Should Political Leaders have an age limit?

As life expectancy increases and political tenures extend, questions arise about the effectiveness and fairness of older individuals holding powerful leadership roles. Advocates for age limits argue that mental acuity, adaptability, and physical stamina often decline with age, potentially impairing decision-making in high-stakes situations. They also suggest that age caps could open doors for fresh perspectives, technological fluency, and more diverse representation that better reflects constituents' demographics. Opponents counter that wisdom, experience, and institutional knowledge are invaluable traits that often develop with age, providing crucial context for complex policy decisions. They argue that chronological age alone doesn't determine capability, pointing to effective older leaders worldwide, and contend that voters—not arbitrary bureaucratic rules—should retain the democratic right to decide who leads them. The debate raises fundamental questions about meritocracy versus ageism, democratic choice versus protective governance standards, and whether political office should mirror age restrictions found in other professions. Should there be a maximum age for holding office, or is that discriminatory overreach that undermines voter sovereignty?