Dear Editor,
Now that the JLP leadership race is over, everyone is analysing its significance.
In my opinion, it is a preference for youth over age, enthusiasm over wisdom, and the JLP leadership must recognise this
in its reconstruction.
All honour must be given to Ken Baugh, Pearnel Charles, Babsy Grange, Mike Henry, and Karl Samuda, but they must be advised that they will not be in the next parliamentary body and should immediately identify and prepare their replacement.
Retirement at age 65 for both men and women is sorely needed in our Parliament, which suffers from geriatric atrophy to a marked degree. Do you realise that 40 per cent of parliamentarians are over 60 years old, and 20 per cent over 70?
We should insist that any candidate for political office should be under 60, and under 65 if offering themselves for re-election. This would remove Bartlett, Baugh, Charles, Clarke, Duncan, Grange, Henry, Peart, Pickersgill, Phillips, Samuda, Shaw, Simpson-Miller, Thwaites, and maybe a couple more at the next election.
My suggestion is not made from spite, but in recognition of the inevitable deterioration in our mental and physical capacities as we age, and, most critically, our ability to learn new skills and develop new ideas — rare after 60 and extinct after 70.
By all means we should respect age
and long experience, but in advisory roles, not leadership ones. Get them to let go of the steering wheel and move to the rear seats. But please not into the Senate. This would also create the ideal setting for a serious reduction in the size of the Cabinet.
Would this give us less corrupt politicians? I very much doubt it, as I believe we are all honest until temptation smiles at us.
Our best protection is transparency through the media, an open and inquisitive Internet, proper use of the Access to Information Act, and less idolatry of the "honourables".
John Fletcher
johnofletcher@gmail.com
Now that the JLP leadership race is over, everyone is analysing its significance.
In my opinion, it is a preference for youth over age, enthusiasm over wisdom, and the JLP leadership must recognise this
in its reconstruction.
All honour must be given to Ken Baugh, Pearnel Charles, Babsy Grange, Mike Henry, and Karl Samuda, but they must be advised that they will not be in the next parliamentary body and should immediately identify and prepare their replacement.
Retirement at age 65 for both men and women is sorely needed in our Parliament, which suffers from geriatric atrophy to a marked degree. Do you realise that 40 per cent of parliamentarians are over 60 years old, and 20 per cent over 70?
We should insist that any candidate for political office should be under 60, and under 65 if offering themselves for re-election. This would remove Bartlett, Baugh, Charles, Clarke, Duncan, Grange, Henry, Peart, Pickersgill, Phillips, Samuda, Shaw, Simpson-Miller, Thwaites, and maybe a couple more at the next election.
My suggestion is not made from spite, but in recognition of the inevitable deterioration in our mental and physical capacities as we age, and, most critically, our ability to learn new skills and develop new ideas — rare after 60 and extinct after 70.
By all means we should respect age
and long experience, but in advisory roles, not leadership ones. Get them to let go of the steering wheel and move to the rear seats. But please not into the Senate. This would also create the ideal setting for a serious reduction in the size of the Cabinet.
Would this give us less corrupt politicians? I very much doubt it, as I believe we are all honest until temptation smiles at us.
Our best protection is transparency through the media, an open and inquisitive Internet, proper use of the Access to Information Act, and less idolatry of the "honourables".
John Fletcher
johnofletcher@gmail.com