Asklemmy

44615 readers

1397 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What if we, as Gen Z, implement a new rule limiting the maximum age a president can be when we step into leadership? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 week ago by Nyxphoebe@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An older leader often has fewer long term stakes in the decisions they make, if they were to destabilize the economy or lead the country into conflict, they may not experience the full consequences of their actions, as their personal future is less affected compared to younger generations. Leadership at that level requires making decisions that will shape the long term future of a nation, and it’s crucial that those in power have a vested interest in that future. Additionally, presidents and politicians are public servants, and like any profession, there should be an age limit or retirement age to ensure the vitality, adaptability, and long term accountability necessary for effective leadership. At what age do you think they need to retire?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] introvertcatto@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

In my opinion best age for president and parliament members would be cca. 30-60 years old. People older than 60-65 and younger than 30 can still be active in politics and do some paperworks etc, but can't be on actual important positions like president or parliament.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

I know more 4 year olds that have better communication skills than some politicians. Plus, you can reward them with some ice cream every time they tell the truth.

Jokes aside, as long as a person is a legal adult and they can prove they are capable enough to hold a serious position, sure! Let them do it. Realistically, you are likely correct: The minimum age for my requirements is also likely in the 30s.

[–] overload@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 week ago

I think 40 - 60 makes more sense. 30 would be the age that someone would be too early in their career to rule a country. If that person has risen to a position that they would be considered for president by 30, the chance of them getting to that position without significant nepotism is too low.