Youth participation in Finland and in Germany: Status analysis and data based recommendations

There is extensive legislation that calls for the participation of young people. However the frameworks vary greatly from state to state. Also, the legal texts are frequently open to interpretation. For instance, what exactly does it mean if children and young people are to be involved in all decisions that concern them, in a manner appropriate to their level of maturity? Answering that question is frequently left up to the adults in charge.

In its report to the EU Commission the Federal Government confirms its commitment to greater participation, which it considers a “long-standing tradition” and for which it has developed a “solid legal framework” (BMFSFJ 2006b, 4). Citing low voter turnout and a lack of confidence in parliament, it claims to recognise an “alienation from the established political system” that is impacting negatively on a fundamental willingness to participate. “Efforts to motivate children and young people to engage in political action are evidently not succeeding. In addition, they are still too rarely involved in planning and decisionmaking processes that directly affect them. They are frequently unaware of their rights and opportunities to participate” (BMFSFJ 2006b, 5f.).

Youth participation in Germany is still not at a satisfactory level. While children and young people have relatively strong decision-making powers in the family and can decide on a large number of issues, they have less opportunity to do so at school. Finally, on average young people participate hardly at all in decision-making at the local level.

The relatively high level of participation among young people in the family confirms what other surveys have found, namely that the family culture has become one of negotiation, where decisions are negotiated with the involvement of children and young people. It increases as children grow older, regardless of their gender. The level of participation is also higher among children without siblings and with a higher level of education, and when both parents are German. However, participation levels are higher in those areas that do not directly affect the parents. Where decisions are concerned whose outcome does affect the parents strongly, young people have far fewer opportunities to influence them.

School is another area where opposing interests have to be negotiated. Here, too, when decisions are taken concerning the curriculum and the role of the educator or teacher, young people have far less opportunity to influence them than if the subject at hand is less controversial. The variables age and school type do have an influence on this, albeit not a very large one.

At the local level, the place of residence, children and young people have least opportunity to influence decisions. Overall participation levels are very low. There are a very small number of topics where children and young people can influence decisions; the opportunities offered by the municipal authorities are relatively infrequently used. Asked why they do not participate, the young respondents most frequently cite a lack of interest in the subject at hand and a lack of confidence in the politicians. In addition, over half of all respondents feel insufficiently informed of the opportunities they have to influence decisions in their place of residence.

In all three areas (family, school and place of residence) youth participation is strongly influenced by the experiences that the youngsters have previously made with participation. Influential variables include their level of satisfaction with the outcome and the personal benefit they expect to gain from participating, regardless of the actual outcome.

These results, which were gathered by the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s youth participation study, are evidently universally valid – a 2009 study paints an almost identical picture for the 8 to 12 age group. Here, opportunities to influence decisions are most frequent inside the family. 60% of younger children claimed to be able to influence most decisions in the family, yet only 15% claim the same with regard to school; the figure drops to 11% for decisions at the local level. In other words, where participation levels among children and among young people in the family, at school and at the local level are concerned the results are entirely comparable.

The lack of involvement among young people in the public domain is due to the lack of an institutionalised children’s policy at the federal level. Germany was very late to discover children’s policy at a political field in its own right, and it remains largely uninstitutionalised to this day. Since 1998 the parliament has had a Children’s Commission, which is a subcommittee of the Committee for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. Owing to its modus operandi (resolutions based on consensus, consultations and discussions with experts) and a lack of communication with children’s associations and representative bodies, the Children’s Commission is largely symbolic and as such hardly able to act on behalf of the interests of children. Some recent and current topics of debate include the withdrawal of Germany’s concerns over the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the transposition of the Convention into Germany’s Basic Law, combating child poverty and voting rights for children and young people. On all of these issues the Children’s Commission has been unsuccessful in taking a courageous stance on behalf of children. Finally, the weak institutionalisation of children’s policy at the federal level, too, is hampering the transposition of the Convention into German law.

When considering what next steps to take, Germany will have to consider three things above all. First, the highly heterogeneous participation regime in Germany, which is also due to the federal system and the strong respect given to the subsidiarity principle, is making it difficult to develop a coherent policy strategy. Second, the reluctance of the older generation to devolve power to children and young people is an obstacle to youth participation that should not be underestimated. A good example of this is the debate concerning lowering the voting age to 16, a move that its proponents despite repeated efforts have not been able to enforce at the federal and state level. Third, all actors will have to develop participation instruments specifically for children and young people from less educated and disadvantaged backgrounds – which is still not done often enough in Germany.