Blog

The age of political leaders is a subject we often avoid discussing. Yet it deserves serious consideration. Should someone be old enough to have gained the experience necessary to run a country? Or should there be an upper age limit to ensure that people holding the highest political offices still have the physical and mental capacity required for such demanding responsibilities?

The question is not whether someone is “too old” or “too young.” The real question is when experience becomes a strength, and when it risks becoming a limitation.

Experience: an essential asset

Running a city, a region or a country is not something that can simply be learned overnight. Political responsibilities involve decisions that can have consequences for decades.

Professional experience, knowledge of economics, international relations, administration and society, as well as an understanding of human behaviour, are therefore considerable assets.

A political leader with several decades of experience may have lived through economic crises, wars, political changes, periods of growth and recession. Such experiences can provide perspective and help prevent decisions being made purely out of emotion.

Maturity can provide something that youth has not yet had time to develop: perspective.

But experience should not become an excuse

Experience also has its limits: age does not automatically guarantee competence.

Being 70, 80 or 85 does not necessarily mean being wiser, more competent or better equipped to lead than someone aged 45 or 50.

Conversely, remaining in power for too long can create a form of disconnection from the realities of modern society.

Technology, artificial intelligence, new forms of work, social media, the environment, the digital economy, younger generations and changing social behaviours: the world is evolving extremely quickly.

A political leader must therefore be capable of learning, questioning his or her own assumptions and accepting that the world known at 30 is not necessarily the same world being governed at 70.

What about younger politicians?

It would be equally dangerous to assume that a young political leader is automatically incapable of governing.

Youth can bring energy, new ideas, a better understanding of younger generations and greater familiarity with certain technologies.

But senior political positions also require maturity.

Someone can be 30 and exceptionally talented, yet lack the experience needed to deal with a major crisis.

That is why a reasonable minimum age could be considered for certain positions of the highest responsibility.

What should the minimum age be?

For the highest national political offices, one could reasonably argue for a minimum age of 40, or even 45.

Why?

Because by that age, a person has generally had time to build meaningful professional experience, work in different economic and social environments, manage responsibilities and experience both success and failure.

This does not mean that a 35-year-old is incapable of governing. But when the future of millions of people is at stake, experience should count just as much as ambition.

And what about a maximum age?

This is where the debate becomes much more difficult.

Automatically setting a limit at 65, 70 or 75 could be unfair. Some people remain perfectly capable of working and making important decisions at an advanced age.

But it would also be naïve to pretend that age has absolutely no effect on physical and cognitive abilities.

The role of a head of state, prime minister or minister can be extremely demanding: long working days, international travel, negotiations, unexpected crises, rapid decision-making and constant pressure.

The question should therefore be less “How old are you?” and more “Are you still capable of performing this role effectively?”

Why not introduce an independent assessment?

Rather than automatically excluding people because of age, a possible solution would be to introduce an independent medical and cognitive assessment from a certain age, carried out according to the same rules for all candidates.

For example, from the age of 70, a candidate for a major political office could be required to demonstrate regularly that he or she has:

• the physical capacity required for the position;
• sufficient cognitive abilities;
• sound judgement;
• the ability to manage stress and crisis situations;
• the ability to make complex decisions;
• the ability to work effectively with a team and delegate.

Such an assessment should not be designed to humiliate or discriminate against older people. Its purpose should be the same as medical assessments required in certain high-responsibility professions: protecting the public interest.

The question of term limits

There is another possible solution: limiting the number of terms.

A political leader can be 50, perfectly competent, and yet have already spent 25 years in politics.

The issue is therefore not only biological age. It is also the amount of time spent within the political system.

Limiting the number of terms could encourage new ideas, reduce excessive political professionalisation and allow new generations to gradually take on greater responsibilities.

Political teams should represent several generations

Perhaps the real solution is not a maximum age, but balance within a political team.

A government could successfully combine:

40–50 years: energy, professional experience and an understanding of younger generations.

50–65 years: substantial experience, maturity and deep institutional knowledge.

65–75 years: extensive experience, historical perspective and the ability to advise, mentor and arbitrate.

This generational diversity could be much more effective than a system dominated almost entirely by one generation.

Politics should also embrace succession

In many professions, the goal of a career is not to remain at the top forever.

An experienced leader can gradually pass on knowledge, become an adviser, mentor or strategic board member, and allow a younger generation to take on more operational responsibility.

Leaving a position of power does not mean becoming useless.

On the contrary, someone with 40 years of experience can sometimes be exceptionally valuable as an adviser to a new generation of leaders.

Ultimately, what is the right balance?

Rather than imposing a rigid prohibition, we could imagine a system based on three principles:

1. A reasonable minimum age for the most important political positions, ensuring a minimum level of experience and maturity.

2. Independent assessment of capabilities from a certain age, rather than automatic exclusion based solely on date of birth.

3. Regular renewal of political leadership, including through term limits and better representation of different generations.

Because governing is not simply a question of age.

It is a question of judgement, experience, integrity, physical and mental capacity, listening, adaptability and, above all, the ability to make decisions in the interests of both present and future generations.

A society that entrusts its future to people who are too young may lack experience.

A society that entrusts its future indefinitely to the same people may, on the other hand, lack renewal.

The real challenge may therefore not be choosing between youth and age, but finding the right balance between experience and renewal.