The world is in a mess. It’s time to retire the gerontocrats

There should be no doubt in the mind of anyone sane that the world is in a humongous mess. Two old men – US President Donald J Trump and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – have played an outsize role in creating this global mess. They are the two principal culprits involved in launching a war of choice against Iran, which has resulted in death and destruction across West Asia, led to the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, and to economic consequences that are arguably among the underlying factors fuelling public unrest in France, other parts of Europe, and India.

Trump, 80, and Netanyahu, 77, are still not done. They have of late been rattling their sabres in a push for more death and destruction. The timing coincides with elections in both countries. While Israel goes to the polls on October 27, the US will have its midterm polls on November 3. Trump and Netanyahu both face imminent defeats, but are desperate to cling on to power at any cost – a charge that in Netanyahu’s case has been made most recently by sources within his own military, whose censors allowed the publication of a report alleging that the Israel Defence Forces Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir had been in an “unprecedented confrontation” with the PM following pressure from him to initiate fresh operations against Iran with an eye on the polls.

An age limit to high office may have saved the world from the perils unleashed by these exemplars of the gerontocratic menace. In the process, it may lose the continued services of other old men such as Brazilian President Lula da Silva, 80, who just won a record fourth term. That is a price that would need to be paid to institute a principle of equality between political leaders and the rest of us, and avoid the risks represented by other aging leaders who simply refuse to let go. 

We all have to retire at a mandated age. Every government and private sector employee, from bureaucrat to judge to CEO to clerk, has a retirement age. The only category of people exempt from this are the people who lead governments. This exceptionalism must end.

The job of running a country is certainly not easier or less demanding than the job of a civil servant. Yet there is a mandatory retirement age of 65 for Foreign Service officers in the US, and 67 in Israel. The retirement age for high-stress or public safety roles is lower – typically 57 years. Being president or prime minister is a high-stress job; an individual who feels no stress while launching avoidable wars may well be a psychopath. And the consequences for public safety of a mad king who fires missiles, controls the nuclear button, and can plunge the world into chaos are incalculably higher stakes than the impact on public safety of a firefighter, who must compulsorily retire at 57.

The public affected by the decisions of leaders turned “mad king” is primarily the people of the country suffering that gerontocratic menace, but today’s world is very interconnected. What Trump does – by starting wars, or imposing tariffs, or pulling the US out of the World Health Organisation, or reversing gains on mitigating climate change – affects us in India too. He is not our president, but we suffer because the Americans elected him.

India: Young country, old leaders

Of course, as the world’s largest democracy, we must also look inwards at our own sufferings. 

India has the largest youth population in the world. About 65 percent of its population is below 35 years of age. About 50 percent is below 25. Meanwhile, the percentage of India’s Lok Sabha members below 35 is less than 5. The current Lok Sabha is the oldest ever, with an average age of 56. The country’s leader, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is 76. The largest cohort in his cabinet is people in their 60s or 70s.

We have seen a lot of politics about the reservation of one-third of seats for women in parliament. The constitution has been amended to enable this reservation. In general, the principle of “nothing about us, without us”, which originated in rights of full participation and equalisation of opportunities for people with disabilities, has come to be accepted internationally for other groups as well. Yet when it comes to giving greater representation to youths, the country’s leading political parties fall silent or at best pay lip service.

The street protests that have shaken India in recent months have been youth protests, sparked and led by Gen Z. The demands for accountability and reform – in competitive exams, in the conduct of elections – have come, first and foremost, from the youth.

In Indian cultures (in the plural), there is a tendency to speak of young men and women in their 20s as “bacche”, meaning kids. University students, even those in final year, are routinely called “bacche”. They are legally adults who can vote, marry, and even have children of their own. The infantilisation of the country’s youth by its geriatrics, who are often its patriarchs, is a problem in need of a fix. At least the US and Western cultures, including their offshoots in other parts of the world, generally treat young men and women as adults.

The US also has term limits for its president, although it is not certain that the present incumbent will peacefully vacate his lovely White House in Washington when the time comes. India has neither term limits for its leaders, nor a retirement age. As a result, generational transitions within political parties become a game of court intrigues. The Congress party has struggled with its own generational shift for years. The BJP, earlier, saw a period of intense internal politicking when former stalwarts such as L K Advani, M M Joshi, and other members of the erstwhile A B Vajpayee government were denied cabinet berths and kicked upstairs to a “margdarshak mandal”. The arguments about generational transition, youth empowerment, and the need to make room for younger leaders are still as relevant now as they were then.

Having a clear retirement age for holders of high office would save political parties these difficulties. It would save countries the perils of leaders continuing unto senility and beyond. It would also hopefully give the country younger, fresher leaders with fresh ideas and the energy to implement them. The aged and experienced can still contribute to public life if such a rule ever comes to be implemented; there would be no age limit for being president of a political party or even being a member of parliament. The only bar would be on holding ministerial portfolios.

The US saw the cognitive and physical decline that comes with time in the case of President Joe Biden. In India, the country’s present politics might have been quite different if former Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar was still the man he used to be. 

Age catches up with us all. It may wear down a person at 65, 75 or 85, but there is a limit beyond which physical health and mental acuity begin to deteriorate. Political leaders are not nonbiological beings immune to the effects of time. 

It is better, for them and for their countries, to have clarity on retirement ages so that transitions are not occasioned by mental or physical breakdown, and happen smoothly between generations.

The writer is an author and academic. 

If you liked this piece, let our reporters tell you why you should subscribe to Newslaundry.