Shawkat suggested that since the government, off and on, deployed the army for law enforcement and other state affairs there should be a quota for the army in the parliament and in ministerial posts. He forgot that the army is raised and sustained by the tax payer's money, as are the police, BDR, Rab, and the civil servants. Should the country then reserve quota for other retired officials in the parliament and ministerial portfolios of the government? My immediate reaction was: This man and those in his age group must retire from politics before their diminished faculties taint any future policy recommendations.

If a politician has to spend three consecutive months in Singapore (e.g. Amir Hossain Amu) for medical treatment what good will he be in law making and governance of the country? Awami League's Abdul Jalil has been suffering from multiple health-related complications, and announced retirement from politics while in confinement. Should aging politicians wait for the situation that Jalil is now confronted with before they retire?

I believe that a country should be under the leadership of young, qualified, and competent people rather than that of aging and ideologically bankrupt career politicians. Why? For five reasons:

• Most people may not be able to work as effectively as they do during their 30s to their 50s. We should not forget that life expectancy in Bangladesh is less than 60 years.
• Placing younger politicians in responsible party committees (e.g. the standing committee), would help inspire and empower future leaders.
• Having compulsory retirement will facilitate the injection of new ideas. Without age limits, however arbitrary, politicians will keep doing what they were doing without admitting that their time is over.
• Any disability or chronic ill health is an automatic case for discharge from the armed forces, no matter how good he/she is. Shouldn't such a policy be applicable for politicians, given that their schedules are no less arduous than those kept by other professionals?
• Since every public office has a mandatory retirement age of 57, why should politicians be any exception? They are just as vulnerable to age-related mental degeneration and other debilitating illnesses as any one else.

Hasina's proposed age limit of 60 years seems a reasonable, albeit arbitrary, cut-off point. But this might create a barrier for contesting of elections by retired public servants. The current retirement age of 57 for civil and military personnel, plus the Election Commission's proposed three years probationary period for political orientation before qualifying to contest in elections, makes the age of 60 years unacceptable.

However, the cut-off age for contesting in national elections could be somewhere between 60 and 65 years. According to this proposition, no political party should nominate any candidate when he/she crosses 65. With a five year term in the parliament, winning election at 65 means that the lawmaker would have to serve in the parliament until age 70 -- too old for many of the reasons listed above, but should be an acceptable compromise.

It is the law of nature that after a certain age we begin experiencing a diminution of our cognitive abilities and intellectual agility. Politicians of wisdom, experience, and good health beyond age 65 can still contribute to their party and the country through their advice and guidance.

In a June 26 piece, "Polling Young Adults on a President's Age," in New York Times Political Blogging, Megan Thee asked: "What's the optimum age for the US president?" A survey conducted by The New York Times and CBS News with MTV revealed that the answer depends on who is asked.

According to a poll of those aged 17-29, it was found that young respondents prefer a young president. They, as a group, viewed the presidency as an office best represented by someone (relatively) young. 44% of those polled preferred a president in his/her 40s, 33% responded 50s, and 14% considered 30s. Only 5% said 60s and 1% opined 70s.

The preferences also differed along party lines. Republicans differed from their peers, while young Democrats are generally aligned with all young people. For example, 48% of young Republicans opted for a president in his/her 50s, 34% in the 40s, 10% in the 60s, and 7% in the 30s.

The responses were markedly different among adults when the same question was asked nationally in March by The Times and CBS News. A majority of adults, 52%, said that the 50s was the most desirable age for a president, followed by 28% who preferred someone in the 40s age group. Among the remaining respondents, 9% chose the 60s, and just 5% said the 30s. Less than 1% opted for someone in the 70s.

A poll of 639 people conducted in Japan (November 2003) found that 71.7% responded in favour of retiring age for politicians while 28.3% were against the idea.

An optimal age for politicians is being talked about in India and nearly all other democracies of the world. However, setting an age limit for politicians would be hard to implement for the obvious reason that politicians in all nations have one common trait -- it is that they rarely vote to circumscribe their own self interest.

As we're witnessing in Bangladesh, this class of people is mostly privilege seeking, and, by extension, the most corrupt. The longer we keep them in politics the more they will indulge their appetite for wrongdoing. Unfortunately, some of the politicians and public officials indicted for criminal misconduct may not even live long enough to serve out their jail sentences, if found guilty.

Politicians don't have the probity to retire voluntary from the glamour and comfort they become accustomed to, unless circumstances compel them. All political parties, therefore, should thrash out a cut off age for contesting in national elections.

Dr Abdullah A. Dewan is Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University.