zurück
KINDERRÄCHTSZÄNKER
Statement und Interview / Krätzä
We
are a group of about 20 young people (13 to 20 years old) who stand
up for equal rights for children. Our main subjects are the right
to vote, school and family. But we are also engaging in other subjects
that deal with age discrimination, such as child labour and kids and
youth protection.
Through public relations work we try to call attention to these subjects and finally to achieve changes in society. We do several campaigns, issue texts, and are invited to events and we are always turning up in different places with displays of information. We have our own little meeting room and bureau in Berlin Prenzlauer Berg, which is open every afternoon. Our weekly meeting also takes place there. You can visit us or become active with us. We are also pleased to receive letters (and donations).
We, the KinderRächTsZänker, stand for the abolition of the age limit for voting. We believe there will be a lot of indirect consequences for the whole of society, when children are no longer denied the right to vote - towards more peacefulness and contentedness of all humans, not just children. "Children are human beings, too. Therefore they must have human rights, too. Especially the weak members of a comunity need to be protected by granting them their human rights unrestrictedly. From a human rights' point of view, it is self-evident that children must have equal rights. The Discrimination of the Child; a Human Rights Report' indicates the manifold and everyday human rights violations, that are committed in political participation, in schools, in families and in the protection of kids and young people. With an incredible self-evidence most of the human rights, that were written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights published 50 years ago, are violated in the case of children."
Towards a society without age discrimination.
During the last few decades the equality of rights between men and women, the equality of rights for people with different colors of skin as well as for people with and without handicap has been stipulated by law. We all know that there are problems with the implementation in practice, but in principle it is clear: No one shall be discriminated against because of some attribute he or she has no influence on. A large part of the population, about 20%, is discriminated against because of another attribute they have no influence on: their age. We are speaking about children and young people.
The legal situation of children is comparable with that of serfs or captives - even though many people deny this. The status of children is approximately the same as that of women in the 19th century. In the society of today children are not perceived as people, which they indubitably are, - human beings, autonomous beings - but as objects; and that is how they are treated: as objects of instruction, of discipline and of protection.
Politically they are powerless. They are not allowed to choose the people that govern them; they don't have the right to vote. There may be many flaws in democracy - parliamentarianism might be one of them - but certainly a very crucial flaw is, that in Germany alone 20% of the population - in some other countries even more than 50% - are excluded from democratic participation solely because of their age, just as in the past it was seen as legitimate to exclude people because of their sex, the color of their skin or their property. This lack of political participation has resulted in children being excluded from large parts of public life.
However, not only in politics, but also in the family young people are dependent on the adults' goodwill. Just as men once did in relation to their wifes, parents still have the right to discipline children, to mould them as they like and to deprive them of their self-determination.
For this reason we, the KinderRächTsZänker (aka K.R.ä.T.Z.ä.), demand equal rights between the generations - in the family as well as in the whole of society, and therewith the repeal of all discriminatory age limits. We also demand that compulsory schooling - the way children are unescapably forced to go to school - be replaced by a right to self-determined education; parents must not be able to override this right to learn in freedom, not under compulsion, in a part-time prison.
We believe that equality of rights for children, young people, adults and old people is an important step towards a fairer society. We consider the treatment of children to be a crucial question, since at the beginnings of their lives all humans are children, and all had the experience of not being really taken seriously, being excluded and having very limited human rights. Someone who has never, or only sporadically, experienced values like freedom and democracy, will hardly stick up for them. Right-wing extremism is one symptom, although an extreme one. We must fight against the causes of such behaviour. Social peace is impossible without equal rights for everyone - and that includes children. Interview with members of K.R.ä.T.Z.ä
Interview
Why did you sue for your right to vote?
K: First, we demand our right to vote because we think that everyone has a right to take part in decisions. Everyone concerned by decisions must have the chance to influence them. People under 18 years still lack this opportunity. For this reason, we also think that children's interests aren't given enough consideration in the parliament.
A second important reason is our interest in discussing the subject "Right to vote - why only for adults?" in public. As soon as it is being talked about, it would also turn out that children aren't being taken really seriously. So there are also other basic rights involved than just the basic right to have a say in matters. Our list of supporters shows that there are also popular personalities that support our goal.
Don't you think that politicians support your campaign simply because they expect to gain more votes for their party?
K: Possibly, yes. In case children will have a say in matters afterall, we have nothing against that.
At what age should one be allowed to vote?
K: This lawsuit isn't a demand for a right to vote at a certain age. Instead, two individuals, 13 and 16 years of age, personally went to the constitutional court and made a complaint about the denial of their right to vote.
The demand in our children's rights-group K.R.ä.T.Z.ä. is the right to vote without an age limit. I.e.: Everyone who wants to vote should be allowed to do so. Just as there's no legal discrimination due to skin colour, religion or disabilities, there shouldn't be one due to age either. Democracy means that no one is excluded: one man - one vote. That's why the "universality" of the elections is written down in law.
Do you want to send babies to the ballot-box then? That's impossible.
