From Voters to Leaders: Needonomics Rationale to Lower the Contesting Age

Prof Madan Mohan Goel, Proponent Needonomics & Former Vice-Chancellor

The strength of democracy in Bharat lies not only in the right to vote but also in the right to participate in governance through contesting elections. While citizens of 18 years are legally empowered to vote, they remain barred from contesting elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies until the age of 25, and to the Rajya Sabha until 30. This contradiction exposes a gap in democratic participation, which the Needonomics School of Thought (NST) identifies as a weakness in the system. NST advocates for lowering the qualifying age to contest elections to 21 years at the minimum, if not 18 years, aligning it with the age of majority and the right to vote.

Such reform is crucial if Bharat is serious about realizing the vision of becoming a Viksit Bharat by 2047, where inclusivity, equity, and genuine youth empowerment are cornerstones of governance.

Anomaly of Age and the Gender Gap

At present, Bharat recognizes 18 years as the legal age for voting, joining the armed forces, entering contracts, and even for marriage in the case of girls. However, boys must wait until 21 years to marry and 25 years to contest elections, an inconsistency without sound rationale. The gender gap in marriageable age and the disparity between voting age and contesting age both reflect outdated notions that underestimate the capabilities of youth.

NST emphasizes that in a democracy aspiring for maturity, such disparities are needless and counterproductive. If citizens are mature enough to vote at 18, they should be deemed capable of representing others in legislatures.

Parliamentary Recommendation and Political Hesitation

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, in its 132nd Report during the 17th Lok Sabha, strongly recommended lowering the qualifying age to 18 years for contesting elections. Despite this recommendation, there has been little political will to implement it. Ironically, most political parties boast of “youth wings,” but fail to empower them in practice. Instead, these youth wings remain tokenistic platforms with limited influence.

This hesitation is rooted in fear of disruption to the status quo. Established leaders may resist sharing space with younger aspirants who could challenge entrenched practices. Yet, democracy must evolve to remain dynamic, representative, and forward-looking.

Youth in Bharat: Demographic Reality

The median age in Bharat is only 28 years, reflecting a youthful population with immense potential. However, the average age of legislators remains between 52 and 57 years, a stark mismatch between the rulers and the ruled. The 18th Lok Sabha (2024), for instance, has a preponderance of Members of Parliament above 55 years, with only three MPs aged 25 years at the time of their election.

This imbalance is symptomatic of underutilization of Bharat’s demographic dividend, often celebrated in rhetoric but rarely converted into practice. NST argues that lowering the qualifying age will broaden opportunities for genuine youth participation and gradually shift the composition of legislative chambers.

Case for Younger Politicians

Younger politicians often enter public life with fewer vested interests and less political baggage. They are more likely to embrace ethical standards, innovative thinking, and long-term perspectives essential for governance in a rapidly changing world.

NST believes that including younger representatives in decision-making will bring fresh ideas, energy, and commitment to governance. Their presence can reinvigorate parliamentary debates, ensuring that issues concerning education, employment, environment, and technology receive sharper focus. Moreover, younger legislators are better placed to understand and address the aspirations of the youth majority in Bharat.

Democracy and the Challenge of Low Voter Turnout

Despite being the largest democracy in the world, Bharat struggles with relatively low voter turnout, especially among young voters. This disengagement reflects disillusionment with existing politics, where youth feel underrepresented. The situation undermines the celebrated “demographic dividend,” turning it into a democratic deficit.

By opening the doors of candidacy to younger citizens, democracy can become more participatory and attractive to the very demographic that forms its backbone. Politics can then be seen as a serious career path, not just a hereditary privilege or last resort for opportunists.

National Youth Policy and the Mandate for Participation

The National Youth Policy (NYP) clearly emphasizes the involvement of youth in democracy and governance. Yet, without structural reforms such as lowering the age to contest elections, these goals remain aspirational slogans. NST highlights that empowerment cannot be partial. True empowerment requires granting the youth both the right to vote and the right to stand for election, thereby enabling them to be both participants and leaders.

Implementing the NYP in its spirit demands a serious national dialogue on this reform. By embracing it, Bharat would be investing in its future leadership and strengthening democratic institutions.

Addressing the Concerns

Critics argue that younger candidates may lack experience, maturity, or the patience required for governance. However, NST counters this by pointing out that:

1. Experience is not guaranteed by age; many older politicians display inefficiency or unethical behavior.
2. Competence comes from exposure and opportunity; denying young people the chance to lead prevents them from acquiring experience.
3. Democracies thrive on diversity of perspectives, where youth and experience can complement one another.

Countries like New Zealand, the UK, and Canada allow candidacy at 18, and their democracies function effectively without the chaos feared by skeptics. Bharat should not lag behind.

Needonomics Perspective: Needs over Greed in Democracy

Needonomics School of Thought (NST) stresses that governance must be guided by needs, not greed. Allowing youth to contest elections is not about giving in to demands but about addressing the genuine need of a youthful society to be represented fairly.

Excluding young people perpetuates a governance model dominated by vested interests and outdated priorities. Inclusivity of youth ensures that policymaking remains grounded in the realities of tomorrow, not trapped in the legacies of yesterday.

Towards a Viksit Bharat 2047

Viksit Bharat by 2047 cannot be achieved without empowering its largest resource—the youth. Lowering the age of candidacy is a symbolic and practical step toward inclusivity, fairness, and participatory democracy. It bridges the gap between voting rights and representational rights, strengthens the legitimacy of governance, and energizes democratic institutions.

NST firmly believes that democracy in Bharat will be strengthened when young citizens are trusted with responsibilities equal to their rights. Only then will the promise of a Viksit Bharat be realized in its fullest sense.

Conclusion

Democracy thrives when it reflects the voices of all segments of society, especially the youth who constitute its future. By reducing the qualifying age to contest elections to 21, if not 18, Bharat will correct an illogical disparity, honor its demographic dividend, and align governance with the principles of inclusivity and fairness. The time has come for Bharat to act upon the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee and the spirit of the National Youth Policy. Needonomics reminds us that real empowerment is not about lofty speeches or symbolic representation but about providing genuine opportunities for participation. For a truly Viksit Bharat by 2047, empowering youth to contest elections is not an option—it is a necessity.