Should politicians have a retirement age ?

There is no denying the fact that with the number of years added to the age, a person definitely enhances know-how besides becoming capable to take quick and right decisions. Perhaps this is the reason that work opportunities for experienced professionals are much more than the new entrants.
But at the same time, a human being too comes across a stage where his contribution from his part becomes nil or negative. This concept is retaliated and one who readily accepts and passed on the responsibilities to newer generation is equitably respected.
Thus, there must be age limit for politicians. Only then youth can get a chance to explore their ideas and leadership qualities as young people have more energy and enthusiasm to do anything than elders, as we all know “actions speak louder than words”.
As state government employee has retirement age limit of 58 years with extendable for two years and Supreme Court judge has retirement age limit up to 65 yrs, then why should politicians be allowed to work beyond the age? Why is there no provision that asks them to retire at certain age limit for politicians?
Let’s list some politicians’ – Atal Bihari Vajpayee, L K Advani, Manmohan singh, Devegowda, Jyoti basu, Tamilnadu CM, and the list goes on who are still in politics. Ram Sunder Yadav bidding his luck from the Hajipur constituency is 93 years old.
Nobody – barring politician themselves – will feel its logically not appropriate to say that politicians work better with no corruption at the old age and I think this is insane. My simple question is that if everyone else in India has a retirement age then why is it that a politician does not have this compulsion make a rule which is common for all individual? Why can there be a law which says that the politicians have to take retirement?
There is hardly any certified formulate that a retried and experienced can manage the country better than a young politician. If youth have the distinguished qualities of leadership, education, maturity to handle the situation with a clear perspective, then it can be managed without any age limit.
Let us not propose the superannuation for our political leaders but we must the other side of the coin, government officials are readily absorbed by the private sector to exploit their familiarity with the market and expertise of dealing with adverse circumstances. Retired judges are bestowed upon with the task of heading advisory committees or becoming a part of crucial investigations.
43 per cent of the MPs post the 2009 polls were above the age of 56 years, a figure which was just 20 percent posts the first general elections of 1952. On the contrary, just 14 per cent of the MPs post 2009 polls were below the age of 40.
The average age of Chief Ministers of various states is 62 years, while the average age of cabinet ministers during the UPA-2 was 60 years.
There is a need to learn a lesson from entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Ratan Tata, and N R Narayana Murthy, who vacated their august offices and stepped into advisory roles. Similarly, the politicians need to part with the urge of being in power post they realize that the young blood is ready to accept accountabilities with commitment.
The task of decision has been conferred upon those shoulders who have decades of experience, however, are unaware of the current global development and newer ways to tackle tough conditions.
Let me discuss the other side of the coin, often there is a debate about putting a retirement age for politicians to cleanse the system and inflow new ideas and so far this was considered a good idea. But before Anna and Arvind Kejriwal, youth blood like Sachin Pilot, Akhilesh, Yadav Naveen Jindal, Rahul Gandhi, Varun Gandhi, have not shown much promises.
We normally say that the oldies don’t retire because of their lust for power, which is perhaps true as well, but rejecting someone just because he is old and can’t came up with fresh ideas is perhaps insulting human mind. Out of box thinking comes by enlightened and accommodating minds not by youth along and a leader became a leader by his ideas, vision, leadership and courage. Just because a nation is getting young does not mean we should have a young person as leader.
Frankly speaking, the matured leaders can be shifted to the upper house of Parliament, while retaining the young vibrant blood in the lower house. Thus, a room for innovation and creativity is created that helps in the development of the nation. The question is as to how this realization will come from the core of heart of our senior MPs and MLAs to guide the young blood during tough circumstances. This type of feeling will enhance their respect from the young generation towards seniors who are committed for social and political the improvement of the nation.
Next Post »