Young people are often told their political turn later will come later. But they are the ones who will live longest with the consequences of decisions taken today. When political choices risk causing long-term harm and cannot easily be reversed, democratic safeguards such as intergenerational commissions and age-weighted referendums may be needed to ensure that concerns and interests of young people are not sidelined, says Nicola Mulkeen, Lecturer in Political Philosophy at UK's Newcastle University, in an EESC interview.

Your research highlights the significant risks that ageing demographics pose to democratic processes. Could you explain the specific mechanisms by which an older electorate can systematically disadvantage younger generations?

In ageing democracies, older people make up a larger share of the electorate and they also tend to vote in higher numbers. This gives them more power to shape election outcomes. Politicians are usually most responsive to the groups that are largest and most able to influence public debate. The result is a political system that can become skewed towards the interests of older voters while younger people’s concerns are more easily delayed or ignored. 

This would be less troubling if the decisions made under these conditions were easily reversible. Many are not. If a government delays climate action because the immediate political costs seem too high, younger generations will live with more extreme weather and deeper insecurity. If biodiversity is destroyed, the damage to ecosystems and food systems may be impossible to repair. If a government borrows to avoid present sacrifice, younger people will be left paying the bill through higher taxes, weaker services, and less freedom to respond to problems of their own. When military conscription is imposed, it is the young who are required to train, prepare to fight, and perhaps die.

So, it is not enough to say that young people will have their political turn later. By then the damage might already have been done. Some harms cannot be undone. Others can only be reversed at very great cost. Younger people are therefore not just temporarily less powerful. They are the ones who will live with the consequences the longest when they had the weakest voice.

In your paper, you propose age weighted referendums and intergenerational commissions as a dual mechanism for addressing intergenerational tensions. Could you explain how these solutions could work in practice?

My proposal is aimed at political decisions that may cause significant long-term harm and are difficult to undo. The idea is to create stronger electoral safeguards in exceptional cases where younger and future generations will carry the weight of those decisions.

In practice, the first safeguard would be an intergenerational commission, or commissioners working across government departments. This would be an independent public body made up of experts and youth representatives. Its role would be to identify laws or policies that create serious long-term risks of harm. The aim is to bring these cases out of the ordinary election cycle, where short-term pressures dominate, and to make their long-term implications clearer.

If the commission judged that a proposal created a serious risk of harm or injustice, it could trigger a targeted age-weighted referendum. One example would be a government deciding whether to approve major new oil extraction or delay climate action. In that case, everyone would still vote, but younger people’s votes would carry greater weight because they are the ones most directly exposed to the long-term consequences. The point is to level things up. Younger people are often politically weaker even though they may have more at stake in long-term decisions.

Beyond your proposed reforms, what other policy interventions, whether at EU or national level, do you see as most promising for rebalancing intergenerational equity? Are there examples from member states that you'd highlight as models worth scaling?

Beyond age-weighted referendums and intergenerational commissions, the most promising interventions are those that make long-term thinking part of ordinary democratic decision-making. No single reform can solve the problem. What is needed is a broader approach that improves the political standing of younger people, strengthens legal protections for future generations, and makes governments answerable for the long-term effects of their choices.

Some reforms can easily be introduced. Civic and democratic education is one. If younger people are to participate meaningfully in public life, they need knowledge and institutional support. Expanding youth representation also matters. Introducing youth quotas in legislatures could help address the current imbalance. Judicial review also matters where governments adopt laws that threaten the basic conditions future generations will need, such as climate stability.

There are already useful examples. Wales is often highlighted because its Well-being of Future Generations Act encourages public bodies to consider long-term consequences. At EU level, the appointment of a Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness suggests these questions are receiving more serious attention. Germany’s 2021 Constitutional Court ruling on climate policy is a really important example because it recognised that governments should not be free to pass harmful burdens on to younger and future generations. None of these examples is a complete solution, but they show that democratic systems can be redesigned to take longer-term responsibilities more seriously.

Your work focuses on structural reform, but we have seen that social change also requires a shift in attitudes. What do you see as the most effective ways to build intergenerational solidarity rather than framing this as a zero-sum conflict between age groups?

I think it’s really important not to frame intergenerational fairness as a conflict between the young and the old. The deeper problem is that many political systems are structured for the short term. They respond to immediate pressures and electoral demands more easily than to long-term risks. This means that they often fail to give proper weight to young people. If we want to build intergenerational solidarity, we need to move away from the language of trade-offs.

One of the best ways to do that is to recognise that properly investing in younger people is not a loss for older generations. In ageing societies, younger generations will be central to sustaining the institutions and services on which everyone depends. They will make up a large part of the workforce, support public finances, and provide care. So, investing in education, healthcare, and work opportunities for young people should be seen as a way of strengthening society. It is not about favouring one group over another.

Nicola Mulkeen is a Lecturer in Political Philosophy at Newcastle University. Her work sits at the intersection of politics, philosophy, and economics, with a particular focus on intergenerational justice and institutional reform for younger and future generations.