Politics Fans the Flames of the ‘Voting at 16’ Debate

Korean Society on the Edge: Low Birthrates and Rapid Aging

Expansion of Future Generations’ Political Participation Avoided

Policy Imbalances Deepen Around Older Generations

Time for Public Debate on Adjusting the Voting Age

Rep. Jang Dong-hyuk of the People Power Party recently raised the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16. The remark was made during his floor speech as leader of a parliamentary negotiating bloc on Feb. 4, effectively reigniting debate over what has come to be known as “voting at 16.” This discussion, however, is not new. In the past, Democratic Party lawmaker Kang Min-jung proposed lowering the voting age to 16 for elections of superintendents of education, while Ahn Cheol-soo of the People Power Party suggested adjusting the general voting age to 17. This issue does not belong to any single party. It is an agenda that requires reflection across political lines.

In Europe, Austria has already adopted voting rights for 16-year-olds. The United Kingdom, which first implemented the policy in Scotland and Wales, is also discussing nationwide expansion. Similar public debates are underway in some states in Germany and Switzerland. These cases suggest that voting at 16 is not a radical experiment. Rather, it should be understood as an effort to redefine the boundaries of democratic participation.

▲Koo Jeong Woo, Professor of Sociology at Sungkyunkwan University

Supporters of the proposal emphasize that 16-year-olds already participate in the labor market and are direct stakeholders in education policy. From this perspective, excluding them from political decision-making is itself contradictory. Opponents, however, warn against the excessive politicization of adolescents. Granting political rights to minors who are still in the process of learning, they argue, may be premature. Others question whether it is appropriate to expand political rights when responsibilities such as military service or full tax obligations have yet to be imposed. Either way, this is not an issue that can be treated lightly.

This matter should not be approached in terms of partisan advantage or short-term electoral strategy. Regardless of the normative merits of the proposal, attempting to push it forward hastily—especially with local elections just around the corner—inevitably casts doubt on its sincerity. Such an approach risks being seen as a distasteful calculation aimed at preemptively capturing the political orientation of younger generations.

The more important question lies elsewhere. In a society standing at the edge of low birthrates and rapid aging, when and how should political participation by future generations be expanded? Avoiding this fundamental question while focusing solely on the timing of institutional change is not an appropriate stance. Introducing the policy immediately in the upcoming June local elections would be difficult, not least because the issue carries a high risk of politicization and ideological polarization. Moreover, lowering the voting age to 16 raises concerns about coherence within the legal system. While limited labor participation and party membership are permitted, the standards for military service, marriage, and appointment to public office remain firmly set at 18.

Even so, the reasons for taking voting at 16 seriously are self-evident. As contemporary democracy operates largely according to the size of the electorate, generational imbalances in political power have deepened. Even within a single birth-year cohort, the population in their 50s is more than twice as large as that of teenagers. Such disparities erode institutional trust among future generations and excessively amplify the political influence of older cohorts in major policy areas such as pension reform and extensions of the retirement age. When generational equity is undermined, democracy itself becomes vulnerable.

What matters, then, is not who raised the issue first, but who is willing to step forward and lead a sincere process of public deliberation. Rep. Jang’s proposal can serve as a starting point. Before the 2028 general election, South Korea should engage in sufficient social discussion and institutional preparation, ultimately moving toward a revision of the Public Official Election Act. What is needed is a nationally coordinated, medium- to long-term roadmap toward unifying the voting age at 16.

To this end, adequate time must be secured to minimize confusion in schools and to ensure that political participation by first- and second-year high school students does not become a tool for gender conflict or ideological confrontation. Applying the reform only to superintendent of education elections would be undesirable, as it would be difficult to avoid controversy over potential conflicts with the Constitution, which enshrines the principles of universal and equal suffrage.

A decision must be made before hope among future generations is depleted. Today’s reality is one in which numerically larger generations exercise overwhelming influence over both asset formation and policy decision-making. This is a clear imbalance. Social sustainability cannot be secured simply by increasing marriage and birth rates. It also requires guaranteeing the right to directly choose representatives who determine national policy and the future of the state. Only then can responsible citizens truly be formed. For these reasons, voting at 16 is fully capable of becoming a defining spirit of our time.