The Spectator recently highlighted a phenomenon many have observed with growing unease: America remains firmly in the grip of gerontocracy. Elderly leaders, some well into their eighties, continue to dominate the highest offices, clinging to power long after their physical and mental prime. Joe Biden's tenure, marked by visible decline, was only the most glaring example. The pattern extends far beyond Washington. Around the world, from aging autocrats to entrenched democratic fixtures, power remains concentrated in the hands of the old, often with diminishing returns for the societies they govern. It would be comforting to believe that advanced age brings wisdom and steady judgment. Experience should count for something. Yet reality repeatedly demonstrates a harsher truth: there is no fool like an old fool!
The case for gerontocracy is superficially appealing. Older leaders possess institutional memory, historical perspective, and the scars of past crises. In theory, they temper youthful impulsiveness with caution and long-view thinking. In practice, many become captive to past successes, resistant to adaptation, and increasingly isolated from the realities facing younger generations. Physical frailty, cognitive slippage, and the sheer entrenchment of power create brittleness. Decisions that affect entire nations are made by men and women whose primary concern may be legacy preservation or avoiding the discomfort of stepping aside. The result is policy stagnation, poor succession planning, and a growing disconnect between rulers and the ruled.
America's situation is emblematic but hardly unique. Biden's evident struggles were defended by an establishment unwilling to acknowledge what was plain to many citizens. Similar patterns appear elsewhere. In Europe, long-serving figures have dominated for decades, sometimes well past their effective shelf life. Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping have consolidated power into de facto lifelong rule, surrounding themselves with loyalists while sidelining fresher voices. Even in younger democracies, the trend persists through re-elections and weak term limits. The concentration of experience at the top often masks a deeper failure: the inability or unwillingness to nurture competent successors.
The problem deepens when age brings not wisdom but calcification. Old fools are particularly dangerous because their errors carry the weight of authority and the illusion of gravitas. They may double down on failed policies, ignore demographic and technological realities, or prioritise personal comfort over national renewal. Youthful folly can be corrected; entrenched folly, backed by institutional power, compounds over years. This is not ageism but observed reality. Plenty of sharp-minded elders contribute enormously in advisory or specialist roles. The issue arises when chronological age becomes a de facto qualification for supreme executive power without rigorous mechanisms to ensure ongoing fitness.
Gerontocracy also distorts incentives down the chain. Ambitious younger talent either emigrates, disengages, or learns to flatter rather than challenge. Innovation slows, risk-taking diminishes, and societies drift. Japan's long struggle with stagnation and demographic decline offers one cautionary model; several European nations facing similar headwinds show another. When the old guard refuses to make way, the pipeline of fresh leadership atrophies. The occasional vigorous octogenarian does not disprove the pattern, it merely highlights how exceptional competence must overcome the general trend.
None of this is to romanticise the young. Youth brings its own impulsiveness, ideological capture, and inexperience. The ideal is balance: respect for accumulated knowledge paired with regular renewal and accountability. Term limits, rigorous fitness standards for high office, and cultural norms that value stepping aside gracefully would help. So would electoral systems that reward competence over name recognition or donor networks. Without such guardrails, gerontocracy risks becoming self-perpetuating, with each generation of elders more determined to hold the reins.
The Spectator's observation about America applies broadly. Political rule by the elderly is not inherently disastrous, but when it combines with declining faculties and institutional capture, it accelerates decline. Wisdom does not arrive automatically with grey hair. History is littered with examples of leaders who overstayed their usefulness, convinced of their own indispensability while their nations paid the price. The challenge for modern societies is to harness the best of experience without becoming captive to its worst excesses. Until then, the spectacle of aging leaders clinging to power will remain less a sign of stability than a warning of stagnation.
And young fools? The blog has said plenty about them too!
https://spectator.com/article/america-is-still-gripped-by-the-gerontocracy/