Wyness, M. (2001). Children, childhood and political participation: Case studies of young people’s councils. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 9(3), 193–212. doi:10.1163/15718180120494937

In the first part of Michael Wyness’ article, he lays out a “child needs” perspective versus a “child interest” perspective. In a “child needs” perspective, children are seen as “apprentice citizens” and only recognized as citizens as they enter adulthood. Membership into the political community comes when children can understand “notions of respect, trust and tolerance built into a network of mutual obligations such that the individual’s political and social rights are intimately bound up with their obligations shall better society. Children do not figure within this network of mutual obligations” (Wyness, 2001). It is helpful that he then juxtaposes it with those who would take a more self-determination perspective over a protection perspective however, I don’t agree with the way that he presents children’s rights to self-determination. Wyness says “rights to self-determination take certain responsibilities and powers away from adults since children have a right to make decisions for themselves that could potentially go against adults claims that they are acting in the child’s best interest” (2001). Although I agree that self-determination means that children have the right to make decisions for themselves, and that this could potentially go against the perspectives of adults, it does not necessarily focus on challenging adults claims to acting in the child’s best interests. Moreover, I have great problems with his characterization that self-determination takes responsibilities and powers away from adults. For one thing, I do not see power necessarily as a straight zero-sum commodity. Rights to self-determination certainly do not take the responsibility away from duty bearers to uphold their rights (including self-determination), and the power that adults have can be justly shared and not only in a power over relationship but rather a power with relationship.

In the way that Wyness lays out the engagement of children in the political realm, he sees it as revolving around four concepts: mobilization, participation, influence and representation (2001). He defines participation as getting involved in political structures where they can exert a degree of influence over decisions at both individual and general levels. I do not see engagement and political systems as having influence over individual levels; to me, this sounds like judgment and not participation in programming or policy issues. Also, do these political structures need to be formal as Wyness presents? Can participation in political life be recognized for their power of mobilization and influence without necessarily being via representatives?

A couple helpful things: Wyness’ article contains a brief definition of Agenda 21, brief accounts of four cases including a children’s union in India, a children’s Parliament in India, a student council in England, and a Town Council in England. He recounts active children’s participation in adult bodies or councils in both the children’s Parliament in India and the town Council in England. He also transcribes several focus groups he did with children in the town councils in England, one of which very clearly points out how adults often asked them to consult on issues and yet fail to work with them to set the agenda and thereby miss the issues that matter most to children.