Voting at sixteen risks exploiting the youth
Hidipo Hamata
Over the past weeks, Namibians have witnessed the tabling of a motion in the National Assembly proposing that the voting age in Namibia be reduced from eighteen to sixteen years. On the surface, the idea may appear to be progressive, perhaps even inclusive, as it purports to recognise the voices of our younger generation. However, a deeper interrogation of this matter reveals far more complex constitutional, developmental, social, and political implications which we must not overlook for the sake of political expedience.
The Namibian Constitution, as our supreme law, is the foundation upon which we build our democracy. It enshrines fundamental rights and freedoms, and it outlines clear thresholds of responsibility and accountability. Among these is the determination of who qualifies to be an elector in Namibia. The framers of our Constitution did not randomly decide on the age of eighteen. They placed it deliberately as a balance between the acquisition of basic education, civic maturity, and the capacity to understand the gravity of shaping governance through the ballot box.
We must remember that children’s rights are protected under both domestic and international law. Instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Namibia is a signatory, emphasise the importance of protecting children from exploitation, manipulation, and harm. By definition, individuals below the age of eighteen are classified as children. Extending voting rights to children of sixteen contradicts not only the spirit of our Constitution but also the international obligations we have solemnly undertaken. It effectively lowers the age of political vulnerability and opens the door to undue influence.
It is important to ask ourselves: what is the end goal of this proposal? If it is about broadening democracy, why do we not instead focus on encouraging higher participation rates among adults who are already eligible to vote? Statistics from past elections consistently show that adult voter turnout has been declining. Would it not be wiser for political parties and government to direct their energies towards restoring faith in governance, improving service delivery, and addressing corruption, unemployment, and poverty—issues that disillusion many adult voters? If we cannot convince adults to participate in elections, what logic is there in recruiting children into the same disillusioned system?
This proposal also poses a dangerous precedent. If a sixteen-year-old is considered mature enough to cast a ballot in national elections, are we then to assume that they are equally mature to stand as candidates in local authority councils, in regional councils, or even in the National Assembly? Would a sixteen-year-old qualify to become a vice president or President of Namibia? If the answer is no, then we are already faced with an inconsistency. Democracy must be coherent and principled; it cannot apply selectively when it suits political convenience.
We must also appreciate the difference between voting in student representative council (SRC) elections and voting in national elections. SRC elections are largely symbolic, often revolving around school-related concerns, and carry limited real-world consequences. National elections, by contrast, are about determining the leadership that will manage national resources, decide on defence and foreign policy, negotiate trade agreements, and make laws that govern every aspect of our lives. To conflate the two is to trivialise the gravity of national governance.
Critics may argue that at sixteen, young people are already working, paying taxes indirectly, or should have a say in decisions that affect them. While it is true that young people face many challenges that deserve attention, the remedy is not to lower the voting age. The real solution lies in strengthening youth empowerment policies, improving the quality of education, creating safe spaces for youth voices to be heard, and ensuring that elected leaders act on issues affecting the youth. Giving a ballot paper to a sixteen-year-old does not guarantee that these structural problems will be solved; it only transfers the burden of responsibility onto children who are not yet equipped to carry it.
Moreover, adolescence is a critical stage of cognitive and emotional development. At sixteen, most young people are still grappling with questions of identity, peer influence, and academic pressure. Scientific studies in developmental psychology confirm that the brain, particularly the prefrontal cortex responsible for long-term planning and decision-making, continues to mature well into the early twenties. To impose on sixteen-year-olds the weight of national political decision-making is not only unfair but also potentially exploitative.
We cannot overlook the political motives behind such proposals. Extending voting rights to sixteen-year-olds may not necessarily be about inclusivity but rather about enlarging the voting pool for short-term electoral gain. Political parties must resist the temptation to use children as pawns in their struggle for power. If they truly want to earn the trust of electorates, they must focus on policies that uplift families, reduce unemployment, and create a fair economy. Trust cannot be manufactured by expanding the voter roll with children; it must be earned through genuine service and leadership.
Namibia is a young democracy, but it must remain a responsible democracy. To preserve its credibility, we must uphold both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. The age of majority is not merely a number; it is a social contract that marks the transition from childhood to adulthood, from dependence to responsibility. Diluting this contract by lowering the voting age undermines not only the sanctity of our democracy but also the protection we owe to our children.
In conclusion, while it is commendable that our leaders seek to innovate in strengthening democracy, lowering the voting age to sixteen is neither the solution nor the correct path. We must respect our children and not use them as tools for political gain. Rather, let us leave them with the space to complete their education, to mature, and to prepare for the future. When they eventually turn eighteen, they will enter the democratic process with greater awareness, independence, and readiness. The real task before us is to ensure that our democracy remains credible and functional so that when the young people come of age, they inherit a system worth participating in. If we prematurely burden them, we risk condemning them to endless regression instead of empowerment.
*Hidipo Hamata is a former member of the seventh National Assembly. The words in this piece are his own and not related to any particular political party or organisation.
