Since the days the retirement age has been reduced there is always this question constantly bothering me and I guess that someone can answer me here in this forum.
Why isn’t there an age restriction for contesting the elections? Come on… we have a retirement age even for a clerk working in the state/central government. I am guessing that people are forced to retire at a certain age mainly for two reasons.
They “may” not be able work as effectively as they did during their 30’s/40’s.
Second and most importantly, I think retiring old people will enable the younger generation to get into the work pool.
If there are any other reasons, please let me know.
So when all government employees (right from a clerk to the topmost admin) have a retirement age, why isn’t there one for people contesting the elections. I got the list of current Lok Sabha MPs and there are more than 150 people who are 60+. That’s more than 25% of the House.
Some argue that experience comes of age. If that is true, why is there a retirement age in the first place for other jobs? A clerk would get more and more experienced as he/she crosses 60, 70, 80 and so on.
I think technically, the MPs are not employees of the Government and hence retirement age may not be applicable. If that is the case, the rule should be imposed at least to the Council of Ministers as they definitely are employees of the Government. But this may lead to some being puppets of other members. So better not to allow people who have crossed the age limit to contest the elections.
Also, most politicians will argue that they are here to "serve the people" and that the age should not be a deterrent. They are most welcome to "serve the people" by being an active member of their party, but cannot contest elections/hold any ministerial posts.
Maybe I am completely wrong and there is a logical/sensible explanation to this. If there is something, I would definitely like to know about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment