logo
Just when the world desperately needs wise elders, its fate is in the hands of old and ruthless patriarchs

Just when the world desperately needs wise elders, its fate is in the hands of old and ruthless patriarchs

The Guardian4 hours ago

Let's attempt something delicate: talking about age without slipping into ageism. Never before in modern history have those with the fate of the world in their hands been so old. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are both 72. Narendra Modi is 74, Benjamin Netanyahu 75, Donald Trump 79, and Ali Khamenei is 86.
Thanks to advances in medical science, people are able to lead longer, more active lives – but we are now also witnessing a frightening number of political leaders tightening their grip on power as they get older, often at the expense of their younger colleagues.
This week, at their annual summit, the leaders of Nato – including Emmanuel Macron and Mette Frederiksen (both 47), Giorgia Meloni (48) and Pedro Sánchez (53) – were forced to swallow Trump's demand for increased military spending. The average age of Nato heads of state is 60. Germany's Friedrich Merz is 69, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is 71.
All bowed to a new 5% defence spending target – an arbitrary figure, imposed without serious military reasoning or rational debate, let alone serious democratic debate at home. It was less policy, more deference to the whims of a grumpy patriarch. Nato's secretary general, Mark Rutte – himself just 58 – went so far as to call Trump 'Daddy'. That's not diplomacy. That's submission.
This generational clash plays out in other arenas. Ukraine's 47-year-old president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is resisting the imperial ambitions of septuagenarian Putin. Septuagenarian Xi eyes a Taiwan led by a president seven years his junior. Netanyahu, three-quarters of a century old, is overseeing devastation in Gaza, where almost half the population is under 18. In Iran an 86 year old rules over a population with an average age of 32. Cameroon's Paul Biya, 92, has been in power since 1982 in a country where the median age is 18 and life expectancy just 62.
There is no gerontocratic conspiracy at work here – no senior citizens' club bent on global domination. But there is something disturbing about a world being dismantled by the very people whose lives were defined by its postwar architecture. Khamenei was six when the second world war ended.
Trump was born in 1946, the year the United Nations held its first general assembly. Netanyahu was born a year after Israel was founded. Modi was born in 1950, as India became a republic. Putin entered the world in October 1952, months before Stalin died. Xi in June 1953, just after. And Erdoğan was born in 1954, two years after Turkey joined Nato. These men are the children of the postwar world – and as they near the end of their lives, they seem determined to tear it down. It almost looks like revenge. Dylan Thomas urged us to 'Rage, rage against the dying of the light'. Rarely has the line felt so literal.
Yes, the rules-based international order was always messier in practice than on paper. But at least the ideal existed. There was a shared moral framework – shaky, yes, but sincere – built on the conviction that humanity must never repeat the atrocities of the first half of the 20th century and that dialogue and diplomacy were better. That conviction has now evaporated, not least in the minds of those who should cherish it most.
This is an unprecedented moment. The architects of the previous global disorder – Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao – were all in their 30s or 40s when they rose to power. A new generation built a new world, and lived with its consequences. Today, that new world is being unmade by an old generation – one that will not live to see the wreckage it leaves behind. It's easier to shout 'drill, baby, drill' when you're statistically unlikely to experience the worst of climate collapse. Après nous le déluge, as the French say.
You might think that a generation so fortunate to benefit from longevity would leave behind a legacy of care, gratitude and global stewardship. Instead, we are witnessing the worst resurgence of repression, violence, genocide, ecocide and contempt for international law in decades – waged, more often than not, by ruthless septuagenarians and octogenarians who appear more interested in escaping prosecution than preserving peace.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
After leaving office, Nelson Mandela founded the Elders, a network of former world leaders working to promote peace, justice and human rights. Inspired by African traditions of consensus and elder wisdom, the Elders are an example of how age can bring clarity, compassion and conscience – not just clout.
The problem isn't old age. It's how some have chosen to wield it. The world doesn't need more ageing strongmen clinging to power. It needs elders who are willing to let go – and guide. The kind who think about legacy not as personal glory, but as the world they leave behind. In this age of age, what we need is not domination, but wisdom. And that, in the end, is what separates a ruler from a leader.
David Van Reybrouck is philosopher laureate for the Netherlands and Flanders. His books include Revolusi: Indonesia and the Birth of the Modern World and Congo: The Epic History of a People
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘We are privileged': liberal Afrikaners reject Trump's ‘white genocide' claims
‘We are privileged': liberal Afrikaners reject Trump's ‘white genocide' claims

