Kristen Gyles | Age limits for parliamentarians

Mid-discussion, during a recent Standing Finance Committee meeting, Dr Alfred Dawes looked across the aisle and mockingly asked Desmond McKenzie “Why are you still here at your age?”. He went on further to tell McKenzie that he should go home and play with his grandchildren.

I won’t harp on this because Dr Dawes did issue a public apology, saying his comments were out of character. Obviously, he was out of line. However, his comments have revived an age-old question. Do we need age limits for parliamentarians?

The barriers for entry into political representation are next to none-existent. A little charisma, some personal appeal and plenty of connections is all you really need. There are no academic or professional requirements for entry. Yet, once you’re in, congrats! You’ve arrived at one of the highest paying roles across the country. And you can stay until the day you die, because there are no term limits and there are no age limits. Just make sure to use that darling charm of yours to stay in the good graces of the party leader and they will find a way to keep you around.

All of this highlights that the general parameters within which parliamentarians operate, are vague and under-defined. The parameters which govern the conduct of parliamentarians are certainly much less defined than those that govern the very civil service carrying out the directives of government. The absence of age limits is only one example of this.

There is this thing called ‘retirement’ that typically applies to employed people in Jamaica. Why does it exist? For one, there is a need to support consistent performance standards, and age is a practical indicator of increasing health risks, especially in demanding roles. Further, age limits allow for predictable workforce planning and help employers (including government) avoid stagnation in senior positions. Regular turnover also facilitates the entry of new skills and perspectives into the workforce, especially in a rapidly evolving world.

RATIONALE

If this type of rationale can be applied to the civil service, why should it not be applied to parliamentarians, who are also paid from the public purse? At its heart, an age limit is indeed a form of age discrimination. It excludes individuals not because they are incapable, but because they have reached an arbitrary number. Age does not always determine competence or judgement. However, if it is discrimination for parliamentarians, it is discrimination for employees everywhere else.

Retirement creeps up on so many people who wish they could work for even a few more years – not because they adore their jobs and can’t get enough of their coworkers, but because they know they are not financially ready to retire from working. Regardless, in many cases, they are given no choice but to go home. The rules are the rules, I guess.

On the other hand, parliamentarians, which are undisputedly amongst the highest paid in the country, are free to push a stroller into Gordon House for years before withdrawing from the political space. This is not about targeting senior politicians, but at some point, we need to call a spade a spade. The double standard is glaring.

Equally important is the issue of demographic balance. Roughly 20 percent of our sitting parliament has surpassed the normal retirement age of 65. Generally speaking, many of our parliamentarians are significantly older than the populations they represent and this creates a gap between decision-making and the lived realities of younger generations, particularly on issues like employment, technology, education and climate policy. A legislature that better reflects the age distribution of its citizens is more likely to produce policies that are forward-looking and inclusive. Yes, with age should come wisdom. But if we were to resurrect Albert Einstein and introduce him to the 2026 world of 3D printing, gene editing and artificial intelligence, even his wisdom would have limited relevance.

ARTIFICIAL LIMITS

Some will say imposing these artificial limits on political representation is not in keeping with the principles of democracy. After-all, we can always vote out candidates we think are too old to perform well in parliament. But let us be real with ourselves, on election day, voters are presented with two options. In the unlikely case, three or four. In many instances, both or all options presented to voters may be sub-optimal. So, this illusion of choice that Jamaican voters supposedly have is nothing but a dream in the minds of the hopeful.

Furthermore, we impose other ‘artificial’ limits on parliamentary candidacy. For example, one cannot run for a seat in parliament before the age of 21. By the same logic, we should scrap such a restriction and let the voters choose whoever they want.

The point here is that parliament shouldn’t be free-for-all and it almost is. To truly build trust in our parliament, we need robust guardrails to ensure political representatives remain productive, competent and honest. The approval of job descriptions for parliamentarians by the lower house last year was a step towards meaningful change but for some reason, those job descriptions seem to have stalled on the legislative journey. Next under consideration should be term limits and age limits.

Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Send feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com