X Close

IOE Blog

Home

Expert opinion from IOE, UCL's Faculty of Education and Society

Menu

Russell Brand is wrong: young people should vote and schools should do more to encourage them

By Blog Editor, IOE Digital, on 10 March 2015

Germ Janmaat
Britain has the dubious reputation of topping the league table on the generation gap in voting. In no other western country is the difference between old and young people so large. While only 44 per cent of people in their twenties turned out to vote in the 2010 elections, almost 80 per cent of pensioners did so. Obviously this is not good news for democracy. Politicians will not be inclined to pay much attention to the interests of young people as there are few votes to win among these groups. Consequently, government policy will become slanted in favour of older generations and other influential groups in society. This, in turn, might discourage the young from casting their vote still further.
Have young people’s low voting rates not alarmed politicians in Britain? Yes they have. In fact concern about declining political participation among youngsters prompted the previous Labour government to introduce citizenship education (CE) in schools and make it a statutory subject in key stages 3 and 4 (ages 11-16). This has been a step in the right direction as there is evidence that CE indeed helps in raising political engagement and in diminishing inequalities in engagement.
But the problem is that it ends at age 16. When the previous government decided to extend the period of compulsory education stepwise to age 18 it forgot to take CE along. This is quite deplorable. We know from previous research that young people start taking up an interest in political matters in their late teens. So that is the time they are most receptive to input on political issues and thus the phase when CE is likely to be most effective.
Are other subjects perhaps standing in for CE in upper secondary? No, not really, and certainly not if you compare English 16-19 education to that of other European countries. The vocational courses offered in further education colleges focus on job-specific skills and disregard wider civic dispositions. Due to the extreme specialisation in A-levels, with many students not taking more than three subjects, the situation is little better in the academic track. If you do, let’s say, English, Maths and Chemistry as your A-levels, you won’t have much opportunity to learn about and discuss socio-political issues. Only if you take social studies, history or general studies will you be exposed to a curriculum that is relevant for fostering political participation.
The situation is quite different in other countries. Not only do students who take the academic track do exams in many more subjects, those who enter vocational tracks are usually exposed to a broad curriculum that includes CE or social studies. This, for instance, is the case in Germany. In addition to doing apprenticeships, which is quite institutionalised and receives a lot of praise outside Germany, students in the vocational track spend time in the Berufsschule where they take a range of general courses.
Critics might argue that we don’t need extra citizenship education as young people are not disengaged. They simply prefer other ways of participating in politics, such as partaking in demonstrations, petitions, or online campaigns, which they find more adventurous, more sociable and less formal than voting. Russell Brand even calls on young people to stop voting altogether, saying “We know it’s not going to make any difference.”
Yet it would be naïve to think that young people can influence politicians to the same degree in these alternative ways. The number of people engaging in these forms of participation is still very small by comparison to those voting in elections, and British governments tend not to be very responsive to demonstrations and the like (unlike the French government!). Moreover, there is the risk that young people become so detached from conventional parliamentary politics that they no longer care about democracy as such. We already see a steady decline among young people in the United States in their support for democracy as system of government, to the point where they express almost as much support for some authoritarian alternative.
This is a scenario we most definitely want to avoid. So let’s introduce citizenship education for the 16-19 year olds and make sure they see the value of casting their vote.
More LLAKES research on young people and political engagement will be revealed on Tuesday 17 March, when new findings from the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study are launched at the House of Commons in association with the Citizenship Foundation.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

7 Responses to “Russell Brand is wrong: young people should vote and schools should do more to encourage them”

  • 1
    solgamsu wrote on 10 March 2015:

    Wouldn’t necessarily disagree that more political education up to 18/19 would be a bad thing but I think you’re missing the point Russell Brand is making. The alienation and disillusionment that alot of young people feel from mainstream politics is quite rational, particularly given policies around higher education and the housing market. I don’t think more citizenship education is going to have much effect on that.

  • 2
    Germ Janmaat wrote on 10 March 2015:

    Thanks for your comment. Well, if young people stop voting altogether, which is apparently what Russell Brand wants, politicians are even less likely to listen to them. Alienation from mainstream democratic politics will only grow then. CE can make young people aware that it makes sense to vote. If young people voted as much as older ones, I’m sure the government’s policies on housing and education would be quite different.

  • 3
    ingotian wrote on 10 March 2015:

    Russell Brand is a dangerous idiot. If young people think they are hard done by, they need to learn that they have power through the ballot box but only if they organise themselves and use it. Throwing away the only lever they have is just sheer stupidity.

  • 4
    connection wrote on 10 March 2015:

    to fight the alienation and the disillusionment which solgamsu mentions the issue needs to be addressed, and earlier! there should be elements of citizenship education in primary (there are, but are there?)and political education should be compulsory in secondary; to include educating our youngs to watch the news (that is a starting point) but not necessarily imbibe what is said. To develop critical thinking. Young people are not near well informed enough to be engaged, and that is what is needed to sparkle their interest. Surely, advocating ‘no voting’ is totally wrong.

  • 5
    Chris Wilson wrote on 13 March 2015:

    This post seems to be predicated on the ideas that if young people don’t want to vote for politicians then the fault must lie with the young people, who must be improved. Why doesn’t the problem lie with politicians failing to offer desirable or credible policies? Look at the economy, inequality or housing. There’s a consensus among mainstream parties which are likely to be in power to continue the failed policies of the past.
    Turnout in the Scottish independence referendum was 84%. No disengagement there. Why is that? Maybe the government should dissolve the people and elect a new one.

  • 6
    Sid Cumberland wrote on 12 May 2015:

    This post is predicated on the idea that if young people are not given the opportunity to discuss political issues as part of their education they will not become politically engaged.

  • 7
    d wrote on 22 April 2015:

    The point is surely that society/economy/culture is strictly organised to benefit a very few, regardless of who is elected and that systemic fundamental change is more important than voting in a new ‘administration’. Brand is clearly subtly saying that the way to make real revolutionary change might only be with real revolution.