Sylvia Kritzinger is Professor for Methods in the Social Sciences at the University of Vienna (Austria). Her research focuses on citizens’ political attitudes and voting behaviour, democratic representation, and political participation, voting at 16.
She participated in this year’s Annual Lecture hosted by the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) on 24 January 2024 dedicated to democratic inclusion. In this interview, she talks to the European Science-Media Hub on restoring the connection between politicians and society and how to include younger Europeans in politics and elections.
Ahead of this year’s European elections, which come at a time of turmoil, war in Europe and a rise in populism and disinformation, what needs to be done to make democracy work for everyone?
Sylvia Kritzinger: That is the million-dollar question, and I am not sure I have the answer. But in the countries that I am aware of and particularly Austria, we see dissatisfaction in the way democracy works.
I think, in that respect, these are certainly alarming signs in the sense that there is something going on among the population. Probably the connections between politicians in the establishment, the parties and society at large need to be strengthened.
One thing is to somehow get in contact with these people to inform them. I think this is a normal thing to do, but what we definitely need to do is listen to people and also bring them in and make them feel able to participate.
In science, we call this internal and external efficacy, which means that people need to have the feeling that their voice is being heard, that they are somehow participating, that the system is taking their considerations into account, and that they can actually shape things. If citizens don’t have this political efficacy, they will of course leave the political realm, stop participating or cast a protest vote.
I would like to say that just because someone votes for a fringe party, that doesn’t mean that this is a protest vote. Absolutely not. People sometimes vote for these parties simply because they provide the best opportunities and best positions on issues that are important to them like migration, COVID-19, etc.
But I think efficacy is something that needs to be strengthened quite substantially with information, with citizen engagement, to somehow give people the feeling that the system is taking them into account.
Do you see steps being taken in this direction?
Sylvia Kritzinger: The problem in the European Union is that everything that is happening at European level and in Brussels is quite far removed from the citizens. We can blame the European institutions, but there is always a national government. For some national governments, the blame game is very easy to play in the sense that ‘it is not us but actually it is Brussels that is forcing us to do this’ even though they are part of the decision-making bodies over there and they very often agree unanimously.
I think it is also tough for the European institutions to get in contact with European citizens because the national governments and national parties sometimes find it very easy to put all the blame on the European institutions and take all the credit for themselves. In that respect, I think there is certainly room for improvement for the European institutions to better communicate their messages to European citizens in different countries.
What are the target groups and tools to increase democratic activity in the EU?
Sylvia Kritzinger: I think one group of people that is not really taken care of by politicians and the political parties is young citizens – in the sense that they do not make up a big share when it comes to votes. In Austria, for example, 16- to 18-year-olds make up 2% of the whole voting population.
Of course, focusing on these young citizens is probably not going to rock the vote share for political parties. But they represent the future of our society, they are going to be here for quite a while. They are the people that need to be represented in the future, they have different views to a certain extent, and they are often not heard.
Overall, I think it is very important to consider them and not just say ‘Oh, they are too young’ and ‘they don’t have the experience yet’. That might be the case, but, on the other hand, we should probably stop thinking that elderly people do have the experience because elderly people also do not have the political interest or political knowledge that we would hope and think they should have because they are older. But we do focus on them, their concerns, and their positions because they account for the big vote shares.
I think that we really need to take our young citizens very seriously into consideration and also give them a proper role to engage them in politics. And in my opinion, it is very nice at the moment that there are young people all over Europe protesting about measures not being taken to protect the climate. These are actions that you may or may not approve of, but nothing happens as a result of these youth activities.
In comparison, there are the farmers protesting on the streets and there is a lot of stuff happening as a result of their actions. And then you wonder why this group holds so much sway in politics, rejecting some of the environmental issues that have been put forward just because it is not in their interest, while the young citizens – who are the future, who are going to live here for the next 50-60 years – are not being heard to the same extent.
I think it is problematic that we are not giving a voice to the young people who are going to live on this planet and this continent for the next 50-60 years.
It is quite interesting to see how the politicians approach farmers’ issues versus the climate issues of young people. Even though both groups blocked the streets and traffic, for the farmers it’s okay and we have to live with that, but for the young people we comment on how irresponsible they are, that we have to go to work, and they cannot block the traffic; some even talk about climate terrorists.
Even if you look at the rhetoric, they did the same thing, blocking the streets, but we say the farmers are acting in their best interests, while the young people’s actions, for some reason, should not take place.
Why is that so? Is this a generation gap or the strength of lobbies?
Sylvia Kritzinger: It’s the strength of lobbies and I would also say that, so far, it is still an issue of vote share in the sense that the other group is just providing more votes to the parties than young citizens. But I think that this could change quite substantially in a couple of years with the younger people growing older and probably becoming heavier in weight in terms of vote share in the political realm.
