Intergenerational justice is becoming an increasingly important subject on the political agenda. Population ageing, which is beginning to generate visible strains and tensions in many countries, is part of the reason for this.
There are some countries which already have substantive provisions written into law that aim to secure a fair and equitable balance between the interests of present and future generations as well as between the younger and older members of society. Germany is a case in point: there are, for example, provisions in the constitution (the Grundgesetz or Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany) on environmental protection (Art. 20a) and the restriction of public debt (Art. 109, 115). They do not cover all relevant areas, however, and leave what is known as a ‘relevant discretion’ to decision-makers who are generally considered to focus on the interests or on what they believe to be the interests of the majority of their voters.
As ageing populations mean ageing electorates, the pressure on decision-makers to enact measures that favour the interests of older people increases. And on top of this, the nature of electoral cycles encourages decision-makers to prioritise immediate concerns, short term interests rather than long term interests. Among the measures that have been proposed to attenuate these problems is the introduction of balanced participatory rights for all age groups as procedural instruments complementing substantive provisions that aim at securing intergenerational justice.
One of the first questions to ask is whether those young people so far excluded from participation by age limits should be included by lowering the voting age. Although we might argue about where the age threshold should be set, voting undoubtedly requires certain intellectual capacities. Thus, the minimum age can only be lowered to a certain extent. Nevertheless, the views of the youngest could be represented by introducing so-called “family voting”, i.e. by providing parents with extended voting rights. A proposal along these lines was submitted to the Bundestag by several deputies in 2008. There is, however, a fairly obvious problem with this, certainly if the children lack the ability to express their views in front of their parents and/or parents are not willing to take their children’s views into consideration. Family voting can be recognized as a kind of plural voting. It conflicts with the idea of “one person one vote”, which is generally considered a fundamental and unchangeable democratic principle. Even if legal orders allowed for its modification, a system of family voting primarily strengthens the parents’ voice and does not contribute to representing their children’s views. Thus, it cannot be said to promote intergenerational justice.
But the exclusion of the youngest age groups from the electorate is not the only issue to be considered. The mere fact that those young people who are entitled to vote or to participate in general are increasingly outnumbered might be seen as problematic: under conditions of population ageing, the principle of “one person one vote” implies that the votes of young people - considered as a group - carry less electoral weight. Additionally, at least for some elections, the young voters’ turnout is lower than old voters’ turnout. This can be seen, for example, in 2017 elections to the Bundestag.
Apart from other instruments (e.g. new forms and reformed modalities of participation or an extension of political education) it might be possible to increase the turnout of younger voters by the introduction of compulsory voting (or even “asymmetric” compulsory voting). Although compulsory voting has been introduced in democratic countries such as Australia, the idea of “forced voting” is considered incompatible with national legal provisions regarding free elections in many democracies. Besides, compulsory voting can only encourage people to participate by imposing fines in case of non-participation but cannot guarantee valid ballot papers.
One way of offsetting the electoral predominance of older people would be the introduction of a system of “weighted voting”, i.e. giving more weight to young people’s votes, or introducing youth quotas in public representative assemblies. See, for example, Bidadanure, Juliana, Youth Quotas, Diversity, and Long-Termism: Can Young People Act as Proxies for Future Generations?, p. 266 ff., in: Gonzalez-Ricoy, Inigo/Gosseries, Axel, Institutions for Future Generations, 2016; Tremmel, Jörg/Mason, Anthony/Haakenstad Godli, Petter/Dimitrijoski, Youth Quotas and other Efficient Forms of Youth Participation in Ageing Societies, 2015. However, both proposals seem incompatible with the principle of “one person one vote” and would presumably entail other “groups’” request for similar measures.
Perhaps the most promising and feasible option would be to oblige decision-makers to consult special bodies representing all age groups on policy issues that raise questions of sustainability and intergenerational justice. The effect of incorporating such a forum in the legislative process would be to promote intergenerational justice by procedural means. It would of course remain a question of national law to determine the binding or non-binding character of the views expressed by these bodies as well as the justiciability of the decisions taken.
Despite their undoubted legal and political difficulties, at least some of these proposed measures surely deserve further consideration and discussion. If we dismiss them out of hand, we are also dismissing the problem to which they are intended as a solution.
About the Author
Dr. iur. Silvia Pernice-Warnke, LL.M. was an Academic Visitor at the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing. Currently, she is a research assistant at the Faculty of Law, University of Cologne, Germany.
Comments Welcome
We welcome your comments on this or any of the Institute's blog posts. Please feel free to email comments to be posted on your behalf to administrator@ageing.ox.ac.uk or use the Disqus facility linked below. Her dissertation focuses on demographic change, intergenerational justice and participation.
Opinions of the blogger is their own and not endorsed by the Institute
Comments Welcome: We welcome your comments on this or any of the Institute's blog posts. Please feel free to email comments to be posted on your behalf to administrator@ageing.ox.ac.uk or use the Disqus facility linked below.
