By Sudhir Ahmed Afridi
Across Pakistan and beyond, an uncomfortable reality has begun to emerge: many young and less-educated voters, particularly those newly eligible at 18, often struggle to exercise their vote with discernment. This observation is neither uniquely Pakistani nor new. Globally, the legal voting age is often set at 18, justified on the basis that if someone is considered mature enough to work, serve in the armed forces, or pay taxes, they are also capable of choosing their representatives. In some quarters, youth is even romanticized as a source of greater wisdom than age, the argument being that younger citizens are less beholden to entrenched interests and more open to ideas.
At first glance, these arguments appear persuasive. Yet, closer examination exposes their limitations. Political awareness, judgment, and the ability to navigate the complexities of governance do not emerge automatically with formal education or the passage of time alone. They require sustained engagement with society, observation of social patterns, and experience in making decisions that carry real consequences. An 18-year-old, however capable or informed, rarely possesses the depth of perspective that comes from years of seeing policies implemented, witnessing public administration, or navigating the nuances of governance. Conversely, education alone is no guarantee of insight.
Pakistan’s history is replete with highly educated leaders and officials who, despite their qualifications, have failed to curb corruption, maladministration, and institutional decay, leaving the country stagnant or even regressing. Still, education can matter. While it cannot fully substitute for experience, a fundamental level of literacy and analytical skill equips citizens to evaluate platforms, scrutinize candidates, and understand the likely consequences of their choices. In this context, a case emerges for minimum qualifications in electoral participation. For officeholders, a baseline of education could ensure that those entrusted with governance possess the capacity to comprehend complex policy decisions and legislative responsibilities.
Candidates for the National Assembly or Senate might be required to hold a master’s degree, while provincial or local representatives could be expected to have completed at least a bachelor’s degree. The electorate itself could also benefit from similar thresholds. Instituting a minimum education level of an intermediate certificate (FA) and an age threshold of 35 for voting might initially seem controversial. Yet the rationale is straightforward: informed, experienced voters are more likely to engage thoughtfully with political manifestos, party platforms, and the qualifications of candidates. When votes are cast based on slogans, fleeting emotional impulses, or familial and tribal loyalties, the outcomes are predictably flawed.
Elevating the baseline of civic understanding is not elitist; it is a measure intended to enhance the quality of governance and safeguard the public interest. Promoting political literacy and cultivating an informed electorate does not stop at setting minimum educational standards. Institutionalizing democratic practices within universities, such as student union elections, could nurture a culture of political engagement from an early age. Learning the principles of civic participation, accountability, and governance during formative years equips future leaders with the awareness and responsibility needed for national politics. A generation exposed to these practices is more likely to make considered choices and contribute meaningfully to the nation’s development.
Practical benefits also accompany such measures. Reducing the pool of voters to those who meet basic educational and age criteria could make polling stations more manageable, reducing overcrowding, disorder, and the potential for conflict. Election administration costs could decline, allowing resources to be better allocated towards ensuring the integrity of the electoral process. Experience across nations suggests that elections are most effective when participants are capable of understanding the stakes involved and making informed decisions.
History and tradition lend weight to this argument. In Afghanistan, the Loya Jirga convenes senior, experienced, and respected members of the community to make consequential decisions. Similarly, among Pashtun tribes, governance relies on elders whose knowledge and judgement are valued over mere enthusiasm or numbers. Islam itself endorses consultative governance, granting decision-making authority to those who are competent and informed. These examples illuminate a fundamental principle: collective decisions—whether at the level of a tribe, state, or nation—are more likely to yield stability, justice, and prosperity when entrusted to the experienced and discerning.
The goal is not to exclude young or less-educated citizens arbitrarily, nor to diminish the importance of their voices. It is to recognize that governance carries consequences that demand thoughtfulness, knowledge, and judgment. Nations function better when critical decisions are entrusted to individuals who possess a combination of insight, experience, and understanding. When emotion and impulse replace reason in voting, dysfunction and decay follow; when reason guides civic engagement, the prospects for strong, stable, and prosperous governance improve markedly.
(The writer is a senior journalist at tribal region, covers various beats, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
