They say you’ll never forget your first time — unless, of course, you choose not to bother at all. And not bothering is fast becoming the popular choice as far as young voters are concerned.

When it comes to elections, young people tend to take their cue from their parents — if they bother to vote at all, that is. Not only is the new generation of first-time voters less than lukewarm about politics, but they are not even likely to use their vote to make a rebellious gesture.

Young people are turned off by politics partly because they don’t understand its connection to their reality, ie the realities in inner-city communities in Kingston and St Andrew are quite different from the realities of young people in Russia, Westmoreland, and Pell River in rural Hanover; and partly because they don’t feel they are being offered a realistic chance to change their lives, coupled with the perception (whether real or otherwise) that the system is rigged to benefit politicians and their friends and company.

The language, the same sorts of faces, the largely old boys’ network within politics are alienating to a lot of us. The social background that politicians tend to come from is not always reflective of society at large. Most people I know would feel uncomfortable stepping into the Gordon House and speaking in their natural dialect.

Not everyone can make the connection between politics and their actual lives. Part of the problem is to do with political literacy. Politics isn’t inbuilt into education, all Jamaicans really ever know about politics growing up is my parents or grandparents — “di hole fambily a green/orange” — so it’s no surprise that it is lost on so many young people. If you don’t have access to a social context in which you can discuss politics, you are missing out on the conversation entirely.

PNP’S STANCES ON DEBATING ALARMING!

The People’s National Party’s recent comments about its participation in the election debate are an unpleasant reminder of why so many people are turned off by politics and politicians. While my personal view is there should be a 90-minute town hall-style leadership debate, which allows predetermined questions asked directly from a carefully selected studio audience, but not known by the leaders in advance. There ought to be very strict rules of enforcement where the audiences will be prevented from applauding or jeering, except at the start and end of the programmes.

PNP officials had ample opportunity to have raised the format with the Jamaica Debates Commission. Far from a principled stance, this came across as a self-serving attempt to use a ‘get out of jail free’ card for Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller.

One has to question where that leaves the real challenges facing the country that will require a degree of cross-party consensus to tackle over the next half a decade.

When will it end,though? Will she not sit in Parliament with Andrew Holness? Will she not answer questions from him if her party returns to Government? The country wants to hear the potential head of Government and chair of the Cabinet debate and discuss long-term reform of the health care and education system, national security issues, reforming financing of tertiary education, chronic housing crisis, sustainable employment opportunities, and how do they plan to solve that huge environmental and economic issue — the perennial water crisis, which is not only a huge inconvenience, but a potential health crisis.

Simpson Miller’s attempt to extract herself from the debates that attracted thousands of viewers in the run-up to the last election undermines the basic principles of good governance: openness and transparency. It smacks of politicians only interested in pursuing a style of politics when it suits their strategy.

WHAT ARE WE VOTING FOR?

In 2016, the political landscape has virtually remained the same; the politics has not matured or evolved. It is difficult to say that the outcome of an election in Jamaica was determined by a specific set of issues, as elections have in the past seemed to defy any semblance of issue-based patterns. Hence, some of the poorest areas and people have continued to vote religiously, despite their communities and circumstances remaining virtually the same.

Your vote is a blunt instrument, not a sacrament. It’s a robust tool undecided and young voters should use to ensure you get the Government you want. So why should you use your vote?

We not only want transparency, accountability and openness, but the decisions that get enacted in the political space will impact on your future in some way, shape or form, whether you like it or not! The next Government will be here for at least four years and we will be left the consequences of the decisions they have made, and it is for that reason we want to hear the vision for the country and their understanding of the very complex issues facing the country.

If an empty chair represents Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller in these debates, so be it. These debates need to happen. These debates should occur in the public interest, not the interests of the parties. In a more perfect world, political parties would have an agreement of mandatory participation in election debates. The agreement would be transparent, based on a reasonable formula. It would be administered independently, as is done in the US and elsewhere.

Today, more than ever, it is unacceptable to allow politicians to hold our democracy to ransom. Why should voters queue up in lines at polling stations to vote while the Prime Minister wants to opt out of debates?

Andrew King is a public affairs commentator with an interest in national security, governance and development policies. Send comments to the Observer or abking020@gmail.com