Why no retirement age for Netas? - Page 2

Politics needs experience. When Rajiv Gandhi became PM he was some 40+ and he was considered young. Also, we don't have enough youngster to fill-in the place. Today every1 talks to Rahul Gandhi but he too has entered his 40s. Ultimately, by the time a person in politics gets to the position where he can do something he is in his 40s (dat too are very less chances). Most of the politicians bright future starts after 45 and around 50.

As som1 above said if politician is good, doing atleast something then he can go on forever. Eg. MMS and Vajpayee. Though the latter has retired but if he comes back again if his health permits then I would not mind. But certainly, some politicians who can't even speak properly in parliament or in public speeches who voluntarily retire for Eg. Mulayam Singh.

Originally posted by: *Devanshi*

As som1 above said if politician is good, doing atleast something then he can go on forever. Eg. MMS and Vajpayee. Though the latter has retired but if he comes back again if his health permits then I would not mind.

By that token good govt employees should also be retained past there retirement age. No one should be deemed as indispensable. An elected politician has responsibility towards a large number of people, and towards entire country if s/he happens to be the PM. S/he must be physically and mentally fit in order to perform his/her duties.

Absolutely, there should be age limit.

After a certain age most of the people gradually loose their ability to work properly. It's biological truth and it applies for our netas too.

Well.. If experience matters then why can't the parties keep the aged netas as "consultant"? When you are doing a Government job, you should retire at certain age and give the younger batch a chance