Bartlett, S. (2005). Good Governance: Making Age a Part of the Equation-An Introduction. Children, Youth and Environments, 15(2), 1–17.

Sheridan Bartlett points out that “policymaking, planning and resource allocation are often viewed as benefiting some “universal” citizen, without regard to age or gender” (2005). While governance often seeks to address the needs of all its citizens, the unique needs of children and young people are often not considered. When they are, they are often lumped into one homogenous group, without attending to the different needs of younger versus older children, and children of different intersecting identities. When children are even considered, they are considered only via their parents who may not be asked specifically about the needs of their children’s when adults are being consulted.

The truth is, being attentive to the young people in our communities is often not mainstreamed into all elements of community governance. When the needs of children are considered, they are often only for those sectors that we associate with serving children directly, such as education or health. Bartlett reminds us that young citizens are affected by the entire range of municipal policies and programs. A couple decades ago, the need for a gendered perspective in all elements of community development was acknowledged, and great strides have been made towards gender mainstreaming. More recently, the need for age sensitive mainstreaming is being heard and urged to be threaded through all forms of governance. Mirroring the discussions around a women in development (WID) approach and a gender and development (GAD) approach, while youth in development has moved forward, especially in terms of programming for youth, a youth and development needs to find traction. As many youth in development approaches often take on an “extra programs” feel, they often result in a superficial quality that ends up being or risks feeling like tokenism. A youth and development approach would, for example, include trainings on child rights approach for all those working in governance (such as was conducted in the Payatas barangay councils as written by Aguirre).

Practice has shown, that often we need to demonstrate the practical benefits of engaging young people in governance as a way of compelling and propelling the inclusion of children into the ways we work (Bartlett, 2005). Especially in the era of constricting resources, especially at the municipal level, we find that “policy follows practice,” not the other way around. Not only must these benefits be demonstrated, they must be repeated and sustained if we are to envision a new way of governing where we consistently consider children in all sectors and include them in the decision-making around these issues. This is not to say that awareness raising is not to be undertaken, but rather to point out that awareness raising is insufficient on its own.

One way to generate results and demonstrate the many benefits of integrating children into governance is by finding areas where the needs of children converge with other groups. By finding natural allies and braiding objectives, tangible results are more easily ushered in. The results and the process will likely come more smoothly, both of which fuel the inertia for engaging children in governance going forward. Finding those areas where the collaboration between children and other groups are mutually propelling may also heighten the likelihood that collaborators are truly listening to children beyond just hearing them.

The focus on practical and tangible results however should not gloss over the mundane acts of governance that truly under print citizen engagement. This includes finding time and space for children to come together with adults, sitting down to set the agenda together, deliberating over issues in a respectful manner, training each other to work with one another, hashing out the details of policy wording and budget lines, as well as monitoring the process and outputs of their work together. Just as these are the very acts through which citizen consultation becomes participatory governance, these are the very acts that must be done with children with their evolving capacities in mind.

Even when young people may have their own fora for decision-making and ideally integration with other structures of municipal governance, once again the needs of younger children can not be forgotten. The case of involving parents and caregivers to advocate for younger children must be brought along still. This may take the form of yet another collaborative relationship with somebody that advocates on behalf of caregivers of the very young.

Not to belabor the point, but changes in the community and the lived realities of children must remain one of the goals of engaging young people in governance. While there are great developmental and social gains to be made for children who engage in community governance, the learning component must not override that of conducting governance activities. Shared governance means that even adults have the responsibility to learn how to engage in governance differently and actually implement the decisions that were made through this process. As learning takes place on the part of children and adults as well as systemically, these lessons should be reflected upon and learn from earnestly as part of improving democratic participatory governance for community development.

The responsibility of children who are engaged in acts of governance is to represent youth perspectives on the issues at hand. At times, the need to defend their place at the table is required, but putting that responsibility on children again is unjust and burdensome. It may require the inclusion of an adult whose sole role is to keep an eye on the process of integrating children into governance activities and speak out for them when this process is not truly participatory. This person may also be best placed to facilitate reflection of the process and document lessons learned for sustainability and institutionalization. Of course, this then demands resources and should be considered when planning out the engagement of children in governance.

Being reflective and critical of challenges and shortcomings is important not just to be put forward as euphemisms. Although at times things may feel as if they are a failure, indeed they may not be. Especially when engagement of children and young people in governance activities does not necessarily go as planned, we must be careful not to label these attempts as failures on a whole and scrap the whole idea, but rather compel us to examine what the roots of those challenges are and force us to find new ways of working.

The interplay between political allies is something that needs to be carefully managed. While support from political leadership certainly helps to get buy-in when setting up a system of engaging children in governance, when there is a change in political winds it can stall or even squash any activities that were already underway. Perhaps by having both political as well as civil society support is necessary though at times seemingly ideal. Engaging a coalition of civil society actors may also ensure that youth structures to not become rubberstamping bodies to verify the desires of the political establishment. By collaborating with a broad-based coalition, it also does not hold youth oriented structures to aligning with only one organization and its views, it is then able to deliberate with a wider range of actors, encouraging it to draw on the plurality of both individuals who are active in the community and their ideas.

While the sustainability of mechanisms for engaging children and young people in governance is very important in growing roots in local democracy, we must also be careful that while formal representative structures “may be guarantees of protection for newly gained political space, [they] may also be mechanisms of control” (Bartlett, 2005). Still, the idea of “institutionalization” is a constructive aim as it often “implies an initiative becoming part of the formal machinery in some way so that they can outlast a project cycle or a pilot phase” (Bartlett, 2005).

Sustaining mechanisms of engaging children in governance and “institutionalizing” them so that they are not seen just as one-off projects that could be cast aside after one cycle also needs to keep in mind how they can remain dynamic to the ways of working that best fit the citizens (and especially the young people) in the governance system of that context. In the end, institutionalizing children’s engagement in governance isn’t just about the structure, but changing the way we look and think about citizen participation in local democracies. As Louise Chawla says, it is meant to be a tool to help community leaders and agencies to “see ways to integrate young people and community development as constructive, insightful partners. If institutions see ways to include the methods that they learn into ongoing operations, that is great. But if the project is just used to help solve a particular problem, that is okay too” (in Bartlett, 2005). She advises that we have “faith in the ripples we cannot see” (Chawla, in Bartlett, 2005).

The change in the way we think may be the most vital kind of “institutionalization”. Yves Cabanne reminds us that “even when the formal processes deteriorates with changes in administration, or disappear entirely, it is important not to see them as failures, but to consider the impression they have made on a generation and the ripple effects of those around them. These new adults are the real sustainability factor in building citizenship and participatory democracy” (In Bartlett 2005). It is this long-term outcome that truly has the greatest lasting effect on the community and society at large. We recognize that short-term evaluations of children’s rights and democracy will more often than not leave us with only ambiguous indicators, yet the goal compels us to continue striving despite clear signposts that we are on the right path. I believe that as we work in accordance with these principles, of promoting children’s participation rights and deepening democracy, the psychological and sociological institutionalization of these will walk along with the institutionalization of systems for engaging children in governance.