Frequently asked questions and the answers by the KinderRÄchTsZÄnkers (FAQ)
Why did you sue for your right to vote?
Whos included in the supporters list so far?
Don't you think that politicians support your campaign simply because they expect to gain more votes for their party?
At what age should one be allowed to vote?
Do you want to send babies to the ballot-box then? That's impossible.
Doesn't the constitution say A person has the right vote upon the age of 18"?
What exactly was the constitutional appeal directed against?
Why wasn't the appeal allowed for the hearing?
What are you going to do now in order to get your right to vote?
Aren't children much too immature for voting?
Is it your opinion that young people know enough about politics to know what they're voting for?
Don't you think that it's too easy to influence children?
Isnt there a danger that parents will force their children to vote for a certain party?
Aren't you afraid that children do not know what they're doing and do not understand the importance of their decisions?
Don't you think that radical parties would profit from children's right to vote?
Aren't you afraid that the vote will make too high demands of children and burden them with too much responsibility?
People under 18 also have fewer duties, so why should they have more rights?
What do you think about the right to vote at the age of 16?
Are you in favor of young people being eligible to run for public office, too?
Could you imagine founding your own party if it ever comes to that?
Elections don't change a thing anyway - people often say.
In case children got the right to vote in Germany, would they be allowed to participate in the elections for the European parliament, too?
Why aren't you campaigning for foreigners' right to vote?
What is your opinion of a family right to vote, or vote by proxy?
How had you rated your chances at the constitutional court?
What made you deal with the subject of the right to vote?
Did you think up and organise everything on your own?
How long did you work on the constitutional appeal?
When was the constitutional appeal filed?
What did the lawsuit cost and who paid for it?
Do you expect much of anything to improve by way of a chilrdens right to vote?
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 arent 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
There are a couple of people, such as the civil rights activist Jens Reich, the youth authors Gudrun Pausewang and Klaus Kordon, the leader of the GRIPS theatre Volker Ludwig, the author Ekkehard von Braunmühl, the singer-songwriters Bettina Wegner and Gerhard Schöne and the artist Ben Wargin. There are politicians, too, who are supporting us, such as from the Bundestag (German parliament) Berlin's former senator for youth affairs Thomas Krüger (SPD), the PDS-Bundestag faction chairman Gregor Gysi, commissioner for childrens affairs of the SPD faction Dorle Marx, the youth politician Christel Hanewinckel and the Federal board's spokesman of the Green-Alternative Youth Alliance Jens Augner. Or, to continue, Berlin's pupils' spokesman Jan Kellermann, the popular youth researcher Prof. Klaus Hurrelmann and institutions such as the German Children's Relief Organization or the Federal League for Action on a Humane School. Although there are even more names on this list, it is our wish to let it become bigger and bigger. The goal is also to have very different people, doing very different things, coming from very different classes, on this list. We've got journalists, university professors, psychologists, children's rights activists, authors, politicians, artists of various kinds etc. Let be said: We are from all walks of life, but there is one aim we all share: more rights for children and the youth!
Possibly, yes. In case children will have a say in matters afterall, we have nothing against that.
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.
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 babys 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.
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.
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.
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. But that seems to be of no importance to the consitutional judges. Our lawyer doubts the correctness of this decision, as according to art. 19(4), the course of law has to be open for everyone whose rights are being violated.
Concerning its content, nothing's been said against our demand though.
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.
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.
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 dont 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.
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 havent think 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. In this context, we always think of the fairytale The Emperor's New Clothes", in which it was a child who finally put an end to all the hypocrisy. The adults with all their experience of life were influenced" by the liar...
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 womens 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.
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 persons life situation better than that person himself/herself. That is true of children and young people, too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You would have to think about it when the times comes. Certainly there are young people who would even found parties. Probably, various parties will develop, and maybe we will take an active part in one of them. But it may just be that such a fundamental change in electoral legislation will effect such major change that we will be able to start considering completely new ways of changing society.
First, even that wouldn't be a reason for excluding children. And second, we expect that the parties' programs would change to the chidren's advantage, also if the different parties' percentage results the same.
This question is one we cannot answer. Certainly, the best solution would be to have no age limit in the right to vote in the other countries, too. If Germany were to do away with the age limit, it would of course have international consequences and would attract attention and controversial discussions.
But we'll see.
Of course, we'd be the last to raise our voices against foreigners' right to vote. The right to vote for non-Germans whose lives are centred here should normally be self-evident in a democracy, just as the children's right to vote. But there are groups working for that, and we are actively pursuing our own rights at present.
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.
That was really difficult to say. In the event that the appeal had been admitted for hearing in the first place, the chances wouldn't have been that bad to win the lawsuit. But before, there had to be a review of whether there would be any hearing at all of this appeal. So it was most of all necessary to convince the board of pre-examiners that it is necessary to find an answer on the question of the voting age limit.
Unfortunately, the decision was made against us.
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.
Not everything. Many people in the children's rights movement, for example John Holt, have been demanding the right to vote without an age limit for more than twenty years. We add our own ideas to that. And the association Netzwerk SPIEL / KULTUR Prenzlauer Berg e.V. is supporting us; so-called adult people, too, who are with us, help organizing.
The idea has existed since autumm of 1994, but it became concrete when we and - coincdentally- Dr. Peter Merk were together at a talkshow on the topic of children's rights. The first draft was ready Easter 1995.
The constitutional appeal has been sent in on August 23rd, 1995. For that reason we organised a press conference attended by approximetaly 60 journalists.
The proceedings at the constitutional court are free of charge, but our lawyer's fee was about 30,000 DM. Plus various expenditures for postage, office etc. Everything was paid with donations. For our new project (being added to the election register), we need further 10,000 DM. We're trying once more to collect lots of money donations. Our account is No. 62 001 2170 at the Berliner Sparkasse (BLZ 100 500 00). Our association is allowed to certify your donation to the inland revenue office.
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 poeple to have a
say in matters is, in our convction, an enrichment for
in August 1995, last updated January 1997, translated in November 1997 by Patrick Schimpke