BROADCASTS.com

b'

Labour has confirmed that it plans to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in elections, in line with Scotland and Wales. The idea, they say, is to empower younger people by engaging them in the democratic process. Some older members of the electorate might raise the question of whether people under 18 have the maturity to vote. It would be no surprise to hear that argument, we were all children once and we know that adults think they\\u2019re superior.

It\\u2019s nearly fifty years since the concept of \\u201cchildism\\u201d was first coined by psychiatrists, to describe the automatic assumption of superiority of any adult over any child. Now, perhaps, childism is the last permissible prejudice. Discrimination that would seem shocking if applied to any other group is exercised against children and regarded as quite appropriate. Children\\u2019s freedom is constantly restricted and their views are generally dismissed. They\\u2019re told what to do, what to eat, what to wear, even what to say. Is this just responsible parenting or does it verge on oppression?

Children\\u2019s minds aren\\u2019t fully developed, and they\\u2019re less well equipped to make smart decisions. They also need limits and it\\u2019s surely the job of adults to impose them, but where should the line be drawn? We should keep children safe, of course, but after that\\u2026 is it better to be strict or to allow them maximum autonomy? What\\u2019s the moral basis on which we make that judgement?

Attitudes have changed over the decades. We\\u2019ve moved on from the axiom that \\u201cchildren should be seen and not heard.\\u201d A survey out last week suggested that parents in Britain place less importance on instilling obedience in children than parents in most other countries. But maybe a little obedience would be no bad thing?

What\\u2019s the moral case for exercising power over children and young people?

Presenter: Michael Buerk\\nProducer: Jonathan Hallewell\\nEditor: Tim Pemberton