The rule of law and freedom are the most cherished goals of democracy. Arguably, democracy offers spaces for these goals to be articulated through periodic elections, which in turn mark the most important political event in a democracy. Ironically, elections are also the peak time for the spread of disinformation through social media, targeting and tarnishing candidates and political parties. Taiwan is no exception to this practice.
Universal enfranchisement based on the idea of equality is the basis for electing officials to institutions at all levels in a democratic state. Thus, the voting age is crucial in the democratic function of a state. A recent amendment to lower the voting age in Taiwan from 20 to 18 is a welcome step toward democratic inclusion. Almost half a century ago, the 25th Amendment to the US constitution in 1971 brought down the voting age from 21 to 18. The change was justified by the slogan “old enough to fight and old enough to vote” amid the Vietnam War-driven military draft in the US. Many US states have reduced the voting age further to 16 or 17 for state and city elections.
In the same way, India, the largest and youngest democracy in the world, by its 61st Constitutional Amendment in 1988 modified Article 326 to lower the voting age from 21 to 18.
Recently, Japan lowered the voting age from 20 to 18. A study in Japan on the impact of the lower voting age has revealed that the overall turnout in the 18-to-19 age group was higher in the first following election to the House of Councilors in 2016. The proportion of 18-year-olds accompanying their parents to polling stations was high, thereby motivating parents to cast their votes, although, surprisingly, invalid voting rates increased by marginal percentage points in Upper House and House of Councilors elections.
In Japan, despite significant initial opposition by voters, the drive to lower the voting age was led by politicians. However, by the time the Diet voted on the amendment in early 2016, the public perception had changed favorably.
In the case of Taiwan, calls to lower the voting age were driven by student groups, forcing politicians to bring the amendment to the Legislative Yuan. In March, the Legislative Yuan approved the constitutional amendment by changing Article 130 to lower the voting age from 20 to 18. Legislators across party lines unanimously voted (109-0) in favor of the amendment, putting aside their political differences, which reflected the importance of having young voters in the political process. The change is subject to a national referendum to be held concurrently with local elections on Nov. 26, to be approved by a majority of eligible voters.
It marked a victory for students and civil society groups that worked hard in a prolonged campaign to bring the voting age in line with other democratic countries.
This would make an additional 540,000 young people — 280,000 men and 260,000 women — eligible to vote in Taiwanese elections.
The amendment provides an opportunity for young people to express their aspirations and voice their expectations through elections by exercising their vote in the local and national elections. As members of Gen Z become politically engaged, politicians would recognize and address the policy issues affecting them, such as better education infrastructure, digital access, quality of education, employment opportunities, technology and innovation in the new-age economy.
Mark Franklin in his influential 2004 book Voter Turnout and Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies Since 1945 argues that the decline in voter turnout in established democracies since the 1960s can be traced back to when the voting age was lowered to 18. He argues that in terms of turnout, this was a mistake. He says that as they are in a transitional phase in their lives after high school, it dampens turnout among first-time voters.
According to Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison (2013), by 18 years of age many people have left their parental home and are engaged in the arduous process of establishing their separate existence as independent individuals, leaving little time for gaining social skills like voting. When people do not take part in their first eligible election, they might take up the habit of not voting, which could then lead to a lifetime of abstention or sporadic voter participation.
However, Franklin argues that further lowering the voting age to 16 or 17 could have a positive impact on voter turnout, as they would, for the most part, be in high school and living in a community surrounded with family and friends. They would have established strong connections to their school and the local ecosystem. Thus, they would be exercising their franchise as voters and influence their parents to exercise their vote as well.
Studies in Latin America, specifically Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador and Nicaragua, have confirmed this argument and established that voter turnout is higher in the 16-to-17 age group. The Japanese experience on voter turnout in the first election after lowering the voting age is encouragingly positive, vindicating the idea that the youth of Asian societies behave and respond differently in comparison to US youth, and hopefully the response of young Taiwanese might be the same as that of Japan.
As the voting age was lowered in response to calls from young people, it is most likely that voter turnout among young voters would be higher in the upcoming elections.
Young voters tend to change views and switch their votes more often than older voters, leading to unexpected election results and making predictions volatile.
Young people tend to support center-left issues, being idealistic at a tender age. In the modern technology-savvy world, Internet and social media-driven youngsters tend to be a little hot-headed, easily influenced by emotion and sentiment, and are therefore more susceptible to extraneous influences of misinformation, thereby adding to political volatility. Their expectations and aspirations might not be permanently aligned with any political thought, as their political ideology changes with age and profession as they become income earners.
To find out precisely how lowering the voting age will affect political behavior and attitudes, we will have to wait and watch the first election outcome after the amendment. The critical point is that all political parties endorsed the amendment to lower the voting age in Taiwan.
Whatever the outcome, bringing more than half a million new voters into the mainstream political process has succeeded in bringing young people into full and lasting participation in institutions of democratic government.
No doubt it will get them engrossed in democratic values and practices, and also cement at a tender age the unique identity of “democratic Taiwaneseness” compared with their counterparts across the Taiwan Strait.
Rajagopal Devara is a Taiwan research fellow at National Chengchi University and a senior civil servant in Mumbai, India.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS