22
votes
The average age of major world leaders is 72. Why?
Just had a thought that the 3 countries considered the biggest powers have leaders who are all 70+. So I looked into it and found that the average age of the leaders of the 10 most populous countries (and EU) is 72.
Has the age of major countries' leaders ever been higher?
Has it always been like this?
I understand it irt. authoritarian countries. Democracies trend way lower.
Ages of leaders for reference
India, Modi - 74
China, Xi - 71
USA, Trump - 78
Indonesia, Subianto - 73
Pakistan, Zardari - 69
Nigeria, Tinubu - 73
Brazil, Silva - 79
Bangladesh, Shahabuddin - 75
Russia, Putin - 72
Mexico, Sheinbaum - 62
Leyen, EU - 66
Obvious answers:
It takes time to climb the ladder, and all the harder if someone has already pulled up the ladder after themselves.
I have a baseless conjecture that if we look at countries where the cost of living + income inequality detached from wages, we'll to see age of politicians sharply rise from that decade on, for democracies. Younger folks too busy surviving to go into politics.
Let me see.. wikipedia's list of countries by wealth inequality, top 10, and age of head of state. [Edit: see table]
let's use the World Bank Gini coefficient. And let's throw US and Canada and China in for fun. And then the bottom 10 (with ratings) as well (eg, most equal, as Gini is 0-100). If you want your country listed, please let me know in a reply (preferably if you look up ranking and age for me as well lol)
|
Note: I started with noting the forms of government too, but it's too complicated for a small table. And then I switched to title of head of state, but Belize has King Charles III and China's Xi being a "president" doesn't mean much, so I scrapped it. Mozambique's president Chapo just assumed office in 2025, the previous guy was only 66. Still on the Young side. Thoughts on China and Belarus redacted; Ukraine hasn't had a recent election because they're busy being invaded. Also, the age of Canada's
head of stategovernment leader might change in two weeks: the main challenger is only 45, and as recently as December polls, he was expected to form government with a 99% likelihood, so we'll see.Off Topic Aside: The Netherlands.
King Willem-Alexander seems pretty young, anyone want to chime in with how he's doing ? That his daughter's title is Prince of Orange sounds amazing to me. Also, I forgot and looked it up, I think the current king's Auntie Margriet was the one born in a hospital with a temporarily extraterritorial ward so technically she wouldn't be born in Canada :) I want to visit the Netherlands again soon....It’s interesting because this seemingly holds regardless of a demography skewing more toward older populations, and/or doesn’t correlate at all. So one could assume it’s not a phenomenon related to post-industrialization society and politics…, which given stories like leading tribe elders (or at least older members), seems to track. Your four points could all be applied at a much smaller scale and to much older societies, with the only difference perhaps being the average maximum age being lower than it is with today’s medicine and understanding.
Does this point to democracies, despite their flaws, being at least somewhat merit-based, and older politicians generally just don’t perform as well, whether that be in perceived or actual competency/productivity or relatability/likability?
In seriousness, even a moderately-functioning democracy is absolutely merit-based. At the very least much more so than every other extant form of government. Being able to vote your leaders out of power if they're doing a bad job is the most incredible thing in the world, and we shouldn't take it for granted.
Oh absolutely. Looking back, I should’ve worded it better to include the tongue-in-cheekness I meant to convey. :P
2 & 3 I'm with you all the way, but the first one: yes, but 50 and 60 should be just fine for that too. Even 40 in most cases in my opinion. At that point you have already been in politics for 20 years. And fourth point.. probably, yeah, but it ought not be that way I guess.
In my imagination older people have simply been through more. They’ve witnessed more decades of world events. They’re less susceptible to passing fads or youthful indiscretions. They have the wisdom of experience. They can be a bulwark of stability in chaotic times.
Of course the past decade has revealed the utter silliness of that notion. Older people are just as prone to reckless or bad-faith decisions as young ones. Plus the compounding factors of inflexibility from being set on one’s ways, cognitive decline, nostalgia goggles, and simply being out-of-touch or tech illiterate.
For all its many flaws, the Apple TV adaptation of Foundation has a model for leadership that is an interesting synthesis of these two ideas. For any who didn't watch, the emporers, clones, exist as a three generational triumvirate. A forty-something main guy, a retirement age guy, and a kid. Each grows into the other, and when the old one dies, they bring on the new one.
It resolves you dilemma: there is the wisdom of age at the seat of power, the energetic action of the "prime of life," and the future generation to remind them of direction and what's important.
Of course the clone succession thing is problematic, but having this kind of multigenerational power sharing seems like a useful approach. Your president is maybe 60 or so, the heads of cabinets 50 or so, the senate is all older folks, the house all younger folks.
The middle one is in charge and has the final say though right? Maybe it's not fresh enough in my memory.
Bearing in mind this is mostly my speculation based on my observations, not confirmed truths.
For systems like the USAs with primaries and elections based around individuals, I think there is one major cause: Broadcasting
There are three gigantic factors for a given politician to win an election, even beyond policy:
The first two go hand in hand, which is part of why it is somewhat rare for a primary election contender to overthrow a party incumbent. Especially in competitive districts.
Glance through the President's list, and you'll see that with the rise of radio, the Vice President -> President pipeline got stronger, and with TV on-screen presence mattered even more.
Thinking about just ones I've witnessed:
Biden was anointed over all other candidates in 2020 purely because he was Obama's VP, and had the name recognition on top of "not Trump." How many people whom don't follow politics had any idea whom Pete Buttigieg was?
Kamala was an attempt to repeat, but TBH the absolute shitshow Biden was saddled with meant his presidency was somewhat doomed due to completely disenfranchised populace.
Well I can point out the obvious factor here: people live longer so the ages skew more. Having the average person 200 years ago live to 70 was already an accomplishment. That's why 65 was set as a retirement age. Many wouldn't love that long and most others would get at best, 8-10 years of support. Not 25+ years.
But society hasn't adapted to that reality. That we weren't built to support the retired for multiple decades. That by that point mental cognition is a serious and common factor instead of fear mongering. Yet. And as we see I the EU trying to change that is very tricky, because the is current structure has a lot of old peope living longer + not enough young people being born to outnumber them (let alone out match their turnout).
So yea. There are probably a lot of hard questions to answer in our lifetime. People in their 20's and 30's now probably won't get what their grandparents got in their 70's