"Discuss The Role That A Young And Active Citizen Of Your Age Can Play In Society. Define This In Relation To Marshallís Theory of Citizenship and the Rights and Responsibilities of a Young Citizen."

Essay written by Katie Lee.

What is an active citizen? According to Dawn Oliver, an active citizen is a citizen who takes on responsibilities instead of expecting the state to sort everything out for them. Marshall says that the concept of citizenship can actually be divided into three sets of "rights" these are civil, political, and social rights.

Civil rights include freedom of speech, which we are all apparently entitled to. As citizens, we also have the right to participate in the democratic process. We also have social rights, such as free education and healthcare, benefits etc. In this essay I will be concentrating on the political right of voting, and the limitations young people have in this area.

As a citizen of the United Kingdom, there is a right to vote at the age of 18. However, I am not entirely sure that this is a fair age at which a citizen is allowed to take part in the democratic process. In society today there are a number of conflicting messages as to what age a young citizen becomes an adult. This is evident in the examples I am about to provide.

At age 10 and above, a person can be held criminally liable. Yet a child is not considered a teenager until they are age 13. Therefore, it seems to be the viewpoint that a child can have a similar mind of a 48 year old criminal; however they are not even old enough to see a 12 certificate film in the cinema. Does this seem logical? Indeed, there have been cases of young children committing crimes, but how can we judge an age that a human being knows right from wrong? And what about those with conditions preventing them of having a normal mental age? These are all intriguing questions, yet all we need to know at the moment is that the law considers a 10 year old criminally liable.

We now move on to the next important age of 16. At this age one can legally smoke, drink, have sex and be called to war. This is also the age where a young citizen begins to pay adult prices on public transport etc. Important decisions must be made regarding the future, such as whether or not to go to college, and if so, what subjects to take. Looking at all this it could be said that one has reached a high maturity level at this age, and is old enough and wise enough to make some exceptionally important decisions, such as starting a family.

At the age of 18, a young citizen is a legal adult with the new rights of voting and consumption of alcoholic beverages. It is not until this age that a young citizen can effectively participate in the democratic process, by having a say about who runs the country.

As the above paragraphs show, there seems to be confusion as to what age a young citizen is classed as an adult. Logically, shouldnít the right to vote coincide with the many other rights and responsibilities one gets at the younger ages? It is difficult to comprehend why a young citizen is classed mature enough to legally start a family, however, to immature to make a contribution to the society the child will be brought into. Is it fair that at 16 you can be called to war, yet has absolutely no influence over the government who calls you there? It would surely make sense to determine an age where a young citizen is determined an adult, rather than a number of ages, with rights and responsibilities scattered all over the place.

In argument to the preposition of bringing forward the age of voting, some may say that before 18, a young citizen has not have enough experience of life, knowledge and understanding. Well, in return to that argument, if someone is old enough to cope with responsibilities such as having sex, paying adult fares, whether or not to poison their bodies from cigarettes, and make decisions regarding their future, surely they are entitled to have a say in the running of the country. It could be better for the government of the country to actually listen to the voices of their younger citizens instead of oppressing them, and making them wait years when by then it would be too late.

According to Dawn Oliver, an active citizen takes responsibilities instead of expecting the state to provide for them. A young citizen is indeed entitled to benefits such as free education and healthcare, so therefore does benefit from society. However, by denying the right to vote until the age of 18, arenít young citizens being denied the ability to take on some responsibility? The young citizen can receive benefits, but is unable to influence much, and contribute to the country they live in.

Surely, it would make sense for the government to firmly decide when a young citizen can be classed responsible and mature enough to cope with adult responsibilities and instead of scattering the ìadultî label between the ages of 10 and 18, have just one age. When a young citizen is made to pay adult prices, itís only fair that they share adult rights and responsibilities. Of course, there is the problem of how to put an age on such a thing, and some may say that is impossible.

There are always stories of young vandals and thugs splashed across the news, and the general perception of young citizens of the country is fairly negative. However, this perception could be because of stereotypes and many young people actually feel stigmatised by such attitudes. Police will straight away assume a large group of teenagers are up to no good, and when walking down the street, it is common to hear the criticisms of ìyoung people these days!î With attitudes like this towards young citizens, is it any surprise that the right to vote has been withheld? But contrary to what many of the older and ìwiserî population think, most young people are mature, responsible citizens, and of course there are exceptions but there are in the ìadultî population to. However, do you hear ìTut tut, middle aged men todayî when we see a group of drunken men after a night down the pub? Stories of mass murderers, rapists and abductors are heard all the time, yet sometimes this all seems to be the fault of the ìteenage loutsî who are letting society down.

It may never have occurred to people that if young citizens were given the responsibility to participate in the democratic process, then they will feel part of society and therefore, more likely to respect its values and respect it more. If young people were taught about the democratic process from an early age then no one could argue that they had no understanding of the system, and this would also make the right to vote feel like a privilege as well as a responsibility. 

Marshall's definition of citizenship states that citizens are entitled to rights, which can be divided into 3 categories, civil, political and social. True, young citizens have civil rights, although these too are limited [however, this will not be discussed due to time limitations]. The young citizen also has the benefit of social welfare through the education, and healthcare benefits. However, the area where the young citizen is in effect left out of is the political rights, as they are not entitled to participate in the democratic process. Therefore if we look at citizenship from Marshall's viewpoint the denial of this right is indeed unfair to the young citizen.  

In conclusion to this essay, I would like to state that I believe it is truly unfair that young citizens are unable to participate in the democratic process until the age of 18, but are expected to handle adult responsibilities at 16. I believe the government should listen much more to the younger generation, and they may be surprised at actually how mature and responsible the young citizen of Great Britain is today.

Katie Lee

Sept 2003.