Should There Be A Retirement Age For Politicians?
Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda
All Public Service appointees have a retirement age (50, 55 or 60) years – Politicians do not. This is anomalous and leads to several negative consequences. With the recent doubling of the numbers elected to Local Bodies from 4,000 to 8,000, along with 225 in the Parliament and heavy increases in emoluments and perks, together constitute a massive drain on the national exchequer. It also has other implications.
Why is there a retirement age?
The biological reason is clear. With advancing age, a person’s capacity, efficiency and cognitive ability declines – the “best before” date is a valid reality. Since a politician has more impact than that of a Clerk, it is reasonable to expect the former to have a lower retirement age than a clerk, driver or peon. The assumption that experience offsets the decline with age is demonstrably false. What is true for the Politician must also be so for the clerk or driver.
A retirement benefit represents gratitude for services rendered and provision for sustenance at an appropriate level. The present vast differences between retirement benefits for politicians against others, is reason for widespread envy and anger. Politicians qualify for lifelong pensions after just five years of service (equal to a single term), while the corresponding requirement for others is some thirty or twenty (?) years. One must remember that stringent qualifications for entry into public service contrast with none for those entering politics at any level. This is plainly iniquitous.
Tenacity
It is seen that from the date of entry, the great objective in the politician’s mind is to retain this most rewarded and the least demanding, of vocations. Obviously, (with few exceptions), it is natural that the urge to retain position is the paramount instinct. As a friend once remarked, our “Nation can be compared to a milch cow. Each politician gets hold of a teat and sucks vigorously. There is nobody to feed and bathe the cow”. Such an animal steadily declines and suffers a painful death!
Much is said about the much delayed elections to Provincial councils. This is touted as a serious denial of the People’s Franchise. To me, it illustrates that the country seems to fare as well without them, as it does with them. Almost every News Bulletin on TV shows neglected roads, ill-maintained irrigation channels, lack of water and toilet facilities, dilapidated bridges, ill-equipped schools and hospitals, garbage heaps, illicit tree-fellings, sand mining and many such other factors that were the very significant issues that were cited as the justification for the creation of these local level political bodies. Apart from increasing the parasitic load, what have these grand symbols of devolution, decentralization and subsidiarity done for us?
Choice as Democracy
