I do not believe it is the right time to lower the voting age to 16 in Ethiopia.

Ethiopia is a young country, with over 70% of the population below the age of 30. There is merit in the argument that lowering the voting age to 16 would in principle enhance youth participation in political processes and decisions that affect their lives.

After all, young Ethiopians are active political actors. They have been highly mobilised in opposition politics. For instance, 16- and 17-year-olds in high schools played a visible role in the protests that brought Abiy Ahmed to power in 2018.

I have been studying interactions between the regime and young people in Ethiopia since 2019 to see if state policies empower them or keep them on the margins. Unfortunately, young people have been heavily mobilised for war. Both the government and insurgents have been accused of recruiting underage fighters.

Given how political processes affect this demographic, it may seem intuitive to argue for including young people in decision-making by lowering the voting age.

However, I believe that within the current political environment in Ethiopia, where elections are plagued by deep structural flaws, lowering the voting age would expose young people to greater repression without giving them a real voice.

There are several challenges in Ethiopia's deeply flawed electoral landscape. The electoral board lacks independence, which undermines the integrity and credibility of elections. Media freedom is highly circumscribed; the country ranks among the worst for journalists. Competition within the political sphere is nonexistent as the ruling party harasses, intimidates and jails dissenters.

Because of these challenges, electoral contests in Ethiopia aren't free or fair. Instead, they are performative, serving as a ritual designed to project an image of democratic rule rather than bringing meaningful change.

Without reforms addressing these challenges, extending voting rights by lowering the voting age to 16 would be purely symbolic. In fact, it could even be harmful to young people. The Ethiopian government has co-opted and repressed young people extensively. Lowering the voting age would simply provide an incentive for the government to extend these practices to even younger people.

The ruling party already exerts pervasive influence in society. Universities, for instance, are highly politicised and have been sites of political contestation and violence. If voting rights were lowered, it would lead to greater politicisation of institutions of learning, making younger students targets of increased harassment and manipulation.

Symbolic reforms like lowering the voting age in an authoritarian setting would, however, benefit the ruling party. This would allow the incumbent to claim greater legitimacy, and create an illusion of inclusion without empowering the youth. This amounts to "isomorphic mimicry", where a state adopts a form of democratic reform (by lowering the voting age) without the function (genuine political inclusion of the youth).

In short, lowering the voting age under the current conditions in Ethiopia would at best be symbolic, and could even be harmful to young people.

---

View Amanuel's profile

I support the reduction of Ghana's voting age from 18 to 16. My position is that this is not just a matter of numbers. It is a matter of justice, inclusion and democratic renewal.

My view is premised on four main arguments. The first one is informed by civic engagement and social media activism. Any 16-year-old in Ghana today is not a passive political observer. They are active participants in civic discourses, especially through social media. Through the various platforms they are using, they can mobilise around issues of climate change, education and governance. Denying them a vote at that age is denying them a voice in shaping the policies that affect their lives.

My second argument is that the current voting age of 18 is an arbitrary age limit. Sixteen-year-olds have serious responsibilities that affect their lives and society. For instance, they can work and pay taxes in Ghana if they earn above the threshold set by the Ghana Revenue Authority . They can also apply for a learner driver's permit and begin driving under supervision. But most importantly, they can be held legally accountable in court. If the state can entrust them with these responsibilities, why can't the state trust them with a responsibility to cast a vote in national elections?

My third argument is built on global precedents and demographic evolution. Austria, Brazil, Scotland and the UK have successfully lowered the voting age to 16. The data shows that lowering the voting age also increases youth turnout and fosters a lifelong civic habit. So, considering that Ghana is a vibrant democracy, as a political scientist I'd argue that it makes sense not to lag in recognising the political rights of young people.

My final argument is around education and the preparedness of these young people. Citizenship education is already part of Ghana's curriculum. Young Ghanaians are taught about governance rights and responsibilities, and so by 16, they are already knowledgeable about how elections happen. Not allowing them to vote until they turn 18 per the current constitutional requirement means that the state is undermining the very purpose of its own civic education.

I'm not oblivious that some people would argue that 16-year-olds are immature or prone to being easily influenced. However, there is more than enough evidence from past elections to show that voter influence is not age-specific. Adults are swayed by the media, religion, and even family connections or ties. What matters is informed participation, and that can be cultivated through education and engagement.

In the end, the popular adage that age is just a number holds true. The country must recognise the need for young people to be an active part of democratic processes like elections. It is their right and important to the growth of responsible governance.

---

View Clement's profile

There is no doubt that young Kenyans are underrepresented in politics and feel powerless to participate in making policies that are likely to shape their future. For one thing, the constitution prohibits citizens who are not adults -- meaning 18 years and above -- from holding public office. They are also excluded from leadership roles in political parties.

Yet, the case for extending voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds is strong. For one thing, they represent the next generation of Kenya's leaders.

The minimum age for employment in Kenya is 16. These young Kenyans can legally engage in paid work. And so they are eligible to pay taxes. But they are not allowed to exercise the basic right of participating in their governing process through casting a vote (as provided in article 38 of the constitution) to elect the people they want to represent them and their interests. The exercise of this fundamental right is limited to adult citizens.

