By Narayan Prasad Mishra
The welfare of the people and the development of a country are inseparable concepts. Everyone understands that the welfare of the people depends on the country’s development, which includes access to basic needs such as healthcare, education, housing, water, electricity, and social security. Healthcare plays a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of life and contributing to productivity and economic growth by ensuring a healthy workforce. Education equips individuals with the necessary knowledge and skills for personal development and nation-building. Social welfare programs provide a safety net for vulnerable groups, including pensions for older people, unemployment benefits, and support for persons with disabilities. Water and electricity are essential for everybody’s life.
On the other hand, the development of a country encompasses economic growth, infrastructure development, technological advancement, and environmental sustainability. Economic growth, driven by sectors such as agriculture, industry, and services, generates employment opportunities and increases national income. Without economic growth, governments cannot invest in social welfare programs and public services. Thus, it is clear that developing the country is essential for the welfare of its people.
The development of a country relies on dynamic leadership and effective governance. For effective governance, knowledgeable, experienced, energetic, and honest individuals are needed in both offices and political roles. As individuals age, there is a natural decline in physical stamina and cognitive abilities, which can impact decision-making and the ability to handle complex issues swiftly—essential qualities for effective governance and policy formulation. Political and bureaucratic roles often require long hours, extensive travel, and high activity levels, which can be challenging for older individuals to sustain over time. Therefore, the demand for energy and dynamism suggests the necessity of a younger workforce for development. Hence, retirement is mandated in civil, police, military, and various professional services, including medical, engineering, and teaching, typically between ages 55 and 65 across different countries. People retire based on these criteria, leaving their jobs for younger generations.
Unlike many professions where retirement ages are well-established, politics often sees individuals continuing in office well into advanced age. This raises important questions about effectiveness and the evolving needs of governance in modern society. It can be undoubtedly said that with age, individuals may lose energy, memory, courage, or interest, whether in bureaucracy, civil service, military, police, or professional and political roles. In this context, I remember with honor and respect the late Ganesh Man Singh, the supreme leader of the Nepali Congress Party, who refused to be a prime minister because of his old age when King Birendra proposed him to be a prime minister after the 1990,s movement. We all know that was the talk of the town at that time. In the same context, I am glad that the people of the USA pressured President Biden not to be a candidate again for the presidency because of his old age, and he accepted it recently. This will be an excellent example for others to think about the issues in other countries.
Moreover, politicians who serve for extended periods may become entrenched in traditional ideologies and methods, potentially hindering innovation and responsiveness to emerging challenges. Introducing a retirement age could encourage the infusion of new ideas, diverse viewpoints, and energy from younger leaders with different life experiences and perspectives. Younger individuals often exhibit greater adaptability and openness to new ideas and technologies compared to their older counterparts, who may resist change or struggle to adopt innovative approaches needed for addressing contemporary challenges and opportunities.
In the absence of a retirement age for politicians, we witness some political leaders in our country who struggle even to walk and appear sleepy while in parliament, serving as prime ministers. This situation is unfortunate for the country’s development. So, I humbly request the old leaders to retire from their responsibilities that no longer suit their age and pass them on to a younger workforce capable of carrying them.
In this context, I also urge young leaders and workers of all parties to voice their concerns and establish a retirement age of 65 for politicians. They should behave as an energetic and courageous democrat, not as obedient servants of their leaders. We should include a rule that individuals above this age cannot run for positions such as party general secretary, president of a party, or parliamentarian. Even if this cannot be implemented, a rule should be established barring individuals above 65 from serving as ministers or prime ministers. While experience and wisdom are invaluable in governance, the vitality, adaptability, and innovative spirit of a young and energetic workforce are indispensable for addressing the complexities of modern governance and driving sustainable development agendas forward.
I firmly believe that implementing a retirement age for politicians will accelerate our development. I also hope that older politicians will be honest with the country’s people and accept this necessity, while younger politicians will have the courage to initiate change by taking leadership roles. Establishing a retirement age allows politicians to retire with dignity after making significant contributions during their tenure. Additionally, they can continue to play advisory roles as long as they are willing and able. This will be truly beneficial for the country and its people. Politicians should not cling to power until their final days.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect People’s Review’s editorial stance.
Comments:
Leave a Reply