One for the Road: Dimokratia

Greek philosopher Aristotle famously wrote that ‘man is a political animal’, which, according to records recently recovered from the ruins of Ancient Athens General Hospital, was a proclamation that didn’t go down too well with his 18-year-old wife, Pythias.

‘And if man is a political animal, what exactly does that make women?’ she reportedly roared as she chased him across the courtyard, before catching hold of the tail of his toga and bouncing a few emphatic sandal-slaps off the side of his head.

Perhaps had big brains not previously written an essay arguing that all females were ‘deformed males’ born of defective pregnancies, he would have escaped with a more lenient sentence – perhaps two weeks of beans and toast – rather than being subjected to full force of his wife’s size four.

I know – ancient Athens wasn’t all tolerance, enlightenment and democracy.

Which brings me to the heart of this week’s column – the lowering of the voting age.

The UK Government, led (sort of) by an increasingly sweaty-looking Keir Starmer, has said that 16 and 17-year-olds will be eligible to vote in the next UK general election.

While these constitutional changes probably won’t be implemented in time for the North’s next council and assembly elections in 2027, voting age will likely be reduced by the time the following election cycle comes around.

Naturally, since the announcement of this historic change to the electoral process, the media has had a field day getting the opinion of members of the public.

About half of all vox pops, talk radio segments and newspaper columns aired and published over the last week have been premised on some version of the following question: Should 16 and 17-year-olds – with all their hormonal instability, mind-warping screen-addiction, lack of life experience, and callow political idealism – be extended the civic privilege and onerous public responsibility of being granted full participation in our oh-so-cherished democracy?

The reaction – conservatives and unionists feeling like the change will mean more votes for themmuns, while liberals, lefties and nationalists say bring it on – has been pretty much what I expected.

Perhaps predictably, by political persuasion and natural disposition, I’ve been in the bring it on camp.

For a start, I hold the admittedly condescending-sounding view that most people over the age of 18 in our society probably aren’t properly qualified to vote anyway, so including another politically confused five per-cent of the population will not make a pile of difference.

Yes, it sounds condescending, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with not being politically-oriented.

For most people, life is about family, friends, work and pursuing passions, which doesn’t always leave a lot of time for combing through fiscal policy proposals or interrogating local candidates with a polygraph machine.

Ironically, if anybody has time to cast a truly-informed vote, it’s probably the 16 and 17-year-olds who, by and large, have no full-time jobs or serious family commitments. Though, it must be said, plenty do work and I’m sure any future chancellor will only be all too glad to stuff their mattress with whatever taxes they can get their hands on.

Anyway, at least this was my view until I came across a poll published by ITV the other day which found that only 46 per-cent of 16 and 17-year-olds have a positive view of democracy.

And worse yet, over a fifth (22 per-cent) view a military strongman with no government or elections as being the proper way to run a country.

Meaning, yes, one fifth of UK youngsters are pro-dictatorship.

That’s not just a throwaway stat – it speaks to how disillusioned a big chunk of young people are with today’s politics.

Blame Trump. Blame the slow speed at which parliamentary politics moves. Blame the legacy of Stalin’s luscious moustache.

All I could do was hope that each little populist who participated in the poll had to tell their mother what answers they gave – and, to the very last, their mothers defended the ideal of democracy with the same sandal-swinging steadfastness that Pythias did against Aristotle.