麻豆约拍

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鈥檙e superior.

It鈥檚 nearly fifty years since the concept of 鈥渃hildism鈥� 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鈥檚 freedom is constantly restricted and their views are generally dismissed. They鈥檙e 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鈥檚 minds aren鈥檛 fully developed, and they鈥檙e less well equipped to make smart decisions. They also need limits and it鈥檚 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鈥� is it better to be strict or to allow them maximum autonomy? What鈥檚 the moral basis on which we make that judgement?

Attitudes have changed over the decades. We鈥檝e moved on from the axiom that 鈥渃hildren should be seen and not heard.鈥� 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鈥檚 the moral case for exercising power over children and young people?

Presenter: Michael Buerk
Producer: Jonathan Hallewell
Editor: Tim Pemberton