I am a scholar whose research interests include public choice, constitutional political economy and institutional reforms in Africa. It is my view that expanding the right to vote would play a critical role in shaping public opinion, holding politicians accountable and, most importantly, positively transforming the country’s political and economic systems. Granting Kenyan citizens aged 16 and 17 the right to vote is important for achieving a more inclusive, participatory and responsive democratic system.

It has been argued that voting is a habit. For example, research in the United States has determined that “voting from a young age leads to high political participation throughout life". I agree with Common Cause, a non-partisan, grassroots organisation dedicated to upholding democracy in the United States, that securing the right to vote at a young age can increase “initiatives to be more informed and active in local, national and state-wide politics”.

US researchers have observed that allowing young people to vote can significantly increase turnout during electoral exercises, strengthen democracy, and build a more equitable and just society.

In light of all of the above, granting Kenyan citizens aged 16 to 17 the right to vote would, in the long run, foster a more inclusive and accountable democratic system. Voters, including young ones, can improve executive accountability by denying votes for re-election to those who under-perform, promote opportunistic policies or fail to keep their campaign promises.

Some commentators who oppose lowering the voting age to 16 years have argued that young people should be involved in their own lives, not politics. However, given the extent to which political decisions in Kenya and other African countries affect their lives, I believe young people should be allowed to participate in making those decisions.

---

View John's profile

I don't support lowering the voting age to 16 in Nigeria. It may seem like a progressive step. But, in my view as an academic who has analysed Nigerian politics for over two decades, I believe the idea is fraught with risks. It is also unlikely to produce meaningful benefits.

The current voting age of 18 is reasonable because it aligns with other legal thresholds in Nigeria. These include eligibility for national service, and legal responsibility. The age of legal responsibility is the minimum age at which a child is considered capable of understanding the nature and consequences of their actions. They can also be held legally accountable for criminal acts.

At 18, individuals are more likely to have completed secondary education, entered the workforce, or begun tertiary studies. These are experiences that contribute to a broader understanding of society and governance. Maintaining this benchmark ensures consistency across legal frameworks and reinforces the seriousness of electoral participation.

For Nigeria -- a country grappling with complex political, economic, and social challenges -- such a move would be premature. It would also be impractical.

Nigeria faces issues such as electoral malpractice, weak institutions, low trust in democratic processes, and voter apathy. Introducing a younger voting bloc without addressing these could worsen manipulation, as 16-year-olds might be more vulnerable to political exploitation, propaganda and inducements.

The "right time" would be when democratic institutions are stronger and youth are better prepared for responsible participation. It is impractical at present due to documentation issues, logistical strain on the electoral body, school-age conflicts, and security risks.

It could be equally detrimental to the democratic process. While youth engagement in civic life is essential, voting is a serious responsibility. It demands a level of maturity, awareness and independence that most 16-year-olds in Nigeria have not yet attained. It risks exacerbating voter manipulation and straining electoral institutions. The democratic process could become more vulnerable to exploitation unless broader reforms of political culture and election management are first implemented.

A compelling argument against lowering the voting age is cognitive and emotional maturity. At 16, most Nigerian teenagers are still in secondary school, heavily dependent on their parents or guardians. They're also navigating the emotional turbulence of adolescence. Expecting 16-year-olds to make informed decisions about complex political issues, candidates and policies is unrealistic.

Voting is not merely a right; it is a civic duty. This duty requires discernment, critical thinking, and a grasp of long-term consequences. These are traits still developing at age 16.

Another case against lowering the voting age is the prevailing lack of political awareness among young Nigerians.

There is also a lack of voter education. Nigeria’s educational system, while improving in some areas, still struggles with delivering comprehensive civic education. Many secondary schools don't adequately teach students about the structure of government, electoral processes, or the implications of public policy.

Without a solid foundation in civic knowledge, 16-year-olds are more likely to be swayed by populist rhetoric, peer pressure, or social media misinformation. This could lead to a distortion of electoral outcomes and undermine the integrity of democratic institutions.

Rather than lowering the voting age, Nigeria should focus on strengthening civic education at all levels. This would prepare young people for future participation.

There is also a risk of manipulation and exploitation if voting age is lowered. In Nigeria’s volatile political landscape, where vote-buying, intimidation and manipulation are still prevalent, introducing younger voters could exacerbate these issues.

Teenagers are particularly vulnerable to coercion and may lack the confidence or experience to resist undue influence. Politicians could exploit their naivety, offering incentives or spreading propaganda to secure votes.

Young voters could therefore be put at risk of being used as pawns in political games. Safeguarding the electoral process requires ensuring that voters are mature enough to recognise and resist manipulation.

The focus should instead be on empowering young people. This is best done through education, mentorship and civic engagement initiatives. This will prepare them for responsible participation at the appropriate age.

Democracy thrives not just on numbers, but on informed and thoughtful participation. For Nigeria, keeping the voting age at 18 is a prudent choice.

---

View Olawale's profile