young people. The overwhelming impression I get from young people is that, yes, these issues are important to them, but no more important than a range of issues which are – or should be – at the top of most people’s list of concerns, from bullying in schools to the significant upsurge in street crime.
A second part of the answer must be that young people no longer identify with the institutions through which politics is mediated. However, a few more young MPs or Lords – or even local councillors – aren’t going to transform the perception held by many young people that Parliament is anachronistic and pointless. The real work of Parliament remains hidden from view.
This problem extends to the local level, despite the fact that many of the policy areas in which local authorities retain the most influence – from schools to the maintenance of public spaces and parks – have a greater impact on the quality of life of young people than on almost any other group.
A third dimension to the problem is that the traditional spaces for politicisation have been transformed in recent decades. Many of today’s politicians are products of a time when university campuses were hotbeds of political activism. For good or bad, British universities are not like that today. Aware of the highly competitive labour market which awaits them on graduation, students treat their years at university more instrumentally. Surveys suggest that growing numbers have to work part-time in order to afford their studies, and simply don’t have time for political causes.
Trade unions, another provider of political education in earlier times, have experienced falling membership for two decades. Young people are a particularly hard-to-reach group. As a result, the dense linkages between workplace, union, party and the state have disintegrated and it is increasingly difficult to energise young workers through traditional channels.
Finally, prevailing modes of political communication are increasingly seen as part of the problem of political disengagement. The national media has been indicted alongside politicians for subordinating real debate to a culture of spin, soundbites and personality politics.
But the problem goes even deeper. The rapid development of internet technologies puts us on the cusp of the most significant transformation of political communication since radio broadcasts replaced public meetings. It is a transformation which young people, with their ICT literacy, are well-placed to lead. Yet – experiments in on-line voting in the local elections notwithstanding – politicians and political parties have scarcely begun to scratch the potential for new forms of political engagement.
So how can we keep politics fresh? First, in terms of values, it is clear that government must see past the anarchic tactics of a small minority of anti-globalisation protesters and engage with the more substantive claims that lie behind them. The government has a strong record (on issues like international development and debt relief) with which to convince young people of its seriousness. In a constructive debate about practical action the protestors cannot win. But if they are all dismissed as thugs, and are required to extend their argument only to an abstract discussion of values, they cannot lose.
Second, in terms of institutions, trying to make Parliament more representative is not enough. If young people are to become politically active they need more points of access than the political process currently provides. I believe this puts a special premium on organisations which work with, or for, children to involve young people more actively in opportunities for political engagement. Young people should become the co-producers of services, the co-articulators of demands and the co-agents of change.
Third, in terms of spaces, the new citizenship curriculum to be taught in schools from September contains a substantial political literacy component and should, hopefully, offset the loss of alternative sources. It will be important that schools link the teaching of citizenship in theory to practical applications, for example through the establishment of school councils or by designing projects to engage pupils in civic activities within the local community.
Fourth, in terms of channels, we need to harness information technology to improve existing processes and to facilitate entirely new kinds of political engagement. New media could provide opportunities for interaction between citizens and the state that are deeper, more frequent and more complex than are available today.
Finally, we must recognise that this challenge is one which we in the Labour Party have a particular duty to take on. If we are serious about engaging young people, it’s not enough to rely on a parade of celebrities at election time. The party can learn from organisations which have successfully engaged young people. The party should explore ways of becoming more federal and network-based, in the relationship between the centre and constituency parties and within constituencies themselves. For Labour to attract young people it must demonstrate its willingness to build broader and deeper relationships with non-party figures: local community groups, social entrepreneurs, voluntary organisations, school pupils and teachers – people who can be partners in making change.