Where are the youths in the change mathra?

In 1973. Gen. Yakubu Gowon (pictured) was the then Nigerian Military President. He is seen shaking hands with baby Justin Trudeau – the son of the then Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Now, in 2015, Justin Trudeau is the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and set to be the next Prime Minister. That is progressive! That is Change!!

But in Nigeria, we are still having recycled leaders attempting to rule and dictate to us. When will they let young, vibrant and intelligent men…the youth of today…contest in a free and fair election?

What is even more frustrating about the “African paradox” is the huge age gap between the leaders and the commom citizens. It sounds incredible, but 85% percent of Angolans were born after Dos Santos had come into power in 1979; 83% of Zimbabweans were not born yet when Mugabe came into power as prime minister in 1980; 79% of Ugandans came along after Museveni had assumed office in 1986. It means that only between 15% to 21% of the people were alive when these presidents took the helm of the respective states.

The issue of the age at which African leaders for some reason refuse to retire is a rather urgent one. After Robert Mugabe had mistakenly denounced his own party it became clear – he was no longer able to retain the needed alertness and keep up with the times. Why is Africa so “overcrowded” with the leaders who should be enjoying their retirement in peace and quiet, instead of in the political corridors, campaign trails and taxing political brinkmanship challenging even younger leaders?

One common feature that unites most African states is the presidents “for life” of venerable age. One of the most long-serving presidents has been ruling for whooping 36 years (editor’s note: Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, the leader of Equatorial Guinea; became president in 1979), while Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, who is now 91, appears the oldest leader in the world.

In general, the median age of the 10 oldest African leaders is 35 years more than that of the leaders of the world 10 most developed countries – 78.5 vs. 52. At the same time, in comparison to other continents, Africa has the smallest proportion of young leaders between 35 and 55.

Why so?

Reason number one: the masterly use of brute force and violence to terror the opponents. Reason number two: the combination of political machinations and corrupt practices. Reason number three: the supporters of the “old guard” argue that with age come wisdom, foresight and experience. This is rather questionable judging by their declining economies and sociopolitical uncertainty. However, being seen as “fathers of the nation”, such leaders still enjoy reverence and loyalty of the people.

With no doubt, the longevity of the old leaders in the office is one of the reasons why there are no credible and youthful successors. But this does not explain why most African countries are still stuck to the leaders in their twilight years. The question is: are African youths unable to exercise their ability to decide on their own destinies or the correlation between their leaders’ age and their floundering fortunes?

Unfortunately, the answer is affirmative. Much of the progressive world has embraced the innovativeness of youth – its energy, vibrancy, adaptability, willingness to embrace change and enthusiasm to learn. Africa, on the other hand, is lagging behind, unable to keep pace due to its outdated aging leaders.