Disenfranchise the Old!

As Britain ages, our politics get worse. In the last twenty years, the number of senior citizens has increased from about fifteen per cent of the national population to over twenty per cent. If current trends continue, Britain will be nothing but a sea of white heads by 2100. We might hope that an aging nation would bring wisdom and experience to a government so obviously bereft of it. Paradoxically, however, it seems that the rise of elderly voting has ushered in an era of weird political ideas like Brexit and shipping people to Rwanda. We love our grandparents and their wacky, Facebook-fueled conspiracies — but at some point we must admit that Grampa’s politics are best not voted for.

Instead, I propose a non-negotiable cap on voting at the age of 70. There are a couple of reasons to disenfranchise the elderly. For one thing, old people don’t have the future interests that young people do. Any outcome they vote for will ultimately have less impact on their lives than for young people. We forbid resident citizens of other nations from voting in our elections, for example, because their decisions have little bearing on their long-term quality of life. I have nobly refrained from voting in Scottish council elections thus far for the same reason. And while senior citizens are nonetheless citizens, with interests in the outcomes of elections, their advanced age means their interests should be weighed less than those of young people. 

Seniors are also more likely to vote for short-term policy rather than long-term goals. Rather like third years in Student Union elections, our elders choose flashy candidates that promise rapid change over farsightedness. Contrary to claims that seniors prize stability and the status quo, it seems that old people actually care about things they’re likely to see in their own lifetimes. Such is the case with climate change and petrol prices, opposing progressive taxation, and rash foreign policy decisions like buying Greenland. Call it a political “end-of-life crisis”. 

The eighteenth century philosopher and American revolutionary Thomas Paine argued that a well-functioning democracy must represent only the present generation, doing away with both the tradition and precedent of long-dead generations, as well as older generations still living. “Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself,” he writes, “as the age and generations which preceded it.” Except for Joe Biden, we don’t let the dead vote, and neither should we allow seniors to do so. The political power of the elderly shackles those who have the greatest right to exercise political power — our generation. 

Disenfranchisement is a heavy term, and it is perhaps extreme to completely remove twenty per cent of the population from political decision-making entirely. If a vote cap at 70 seems too draconian, there are other ways to curtail our political senescence. For one, we could place a mandatory retirement on elected officials, an idea already floating around in (especially American) public discourse. Some countries, like Australia, do have mandatory retirement for federal judges and some public officials. Another, perhaps, is removing age limits to public offices and even ensuring a youth quota in parliaments. Though our octogenarian legislatures aren’t likely to pass either, the mere threat of age quotas and retirement strikes fear into the heart of the gerontocracy. 

Britain and most of the western world is aging, ushering in a new era of senescent government. The average age of politicians has increased in Europe and America over the last few decades, but instead of wisdom and stability, our white-haired representatives bring strange and short-sighted policy goals. The time has come to take action and strike back against the pale hand of gerontocracy. Democracy should serve those that have the most at stake in its outcomes, not those that croak two years after voting for Brexit.

Image from Wikimedia Commons