Of politics and retirement

SOME political commentators are of the considered view that the inability of the major opposition to produce the fire and brimstone to effectively dislodge the government lay in the near geriatric composition of their top leadership. Such a view, though unpalatable, cannot perhaps be summarily brushed aside because our ground reality shows that at different tiers of the political leadership succession becomes possible only after death or disability. In fact, in our politics, nobody retires voluntarily.

Dwelling on the apparently disconcerting subject of retiring from politics or public life one may recall the now-famous saying of a highly decorated general of the United States armed forces to the effect that “Old soldiers do not die, they just fade away.” It is also learnt from authoritative sources that the judges of the Supreme Court of USA are never considered retired and that they cease to hold office only when they themselves find it difficult physically or mentally to faithfully discharge their assigned responsibilities.

It is perhaps time to appreciate the rationale and ramifications of the probable retirement of some high profile politicians. The subject assumes added significance because in our country politicians usually do not fade away till their last breath and that retirement is still an unknown idea to the worldly-wise practitioners of the art of politics. It is interesting to note that in the not-too-distant past there was serious thinking of consigning political leaders over the age of sixty to advisory positions.

Undoubtedly, the scenario is politically quite significant. The question that should bother any right-thinking person is whether politics should be treated like any other occupation or vocation. There is no disputing that being in politics one delivers public service of a high and very different order. Therefore, why should the thought of retirement concern people who are to preside over the destinies of millions of men and women?

One may question as to why the idea of retirement should have any relevance to the practitioners of politics. They are of the view that appointment, suspension and retirement are processes in government service, where appointees carry out the wishes of the political government. Such appointees come through a constitutionally laid down process of selection and are guided by multiple rules and regulations. They do not act on free will and have to retire at age fifty nine, if not sent home earlier on account of incapacity, to enjoy the pleasure of the appointing authority.

Coming to specifics, one may wonder whether there is a prescribed minimum qualification for those who seek election to parliament. The qualifications of citizenship and age are related to an accident of birth and the result of the inexorable passage of time. Therefore, is it time to advocate some positive qualifications for aspirants to a parliamentary stint?

In our situation one cannot but be struck by the grim irony that the one job for which you need no training or qualification whatsoever is the job of legislating for, and governing, a large democracy. It is, indeed, strange that to steer the lives and destinies of nearly 160 million people one is not required to have any education or training at all.

Discerning observers are of the considered view that it is manifestly anomalous that we should insist upon high qualifications for those who administer or help in administering the law, but none for those who make it, except that they be elected.

There is no denying that a law-giver requires intellectual equipment but also, even more than that, the capacity to take a balanced view of things, to act independently and, above all, to be true to the fundamental values in life.

A relevant question is whether we are electing 300 predominantly development executives in the name of parliamentary election? The concern is, why do a large number of politicians want to have a finger in every pie, whether local or national?

It is time for our society to ensure that the political scene is not dominated by people whose real sources of income cannot be ascertained. For most people, politics must not turn into a fulltime occupation, and prominence in public life should be accorded only after some positive record of public service.

Let us remind ourselves that running the affairs of the State is a solemn and grim business, where we need individuals of true grit. It was indeed pathetic to see occupiers of very high political office enjoying hugely the perks and privileges of power without feeling the burden of responsibilities. Their conspicuous consumption was a rude shock for many. The single-minded pursuit of money by the ruling class has impoverished the mind of the nation and has also desiccated its heart. This process needs to be reversed by well-meaning sustainable interventions.

The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.