The Guardian

time22 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

‘We are privileged': liberal Afrikaners reject Trump's ‘white genocide' claims

For some white Afrikaner South Africans, Donald Trump's offer of refugee status in the US has been seen as a godsend. For others, it has provoked anger and frustration that they are being falsely portrayed as victims of a 'white genocide', 31 years after their community's own oppressive minority rule ended. In February, Trump signed an executive order claiming Afrikaners, who make up about 4% of South Africa's population, or about 2.5 million people, were victims of 'unjust racial discrimination'. The order cut aid to the country and established a refugee programme for white South Africans. The first group arrived in May. Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch colonisers and French Huguenot refugees who came to South Africa in the late 17th century, implemented apartheid from 1948. The regime violently repressed the black majority, while keeping white people safe and wealthy. South Africa remains deeply unequal. White South Africans typically have 20 times the wealth of Black people, according to an article in the Review of Political Economy. The spectacle of white people being flown to the US while Trump blocked refugees from war zones bemused and angered South Africans of all races. For some liberal Afrikaners, it felt personal. 'In terms of being singled out, for progressives it's extremely painful,' said Lindie Koorts, a history lecturer at the University of Pretoria. Koorts mentioned the phrase 'ons is nie almal so nie' ('we are not all like that'). She said the phrase is used by progressives to reach out across South Africa's divides without disavowing their Afrikaner or South African identities – despite it having become a cliche that conservative Afrikaners use to mock them. The rightwing Solidarity Movement, which includes a trade union and the campaigning group AfriForum, has lobbied Trump since his first presidential term for support in helping Afrikaners stay in South Africa, to preserve what Solidarity Movement says is a culture under threat. The group argues, for instance, that a recently implemented education law will limit Afrikaans schooling, something the ruling African National Congress disputes. There is not comprehensive polling data on Afrikaners' political views. However, the Freedom Front Plus party, which is seen as representing conservative Afrikaners, received about 456,000 votes in the 2024 national elections. Emile Myburgh, a lawyer who grew up during apartheid believing that Afrikaners were God's chosen people, said: 'I remember when I was a child often hearing Afrikaners say that: 'The one who rules the tip of Africa rules the world.' So we'd feel very special.' Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion As an atheist, Myburgh, 52, said he now felt excluded from the deeply religious community he grew up in. However, he disputed the claim that his culture was under threat, noting that he regularly attended Afrikaans book launches. 'In the circles that I move in, we do celebrate Afrikaans culture,' he said. Zahria van Niekerk, a 22-year-old fashion student, who was raised bilingually to help her get into university, disagreed that the Afrikaans language, of whom the majority of speakers are now non-white, was threatened. 'My whole family speaks Afrikaans … As long as I can speak it with my family, I'm not really concerned.' In May, Trump ambushed South Africa's president, Cyril Ramaphosa, in the Oval Office with claims that white farmers were being murdered for their race. However, Emil van Maltitz, an economics graduate and farmer's son, disagreed. The 21-year-old, who speaks Sesotho, Afrikaans and English, said: 'Most farmers are white Afrikaners, so it can easily be interpreted as racial targeting. I just think, personally, people are very vulnerable in those areas and they don't have a lot of help from the police.' In the last quarter of 2024, South African police recorded 12 murders on farms, including Black-owned smallholder plots, out of almost 7,000 murders across the country. Van Maltitz recalled young black farmers coming to his father to seek agricultural advice, saying it showed the value of South Africans working together. 'I love diversity, I love being around different people,' he said. Schalk van Heerden is a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church, the largest Afrikaans church. He joked that he was a 'missionary' within the DRC, which supported the apartheid regime. Van Heerden co-founded Betereinders in 2017 to bring about 50 to 100 Afrikaners to monthly brais (barbecues) with up to 200 black people in townships, where most black South Africans still live. Betereinders means 'better-enders' and is a pun on 'bittereinders' ('bitter-enders'), Afrikaners who refused to surrender to the British when their side lost the Boer war. When Trump introduced the refugee scheme for Afrikaners, Beterenders put up 10 billboards around Johannesburg and Pretoria saying, 'Not USA. You, SA.' Van Heerden said: 'We want to be proud about who we are … [But] we are not the big victims in this story. We are privileged, we are very grateful and we are thankful for everything we have.'

