Disconnected and Outdated: The Problem with Aging Politicians

Why a state must have age limit for its leaders for better governance

In the present times, there are many countries out there whose political leaders, especially Prime Ministers and Presidents, are in their 70s and 80s. They often lead with outdated ideas, not knowing the socio-economic and cultural ground reality. They live in their luxurious presidential palaces while the common people are suffering out there. Though I don’t really consider them as “leaders”, but to improve the readability of the blog, I will refer all elected politicians from a village to President as leaders.

In my opinion, 55 should be the age limit to contest for an government administration position- from small town mayors (or Sarpanch in Indian villages) to Prime Ministers and Presidents. In the few sections below, I will be justifying my opinion with reason and common sense.

Here we go.

Living in the Past: The Economic Disconnect

Some elderly elected politicians think they are still living in the `1970s. In their mind, the cost of living and houses are pretty cheap. They perhaps don’t know the inflation slicing the pockets of the common man in real time. The private companies sometimes don’t even pay enough to survive. But as top leaders have their livelihood sorted with a salary in lakhs or crores, with no tension about housing, they are oblivious about the money required to sustain a human being. Let’s not forget saving for an emergency fund in cases like recession or wars, like some are actively engaging in. It is even worse for beginners in the job market, with salaries as low as peanuts and no guarantee of a job (10 years of experience is often required for entry-level jobs). They are cut off from reality. Hence, a young or middle-aged, smart, and empathetic person with some experience in governance may be able to tackle this issue better than an older individual.

Outdated Cultural Ideologies Still in Power

Many leaders cannot keep up with the ever-changing culture. They can’t fathom the emerging feminism and queer communities and the rising voices against previous oppression of minority. As often, the positions are held by (white) old cis-het men, their male ego is easily hurt to see the slowly changing dynamics. Through educational institutions, they force their ideology in subtle ways. A classic case of Ideological State Apparatuses- religious, familial and educational institutions that subtly instill the values and beliefs of the ruling class, ensuring social control and the perpetuation of capitalist relations. Or else, shut down the whole Department of Education. They may also make laws that make the situation of the marginalised communities even worse. Like banning books and criminalising abortions in the USA, to making child marriage of girls as young as 9 legal in Iraq.

These laws are usually passed by middle-aged and old age cis-het men in power. Such actions reverse all the progress made until now by feminists (and queer) activists.

We are living in a time where freedom has started becoming a myth, not a lived reality.

In these aspects, a young or middle-aged person who understands these issues as well is good at governance, should be elected to power, not white cis-het old men who can’t see others prosper. They will try to manipulate the voters during elections to prevent better people, especially women, from coming into power. Funny thing is, a lot of citizens from any country will defend these men to the last nail in the coffin, while such politicians do not care about voters as long as they are rich cis-het (white) businessmen.

Who Gets Hurt When Leaders Wield War Like a Toy?

As several of the leaders who are now in their 70s have witnessed the aftermath of World Wars, it seems like they do not care much about what the civilians may go through if the war takes place again. Their fractured concept of “nationality” or self-defence seems to be turning into war and genocide. As far as I’ve observed, online and offline, no civilian wants a possible World War 3. It ain’t just old age, but any politician is participating in this war. They will be safe in their presidential palaces, but it is the armed forces and civilians who will face the consequences. The age of the leaders comes here as those in their 60s and 70s may pass away 10-20 years down the line, but their country will suffer the consequences of a war for decades.

Is This Ageism? Or Just Realism?

Some readers may accuse me of being an ageist. But criticism based on facts and observation can’t be a mere prejudice.

If not someone in their 20s or 30s for top positions, 40s seems like a balanced age. The sandwich generation can look after the senior citizen as well as the young population, who will go on to develop a state in the coming decades.