What is the reason for introducing lower voting ages in some EU countries? To include young Europeans earlier in the democratic process or, as some may think, to enlarge the group of voters?
Sylvia Kritzinger: Their vote share is very small; therefore, it is interesting to see that the resistance to lowering the voting age is so enormous, because they are not going to change the election outcome substantially. The idea is that we have seen declining participation rates and election turnout in the last few decades, starting from the 1970s.
With each election either at national level or otherwise, the turnout has declined quite substantially. Definitely one group that has had a lower turnout is the younger group of citizens.
Brexit is a ‘beautiful’ example where the young people in particular did not vote in the referendum. The idea is that young people are not learning how to vote anymore, because at the moment they are allowed to vote for the first time at the age of 18 or 19 years old, and this is when they lose their social environment that would have helped them learn how to vote.
At that age, they are moving out of their family home and starting work or continuing education, some of them might get married, others might have children, friends might change. There are a lot of events going on that shift their focus away from politics and affect their interest in participating in elections.
The idea is that if you lower the voting age to 16, then they are still in a stable environment – they are at school so they can get informed about politics and elections going on and how they can register to vote in countries where there are registrations for voting. And also, young people are still living with their families where they can see what their parents do, so they are more likely to participate in their first elections.
The second reason is that there is this psychological notion that your first election is really important. It is more or less a determinant in shaping your life story and your future as a political citizen. And indeed, it has been shown that if you turn out to vote in your first election, the likelihood that you turn out in future elections, that you become a habitual voter, is much higher than if you miss your first election.
If you consider these two things together, you have an increased likelihood to turn out to vote if you are still at school and living with your family. This makes you more likely to be a habitual voter.
That was the idea behind lowering the voting age, and also the representation issue. At the age of 16, you are entitled to do many things. In Austria, for example, at the age of 14 you can decide for yourself whether to get vaccinated or not, your parents cannot force you any longer.
But we keep these young people away from other issues that are important and there was the thought, ‘If they are allowed to do so many things at the ages of 14 and 16 years old, why should we not also give them the right to vote and be represented, for their voice to be heard?’ Of course, there were a lot of issues, such as they are not politically interested, they have no political knowledge, they will vote the same as their parents or friends.
But actually, our analyses, which have been conducted since 2008 in Austria, show that this is not the case. These young citizens do know who they are voting for, they vote for the party that they most closely align with in logical terms, they are interested. They are probably less knowledgeable, but that is something that you can improve through education. And we do not see why we shouldn’t give them the right to vote because everything that has been put forward in terms of negative issues we could not find in our data.
How important are social media and new technologies in the political activity and democratic participation of young voters? There are a lot of examples all over the world of using tools popular among young people in election campaigns.
Sylvia Kritzinger: The first thing about using these tools is that young people have to find them and need to somehow interact with them. Actually, you could avoid seeing political information on social media. You do not have to follow someone, you do not have to read. When we speak about political communication, there are some steps – receive, accept, process.
The first thing is reception. Even if I put a lot of information on social media and also the traditional news media, that doesn’t mean that people read what I share. Of course, there are certain ways of somehow getting in contact so that people at least see it visually, but that doesn’t mean that they will actually process it.
That is the nice thing about lowering the voting age and it also changes our approach. Because when people are 16-17 years old they are at school, so you can approach them in different ways. You can teach them at school.
I am also a science ambassador in Austria, and we are going to schools to inform them about how elections work, what you need to do to be able to vote, what the European Parliament elections are compared to national elections, so you can get in contact with these young people in a much better way than if you do it over social media. If I go to a classroom, they have to listen to me for 60 minutes. But on social media, they might not even receive my messages.
Of course, social media is important; young people use it a lot. But with regard to reception, we somehow still have the problem that the message has to be received. And therefore, we should probably invest more in the face-to-face aspect, especially for these young people, saying, ‘let’s go to schools, let’s go to youth centres to talk to them and inform them about critical issues’.
I was at a school last week and somebody asked me how we can be sure that the elections are not manipulated. And we would not have the possibility to talk to young people over social media about these issues that are obviously of concern to them. I think that we should invest more in face-to-face communication rather than putting too much effort into social media where we do not even know whether the message is being received or if people are just swiping through it.
But we need role models among young people, and this can be easily done with the help of social media. From data, we know that young women in particular are often hesitant about whether they know enough about politics to participate and vote in elections. Young women hold themselves in a lower esteem and it has consequences on discussions and participation. In that respect, especially for young women and girls, it will be important to have role models to make them aware that their vote is as important as any other vote.
Useful link:
• STOA Annual Lecture : Making democracy work for everyone