Dear Editor,
There has been considerable comment recently on reshuffling Cabinet members and removing parliamentarians, both here and in Britain — where the cry is "too male, pale and stale".
Here the cry should be "too old, old, old" as 40 per cent of our parliamentarians are over 65 and are responsible for much of the inertia of the House and Senate.
The truth is that we reach our mental peak by age 50, cruise on to 60, and then decline steadily and spend more and more of that time hiding our decline from the juniors on whom we depend.
After 70 we have no new knowledge or ideas and little energy to contribute. Look at who sit in our present parliament who act creatively. Whether you agree or disagree with them, it is Julian Robinson, Lisa Hanna, Philip Paulwell, Andrew Holness, and Valerie Neita-Headley.
My hope is that all members 70 years old or older will retire before the next national election. I would like to see parliament make it mandatory. But that will never happen.
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 a less corrupt Parliament? I very much doubt it, as I believe we are all honest, until temptation smiles at us -- and our politicians have to face temptation every day.
Our best protection is in 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
Polticians must know when their time has come
-->
There has been considerable comment recently on reshuffling Cabinet members and removing parliamentarians, both here and in Britain — where the cry is "too male, pale and stale".
Here the cry should be "too old, old, old" as 40 per cent of our parliamentarians are over 65 and are responsible for much of the inertia of the House and Senate.
The truth is that we reach our mental peak by age 50, cruise on to 60, and then decline steadily and spend more and more of that time hiding our decline from the juniors on whom we depend.
After 70 we have no new knowledge or ideas and little energy to contribute. Look at who sit in our present parliament who act creatively. Whether you agree or disagree with them, it is Julian Robinson, Lisa Hanna, Philip Paulwell, Andrew Holness, and Valerie Neita-Headley.
My hope is that all members 70 years old or older will retire before the next national election. I would like to see parliament make it mandatory. But that will never happen.
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 a less corrupt Parliament? I very much doubt it, as I believe we are all honest, until temptation smiles at us -- and our politicians have to face temptation every day.
Our best protection is in 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
Polticians must know when their time has come
-->