In an article by one Bismark Adjei, which appeared on myjoyonline and other platforms on 5 August 2014 with the above caption, he claims to want to "instigate and provoke discussions" on what he considers to be "a very important matter." This short comment seeks to enrich the discourse on the relevance or otherwise of the age of our national leaders.

Mortality rate among African Presidents, Mr. Adjei tells us, has risen to 15% since 2008. He fails, though, to tell us what has caused the rise. To be convincing, he must prove that the average age of African leaders has risen since 2008, which positively correlates with the rising mortality rate. Anything short of that is very pedestrian. If the average age has largely remained unchanged, then age cannot reasonably be cited for the rise in the mortality rate of African leaders.

Mr. Adjei also compares the average age of some non-African leaders (which he puts at 55 years) with that of African leaders (62.5 years, as given by him). Again, this is of little informational value as far as the mortality rate of African leaders (relative to age) is concerned. Granted that the mortality rate of non-African leaders is lower, but for his argument to be convincing, he should hold constant issues such as life-style, access to and quality of medical care, medical history, etc. and then prove that African leaders' higher mortality rate is due mainly to their old ages. For example, if an African leader is mudered by a mob during an uprising, I fail to see how his/her age could be blamed for that. Or if a sick African leader is transported to hospital in an ordinary vehicle (instead of ambulance) and dies before s/he arrives at the hospital, can we seriously ignore the poor handling and blame the death solely on old age? How likely are we to see Obama or Cameron rushed to a hospital in an ordinary vehicle?

Now, I turn to the main thrust of Mr. Adjei's argument: predictability. He reasons that since an older person is -- statistically -- more likely to die all other things being equal, electing an older person as a president is risky. I find it difficult to accept this reasoning. And just to be clear, is  he seriously suggesting that because - statistically - an older person is likely to die, we should deny them the opportunity to lead a country?

Lumping all Ghanaian males into one group and using their average mortality rate to determime who should not be a president is quite problematic, to say the least. Averages hide extremes. Within the Ghanaian male population, you will find sub-groups -- ranging from those whose average mortality rate is 40 to those whose is 90 due to differences in factors such as life-style, family background, access to medical care, etc. Therefore lumping them together is flawed.

Following Mr Adjei's insurance analogy, l daresay that any prudent insurance underwriter knows that if you base insurance premiums on the average risk of the whole population, it could lead to what insurers call 'adverse selection'. This is because within the population, there will be those whose risk is lower than the average as well as those whose risk is higher than the average. So an average premium will attract more of higher risks and less of lower risks. The basis of underwriting is therefore to fix, as much as possible, a premium that reflects individual risks. And for me as a qualified insurer, I would rather grant life assurance cover to a healthy 60-year old than a terminally ill 40-year old, all other things being equal.

This brings me to my next point. There are many factors, other than age, which influence the likelihood of a person dying, all other things holding constant. Should we then say that those who smoke, who do not exercise, who eat poorly, etc. are more likely to die and therefore should be denied the opportunity to serve a country as a president? If no, why only pick on age alone? Not to belabor the point but  per Mr Adjei's logic, are we going to consider each and every factor in deciding who can become a president? Are we going to subject all presidential candidates to HIV/AIDS tests, for example? Are we going to scrutinise if a candidate eats healthily, exercises regularly, abstains from smoking, etc.? Without a doubt, all these factors can influence the likelihood of a person dying, and therefore, worth examining. If HIV status is not important, why should age -- if the criterion is predictability of death?

Still on the issue of predicting and to limit it to mortality rates, suppose we determine that the average mortality rate for Region 'A' is 45 years and that of Region 'B' is 55 years. Suppose also we have a 44-year old from Region 'A' contesting with a 50-year old from Region 'B'. Per Mr Adjei's logic of predictability, should we say that since the candidate from Region 'A' is statistically likely to die, he should not contest? Or can we say by extension that people from Region 'A' should not contest for the presidency since they are likely to die young? If geography/region does not matter, why should age?

Or do we say that because Lawyers or Medical Doctors have a high mortality rate, Doctors and Lawyers should not contest for the Presidency and that instead, we should have say, Bankers or Teachers contesting because such professionals have a higher life expectancy?

Averages could be misleading, especially when the spread of the population is wide. Should candidate A (aged 45) and candidate B (aged 58) contest for the presidency, should we just say candidate B is more likely to die and therefore A is preferable? Aren't there more important things to consider when choosing a president other than age?  Each presidential candidate should therefore be assessed on his/her own merits. Governance is a serious matter and should not be trivialised. Harping on age does that. Consistent with this thinking, l believe if there is anything worth changing, it is the minimum age requirement of 40 years

 

Kwabena Antwi-Boasiako

Dresden, Germany

b.antwiboasiako@gmail.com