brand logo

Do politicians have an expiry date, do they require a retirement age?

13 Oct 2022

BY Sumudu Chamara Wine tastes better with age, but only up to a point, after which the taste begins to decline. Similar sentiments are expressed by a majority of the public when discussing the idea of introducing a retirement age for politicians. They believe that although politicians could get better at governing the country with more experience, i.e. more time in politics, at some point, their ability to effectively perform their duties starts waning, and when that point is reached, they should consider retirement.  This drawn-out but important discussion about the necessity of a retirement age for politicians resurfaced last week after 76-year old former President Mahinda Rajapaksa addressed the public for the first time since stepping down as Prime Minister serving under former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s administration. This appearance was welcomed by his party members and followers, some of whom made statements to the effect that Mahinda Rajapaksa is still capable of running the country. However, large sections of the public believe that he should have retired from politics after his defeat in the 2015 Presidential Election. The public feels the same way about not just the former Premier, but about several senior, or old, politicians, who are currently serving as Parliamentarians in both the Governing and Opposition Parties, including 83-year old Independent MP and Democratic Left Front Leader Vasudeva Nanayakkara and 89-year old Tamil National Alliance leader Rajavarothiam Sampanthan. According to those who spoke with The Morning, although the experience factor is important when it comes to senior politicians, it is not a compelling enough reason to allow them to be in politics indefinitely.      A retirement age for politicians?   Many expressed displeasure about Sri Lanka not having a fixed retirement age for politicians and the fact that the public does not have a say regarding when politicians should retire. They also said that certain current MPs who have passed the usual public or private sector retirement age nearly two decades ago should retire immediately to give their parliamentary seat to younger politicians. “Retirement age is not a joke. There is a concept called retirement because as human beings, at some point in our lives, we become too old to fulfil the duties of our job. Politicians are not robots, and they too come to a point in their life after which they cannot function properly because their mental and physical capacity deteriorates,” said 29-year-old private sector worker Hasinda Kamal. He added that when it comes to politics, the retirement age is more crucial than in other professions.  “Politicians are a different kind of animal. Unlike in the case of an ordinary worker, politicians take decisions that affect an entire country, some of which have an impact on people for several generations. They also take decisions that have to do with public funds. It is extremely important that they are in good mental and physical health in order for them to make judicious decisions.  “At the same time, running a country definitely involves being innovative. What happens when there are more older politicians than younger ones, or when older politicians are more powerful than younger ones is that old politicians try to keep alive the outdated ideas of their generation. So, the older the politicians that we have, the less progress we as a country can achieve. Because of these reasons, politicians should retire at the age of retirement that is applicable for the public sector.” Meanwhile, some raised concerns about the public not having an opportunity to weigh in on determining the politicians’ retirement age. Explaining this sentiment, 41-year-old housewife Lalani Iresha (name changed on request) said: “We send them to Parliament to represent us. They are there to serve us. We should have the ability to decide when they retire. It is foolish to allow politicians to decide when they want to retire. They are greedy. They would still want to remain in power even after reaching 80-90 years and while being bedridden, and they form laws in such a way that even a politician that cannot function properly can remain in power for as long as they want.” When queried about the people’s ability to vote out politicians that they think are too old, she pointed out the practical issues that have made it extremely difficult. “On the one hand, ordinary people like us are too vulnerable to our daily needs; politicians have continued for decades due to poverty, because they can use poverty for votes. People vote for any politician who they believe will solve their economic issues regardless of age. Mahinda Rajapaksa passed his retirement age years ago. But he is still trying to return to active politics even after all the chaos his actions have caused. If he contested again, there is no doubt that he would get votes with no issues. “On the other hand, elected politicians support rejected politicians, especially by giving MP posts to rejected politicians through the national list and giving them various other high-ranking posts within politics. At the same time, voting politicians out is just a temporary solution, because as soon as they get an opportunity, they come back.” In this context, she said that a retirement age should be introduced to politicians and that it should be done through public consultation.   Age vs. experience/knowledge   However, some were of the opinion that being a politician is a unique profession and a service that requires experience and that keeping experienced politicians in Parliament, regardless of their age, is beneficial to the country. Their main argument was that the longer they have served as a politician, the more qualified they are to continue to serve as one.  “I don’t think that we can compare politics with any other profession, and we cannot have this debate on a retirement age based on the factors that apply to other professions,” 61-year-old retired private sector employee I.R. Wickramaratne opined. “Politics is not a mere profession, although it has become more of a profession with all the excessive perks that politicians are entitled to. Politics is a service and a form of social activism. In politics, experience, or, in other words, lessons that have been learned through practical work, matter more than any other qualification, because it is a practical job that has an impact on millions of Sri Lankans. I think that it is the older politicians that we must keep because they know how to handle the country’s affairs better than the younger ones. That is why Mahinda Rajapaksa was able to keep the economy stable despite the many loans the country took and Gotabaya Rajapaksa failed to do the same because he did not have experience as a politician.” When questioned about his opinion regarding how issues associated with ageing may affect politicians’ performance, Wickramaratne opined that that is a matter that needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. While concurring that physical issues, such as memory loss, may affect politicians’ performance as they grow older, Wickramaratne said that retirement should be based on how each politician experiences such issues, not on a fixed retirement age.  “We see many old politicians still doing their job in an exemplary manner, and younger politicians failing to do their job because they are inexperienced. Politics was never about physical strength; it is about mental strength,” he added. However, some begged to differ with Wickramaratne’s opinion, adding that running a country is a serious responsibility and that relying on politicians’ experiences, or the mere expectation that their experiences would translate into actions, is unwise. In this regard, 55-year-old businessman Asith Kuruppu said: “The main argument that many present in order to justify older politicians not retiring at the proper age is their experience. First of all, they should understand that a country is not a test lab where politicians can do whatever they feel like doing and see what the results are.  “We have many politicians who have been in politics for decades. What good outcomes did their experience bring? If these so-called experiences are so useful and practical, why do politicians keep repeating the same mistakes, thus putting the country’s future at stake? Why have they failed to prevent issues that could have been easily prevented? Why do they not think about the future when making decisions?”  He questioned the value of the experiences of famous politicians, adding that despite being a senior politician, President Ranil Wickremesinghe does not care about the repercussions of oppressing the public and that despite having served as a President twice, Mahinda Rajapaksa did not see the economic downfall that was building up during his tenure.  “It is experienced politicians who destroyed the country. They are corrupt, greedy, and selfish. If they are experienced in anything, that is how to be in power until their deaths and how to steal without getting caught,” Kuruppu said, adding that all politicians over the age of 60 years should retire and that their retirement benefits should include only pensions, with security provided only if there are threats to their lives.    Putting experiences to good use   However, according to some, neither retiring politicians merely because they have reached a certain age nor allowing politicians to be in power indefinitely should be the solution that Sri Lanka seeks. They propose that using the knowledge and experience of senior politicians is important, but subject to several conditions. Forty-four-year-old computer technician A.R.N.C. Chandraratne who explained this idea said that the country should not try to get rid of or accept old politicians’ experiences and knowledge blindly.  “If there are skilled, honest, and useful politicians who have served before retirement in an exceptional manner, they should be given another opportunity to serve their country. Sometimes, exceptions are made to allow skilled public officials to continue to serve in their respective public agencies after retirement in various advisory positions. The same system could be applied in the case of politicians, depending on what they can bring to the table in the future and their performance before retirement.  “However, it should either be a voluntary position with considerable recognition for their service or a position that offers only the bare minimum perks. Either way, it should be an advisory role. Most importantly, their positions could be related to politics, but they should be positions that prohibit retired politicians from becoming politicians through elections or the National List later.” However, some also observed that old politicians’ experiences are likely to be based on outdated ideologies, methods, and objectives, and therefore, they should fully retire as any public official is required to. In addition, they said that keeping such retired politicians in advisory positions would limit the country’s political system’s innovative and forward-thinking, thereby limiting the country’s overall growth, because those politicians’ advice would play a considerably important role in how unretired politicians govern the country.


More News..