K: People regularly ask this question, sometimes mockingly. Presumably, most small children, let's say up to 4 or 5 years, won't make use of their right to vote. But in our opinion, it's impossible to give, in principle, reasons for a new age limit of 5 years or at the beginning of compulsory education. It remains undemocratic, even if there will be some parents that make use of their baby's vote by way of tricks. Also in present, it happens now and then that someone else marks the ballot for an old person - although this is strictly prohibited. We consider this question of the babies to be one that diverts attention from our basic idea of human rights.
Doesn't the constitution say: "A person has the right to vote upon the age of 18"?
K: But the constitution also says "All persons are equal before the law" and especially that "All state power derives from the people". Our lawyer Dr. Merk spent quite some time on this topic. The law defines the term "people" as follows: "The entirety of German citizens that are resident in the FRG (Federal Republic of Germany) and acknowledge themselves to be part of it". I.e., children belong to the people as well. Persons may be barred from voting only for "compelling reasons". Up until now, the compelling reason at hand in this case has been that exclusion of children and youth has "solid historical grounds". "Afterall, the only argument used to exclude 16 millions of German citizens from the right to vote is the famous phrase "It has always been like that." In accordance with this "argument", women still wouldn't be allowed to vote nowadays.
What exactly was the constitutional appeal directed against?
K: Never before has a constitutional appeal been directed against a norm within the constitution. Practically, what we say is that article 38(2), containing the age limit, is unconstitutional, as it violates article 20: "All state power derives from the people." In the appeal, this was justified by way of the so-called "eternal status" which was accorded only to article 20 and article 1. I.e. It stipulates that they may never be deleted or changed with a 2/3 majority in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. Even Federal president Roman Herzog, being former president of the consitutional court, has mentioned that article 20 may take precedence over article 38(2). He refers to art. 20 as a state fundamental norm.
Why wasn't the appeal allowed for the hearing?
K: Constitutional appeals against "a law or any other sovereign act" have to be sent in within 1 year after the concrete provisions have been published. So Benjamin and Rainer would have had to send in their appeal a long time before they were born. It's clear that this is impossible.
What are you going to do now in order to get your right to vote?
K: On August 23rd 1996, exactly one year after sending in the constitutional appeal, two young people who won't be 18 years old until the next election for the Bundestag, applied for inclusion in the election register. However, due to their age, this was refused. We are going to institute proceedings against that - if necessary, until we will reach the constitutional court again. By this strategy, we're avoiding that 1-year-limit. The court will then be forced to deal with the content of our demand.
Aren't children much too immature for voting?
K: Voting has nothing to do with maturity. Most people believe one has to be qualified for voting. It is important to think about what "democracy" means: Whenever human beings or parties cannot come to an agreement which opinion is "right", they put it to the vote. There is no instance that could judge the arguments' quality, except for the specific individuals with their personal consciences, their personal values, wishes, fears and sympathies. For this reason, in democracy not quality decides but majorities - numbers of votes. Each vote has got the same weight here and the particular arguments that led to a specific decision in voting are of absolutely no importance. That's why it's undemocratic - i.e. unconstitutional - to exclude children from the right to vote arguments that point out their qualities and qualification.
Is it your opinion that young people know enough about politics to know what they're voting for?
K: What does it actually mean to "know enough about politics"? Voting just means: I vote for someone who cares best for my own interests. And the style of politics would probably change after the right to vote would be changed. When children have the right to vote, adults have to do some rethinking: politicians will have to make an effort to write their election platforms and speeches in a way which children can understand. Moreover, many adults don't know enough about politics, and are nevertheless not excluded from the right to vote. Who would want to define the criteria of political competence? Even if there were a test of political competence, it wouldn't lead to rigid age limits.
Don't you think that it's too easy to influence children?
K: Human beings constantly influence one another. As far as this matter is concerned, it is important that children and all others can be influenced, since elections, or at least election campaigns, would otherwise be quite unnecessary. Of course there is a danger of deliberate misinformation. This can also happen easily to old people, who might have become senile; nevertheless they are allowed to keep their right to vote. Probably, children are, in average, even easier to influence and manipulate than adults. But a reason for this is also that many of them haven't thought about political matters until now. Why should they? There was no reason as they weren't asked anyway. In any case, parties will not easily succeed in directing more lies to children than to adults, since these lies would be cleared-up by an opposing party and would, this way, make the liar party lose votes.
Isn't there a danger that parents will force their children to vote for a certain party?
K: Force won't work - naturally - as children will have to decide on their own in the polling booth, just like everybody else. However, the risk of an alien will being imposed upon them is there. There are many cases where some people succeeded in forcing their voting decision even on adults. It has only been since recognition of women's suffrage that men have been seen as evildoers if they suppressed women in their decisions. A couple of years after adoption of their right to vote, it would look similar for young people. In a society in which children and young people do not count as so-to-say unfinished, half humans anylonger, in which they are the holders of rights, for example of the right to vote, parents would not longer do such things with their kids.
Aren't you afraid that children do not know what they're doing and do not understand the importance of their decisions?
