05.12.2013

Youth: We don’t want an easy ride

Following the Left Unity founding conference, Preston organiser and Communist Platform supporter Robert Hayes asks what attitude the left should take to the role of youth

For those of you who were either not at the Left Unity conference or were there but are now seeking counselling in order to deal with the overwhelming overload of motions, amendments, remittances, points of order, sub-sections, clauses, and roman numerals, I will outline what one clause in the proposed constitution suggested. In particular, section 7, entitled ‘Sections and caucuses’, sub-section C, ‘Youth and student sections’, clause 1, which stated: “The party’s youth section [and party as a whole] shall be open to all members between the ages of 14 and 26”.¹

Thankfully this, quite frankly, patronising and ageist proposition was amended by the Islington branch, which pressed for the age qualification to be scrapped. What should have been a reasonably uncontroversial amendment, however, provoked some fierce opposition.

The ‘debate’ was balanced in the sense that out of the five speakers three spoke in favour of scrapping the age qualification, while two were against. Bianca Todd, a woman who you will rarely see me agree with, made the point that a 12-year-old was involved in her Left Unity branch and that to expel this young comrade immediately after the conference for not being 14 would be beyond the pale. Comrade Todd was followed by a woman who insinuated that allowing comrades under the age of 14 to join the party would be tantamount to allowing toddlers to carry Kalashnikov rifles. To drive her point home we were lucky enough to hear her sing a song about the innocence of children.

She was succeeded by a comrade from Cambridge who was only 18 himself, yet he not only argued for a ban on under-14s, but actually went further, calling for the age qualification to be raised to 18, as young people just “follow their parents”.² Quite remarkable, especially when you consider that if Labour wins the next general election you could have a situation where 16-year-olds can vote, but not join Left Unity. It was at this point that I, as another 18-year-old, made my intervention, stating that we had no right to arbitrarily declare that only young people of a certain age are ready to join our party. In the end the amendment calling for the deletion of the age qualification was passed and I can now proudly report that anyone can join Left Unity, irrespective of their age.

I am not, however, under any illusions that there will now be an overwhelming influx of youth into Left Unity. In fact the way in which the amendment provoked a significant chunk of opposition, the arguments that were made in favour of the qualification, and the fact that an age qualification was even proposed in the first place would suggest that Left Unity will perhaps not be a young person-friendly zone.

The idea that youth are the unthinking clones of their parents until they hit 18, and then - bam - they suddenly become their own person, is nonsense, as is evident from my own experience. My mother voted for Margaret Thatcher, yet at the age of 15 I joined the Green Party of England of Wales before going on to join the Communist Party of Great Britain at 17. My own political views could not be more antithetical to those of my mother.

Full credit to conference for not enforcing an arbitrary age qualification for membership - although, judging from the contributions to the debate and the original proposal, you can put your money on the party supporting other arbitrary age-based qualifications like the age of consent. The fact of the matter is that young people develop at different rates and to try and place a universal and arbitrary age qualification on various activities is not the way to deal with the majority of issues facing the youth today. I say the age of consent is ‘arbitrary’ for the following reason: in this country it is 16, yet elsewhere it is 14, 13 and in some instances as low as 12. I would suggest that to try and discern which countries are ‘right’ and which are ‘wrong’ in terms of when they allow their citizens to have sex is completely subjective.

We should scrap the age of consent in favour of more effective legislation to protect children from sexual exploitation rather than relying upon an ineffectual, ‘one size fits all’ age qualification in the hope it will act as a deterrent.

Commonsense

Young people are not idiots who should be subjected to overprotection and treated patronisingly. We need to embrace an entirely new way of dealing with issues facing young people and the way they can be integrated into political parties.

Unfortunately, however, draconian age restrictions are not the only thing that pass for ‘common sense’ on the left these days when dealing with young people. The vast majority of leftwing organisations insist on creating youth caucuses and artificially elevating young people to leadership bodies. Left Unity is now committed to affording the youth caucus a permanent place on the leadership. I do not see how a youth caucus with an automatic place on the leadership advances the issues the young face - I hope comrades of all ages will fight for the dismantlement of the ageist laws we have in this country, for instance.

I also disagree with the notion that ‘we must lead the struggle ourselves’. It was only after debating the age of consent with comrades, many more than double my age, at the Communist University that I was won round to seeing just how ridiculous universal age qualifications are for things like sex and politics. True, we must strive for a young cadre. However, I resent being the object of positive discrimination due to my age. Young members, of any organisation, should be actively encouraged to debate and be given time to hone their skills - but not intrinsically because they are young: because they tend to be inexperienced. It just so happens that youth and inexperience usually go together and are therefore conflated. But, once again, it is important to state that individuals acquire different experiences at different ages and at different rates.

If Left Unity is to become a serious proponent of anti-ageism then there needs to be a radical overhaul in our methodology when dealing with young people and thinking up policy for the issues they face. We must defy what passes for common sense on the rest of the left and in four months time, at the policy conference, we must oppose arbitrary age qualifications and the notion that children are too innocent to carry out certain roles - like military training, for instance - whilst simultaneously dropping the idea that young people cannot be expected to carry out the duties expected of other members, or they need to be patronised (and actually undermined as a result) through positive discrimination. As I say, I hope LU takes this course, but I won’t hold my breath.

Politics, especially revolutionary politics, is a cut-throat affair which is not sweetness and light. So let us stop bending over backwards to provide young members with an artificially easy ride (priority speaking rights and a permanent place on the leadership). Trust me: the youth will be better for it.

Notes

1. http://leftunity.org/motions-for-the-founding-conference-section-e-constitution.

2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0893kCRZW g&list=PL27P6pBLbm1zQBYMde5V4lzL_91 _p-fMD.