Starmer must find it in himself to be a true leader
Starmer must find it in himself to be a true leader

Times

time23 minutes ago

  • Times

Starmer must find it in himself to be a true leader

Prime ministerial authority can end with a spectacular tyre-shredding blowout, à la Liz Truss, or more usually a slow puncture. The latter begins with a series of stumbles, which early on are judged forgivable, but as time passes become less so. Once a prime minister is designated 'accident prone' recovery, in the eyes of the electorate, and his or her party, becomes steadily less likely. Irritation evolves into disillusionment, and disillusionment into contempt. From then on, defeat at the ballot box, or a pre-emptive strike from the men in grey suits, is a matter of time. Sir Keir Starmer has not careered off the motorway trailing smoking rubber, like Ms Truss. But his every appearance is now accompanied by an ominous hiss. Labour's inaugural year was never going to be easy, given the legacy of the Conservative era, but the first anniversary of its general election win this coming Friday will be unusually downbeat. Following a series of unforced errors, typified by this week's humiliating climbdown on welfare reform in the face of a mass uprising by Labour MPs, this government is already looking distinctly ragged. And responsibility for its sorry state must ultimately lie with the prime minister. By his failure to plan for power, by his lapses of judgment, by his lack of grip, Sir Keir has created this mess. • A year on, is the Starmer project doomed or can he claw it back? The Labour leader was never going to be loved for his charisma. His selling point was lawyerly sobriety, his prosecutor's punctiliousness. Yet successive fiascos tell a different tale. Depriving pensioners of winter fuel payments, raising employers' national insurance, ditching the Rwanda scheme while not replacing it with a small boats deterrent, understating the harm of grooming gangs: these were the results of Sir Keir's failure to devise detailed plans for the economy and migration in opposition, to devise a coherent narrative explaining difficult choices, and to practise basic politics in spotting approaching danger. Labour rebels, scenting blood, are looking for a scalp in Downing Street. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is the ideal prize for unreconstructed statists; or perhaps Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir's chief of staff, whose brutal but effective silencing of Labour's left before the election inevitably made him enemies. The case against Ms Reeves, to whom Sir Keir appears to have ceded total control over economic policy, is more plausible than that against Mr McSweeney. Her national insurance hike dealt a huge blow to growth, while her winter fuel and working-age health benefits cuts appeared more the result of panic than part of a detailed strategy for reining in a bloated state. • Meet Brian Leishman, the leftwinger holding Keir Starmer's feet to the fire Yet, the chief culprit for Labour's malaise must be Sir Keir. Great prime ministers ultimately delegate to no one in central areas of policy like welfare reform, which must continue if the public finances are to be rescued. Equally, a leader who ignores ­his backbenchers, especially after a landslide has produced hordes of naive and ambitious new ones, is asking for trouble. In an interview marking his first year, Sir Keir admitted to presentational ­errors. But the problem runs deeper. This government increasingly comes across as inept: kneejerk rather than strategic in policy implementation, subject to panic and surrender at the first whiff of cordite. Some £4.5 billion has been shaved off its wafer-thin fiscal headroom by the welfare retreat. Autumn tax rises loom; bond markets grow sceptical; deeper unpopularity beckons. Sir Keir handled Donald Trump well, and mended ties with Europe, but he will live or die on the domestic battlefield. Wage growth is forecast to stagnate; Reform would be the biggest party in an election tomorrow. To survive, Sir Keir must become a dominating personality not a bureaucrat, gripping policy, punishing failure, espousing a vision. He must become what he has never truly reconciled himself to being: a politician. If not, there's always someone else willing to have a go.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store