The political system was overjoyed on Wednesday by the council of ministers’ decision to lower the voting age to 17. The decision inspired the familiar and tired rhetoric about broadening democratic participation, trust in youth and giving a voice to youth. It also sparked a row over the ownership of the idea with President Nikos Christodoulides claiming it as his own before exaggerating the decision’s importance and labeling the day of the decision an ‘historic day.’ Disy subsequently claimed fatherhood, reminding that it had tabled a proposal in the legislature for the lowering of the voting age back in June of 2023.

While the Christodoulides government has a habit of marketing every decision it takes as historical and very significant, why was Disy so keen to claim ownership of the voting age change, which will not make the slightest difference to anything in the political field. The political system will be exactly the same as it was before 17-year-olds had the right to vote, although the electorate would be a little bigger. How democracy would be broadened by adding a few thousand immature voters to the electorate, only the president, who made the claim, can inform us.

Despite the dispute over who should take credit for the idea, Christodoulides and Disy agreed on one platitude – ‘the new generation must have a voice in decisions that shape out future.’ The president informed us that “we have absolute confidence in our youth” as on many public issues discussed they were pioneers with the positions they were taking. He did not give an example of these pioneering positions. Disy, meanwhile, believed that the new generation “deserves, and must have, a voice in the decisions that shape its future.”

And this would be achieved by giving the vote to 17-year-olds, who presumably have a valuable contribution to make in public debate. The reality is that the only time we heard the new generation take a stand on something was to oppose twice-yearly exams because they wanted an easier school life. And the Christodoulides government heeded this demand, abolishing the evaluation of students through exams halfway through the school year. The only pioneering position the new generation, whose voice is so important, had taken was to demand fewer school exams.

This idealising of youth by the politicians is so mindless it defies belief. Giving the vote to 17-year-olds will add nothing to our democracy and it will certainly not make them more politically-minded overnight. Most teenagers are not interested in politics or politicians, because they have other things on their mind. It is not because they are disenchanted with politicians, as some commentators claim, but because most teenagers care about going out, romance, fashion and having fun. This is a healthy attitude, part of the growing up process, and having the right to vote will not change it.

Wednesday’s decision was good in the respect that it included other measures, such as simplifying voter registration and scrapping the antiquated voting booklet. Citizens would now be automatically registered in the electoral rolls while they would able to use their driving licence as well as their ID for identification purposes at voting stations. These measures are of greater importance than giving the vote to 17-year-olds, but do not inspire political platitudes.