K: On the one hand, we are of the opinion that this question is not relevant exclusively with respect to the right to vote for people under 18. We doubt that it is just a question of age whether people think about the importance of their decisions. On the other hand we think that this fear mustn't lead towards excluding a group of people from the right to have a say in matters. The earlier it becomes important, especially for young people, to inform themselves, the better the danger of "false decisions" is prevented. We believe that nobody can judge a person's life situation better than that person himself/herself. That is true of children and young people, too.
Don't you think that radical parties would profit from children's right to vote?
K: Some young people's radical ways of thinking also derive partly from their being excluded and feeling misunderstood. Persons under 18 make up 20 % of all people entitled to vote. Just a small part out of these will give their votes to radical parties. We see this danger as a small one. Furthermore, we regard it as highly undemocratic to manipulate the election's result via the election rules.
Aren't you afraid that the vote will make too high demands of children and burden them with too much responsibility?
K: First, nobody will have to vote; we are talking about a right, and not a duty to vote. In addition, it must be considered what does most harm; the pressure elections and election campaigns gring to bear on children now and then - or the indifference and powerlessness resulting from children not really being involved in decisions. We also rely on a lot of new, scientifically certified findings from development psychology and youth research, which did not exist at the time the constitution was enacted. According to these findings, children want to be taken seriously and to have responsibility.
Persons under 18 have fewer duties, so why should they have more rights?
K: Basic rights are for all people, they don't need to do anything for them. And in democracy, the right to vote is an extraordinary basic right. Everybody has it, regardless of whether he's stupid, alcoholic, drug addicted or anything, no matter whether he's interested in politics or whether he knows which party Helmut Kohl belongs to, for example. Only children are excluded from this important right. Apart from that, people under 18 have duties anyway, even additional ones: the duty to work hard without getting paid - also called compulsory schooling - from the age of 6, children have the duty to put up with the parental right to corporal punishment, observe all laws without ever having been allowed to cast a vote about whether they want these laws, at 14 one can even be imprisoned, at 18 there's military service - until then, one never was allowed to vote a party that might abolish military service. A war's consequences have to be carried by the children at least as much as by the adults. The right to vote is a human right one has completely independently from duties.
What do you think about the right to vote at the age of 16?
K: For us, matters of principle stand in the foreground. We don't regard it as legitimate that a person's age decides whether he may have a say in matters. On the one hand, we would be happy to see the age-limit lowered, because that would make the right to vote a subject of public discussion. But the argumentation for it isn't logical and could be used just as well for the age of 12 or 15, for example. Lowering the age is ultimately grounded in the argumentation that "the 16-year-olds are already capable", even though that is not the question. Instead, the question is to what extent the constitutional age limit violates human rights. We are afraid that a right to vote at 16 will, in the years to come, lead to even less interest in answering this question fundamentally.
Are you in favour of young people being eligible to run for public office, too?
K: Yes. We can easily imagine that there are young people that are willing and able to have an active role in shaping politics, in order to change things. Eligibility to run for office could pass with fewer objections. The danger of a child being elected although he or she is politically incompetent. After all, the voters would not vote someone like that, however. Eligibility is legally bound to the age of majority. Majority is defined under federal law. The active right to vote, meanwhile, is fixed for 18 years directly in the constitution. In our constitutional appeal, we only tried to sue for the active right to vote, because eligibility can only be fought for on other legal grounds.
What is your opinion of a family right to vote, or vote by proxy?
K: We like what we found about that in a legal commentary:"The right to vote is neither marketable nor renouncable, neither alienable nor renouncable its use onto someone else, it tolerates no representation, in other words: it is a highly personal right." Parents' interests often differ considerably from the children's interests. And next to that, children would then again be excluded from real participation.
What made you deal with the subject of the right to vote?
K: Since 1992 we, K.R.ä.T.Z.ä., have been together as a group that has carried out a variety of actions and issued publications. For example the poster "What we think is wrong with school", the children's rights primer "KinderRäCHTzwiebel" or the Moskitos' election platform in the GRIPS stage play "The Moskitos Are Here!". Fundamental rights for chilrden have always been its main concern. Everywhere we have to experience that our possibilities to have a say in matters are few. Furthermore we have visited all possible kinds of events such as children's summits or -parliaments. These events in particular have been alibis for some politicans - true changes or a real right to participation wasn't there. We cannot change school, for instance, with a poster, via pupils' representatives or even in children's parliaments, but only by really being allowed to vote about it.
Do you expect much of anything to improve by way of a children's right to vote?
K: Actually, this question is the most important one to us, since children's right to vote has, in our opinion, many positive consequences. There is, for instance, the self-confidence of the people under 18, that would naturally increase. Many adults would look upon youth with very different eyes. Suddenly children's points of view have a much higher value. In particular, more attention will be devoted to the consequences of present political decisions, which may have visible effects only in a number of years. Those human qualities which rather tend to decrease with getting older, would play a more important role due to the change of the right to vote we are aiming for: curiousity, openness, sense for fairness, fantasy, tenderness, joy of life, creativity, vulnerability ... definitely taking the demands of youth and children seriously, something the right to vote definitely embodies, is something that would be certain to influence adults voters. For young people to have a say in matters is, in our convction, an enrichment for any society.