There is a popular English term in political science, 'gerontocracy'. Which simply means, the dominance of elders in politics. Gerontocracy is a situation in which older leaders continue to have access, role or control over political decision-making. "Gerontocracy" has dominated Nepali politics for a long time.

Here, late-life leaders have a decisive role in party or power politics. So that the issue of new leadership and succession does not flow like water in a pond. As the same face continues to be in the leadership of the party or government for years, on the one hand, politics has not become dynamic, and on the other hand, it is increasing the frustration and misery among the general public. One of the main reasons for such a situation is the lack of an 'exit policy' of the original leadership in the political parties. Therefore, the 'exit policy' of the leadership is an important topic of discussion at this time.

As the legislative convention of the ruling CPN (UML) approaches, this issue has become more relevant. UML will hold a three-day legislative convention from August 20. The 70-year age limit will be one of the main issues in the Legislative Assembly. The debates/exercises going on in the UML as the legislative convention draws nearer indicates that.

UML-affiliated intellectual council has started a digital survey including some topics including age limit of 70 years. The survey basically includes questions like organizational structure of the party, number of office bearers, age limit, limit of two terms in the executive position.

Especially with former President Bidya Devi Bhandari announcing her return to UML, issues such as the exit of the leadership based on the age limit of 70 years have been reawakened. However, the central committee, which is strongly dominated by the chairman KP Sharma Oli, barred him from joining the party. Although Bhandari's aspirations to return to the party have been put on hold for the time being, in the meantime, issues such as the age limit have gained entry into the UML.

There are two views within the UML regarding the 70-year age limit. First, the Prime Minister and President Oli are of the opinion that the 70-year-old age limit has failed, so there is no justification for it. He says, 'The age limit of 70 years has failed. Now I am 74. Did you fail to say that you will retire in 70 years? It was not possible to reduce the retirement age by four years to retire at the age of 70! It's not age, it's the main thing that health supports/does not support, functionality is/is not.' In another program, he also joked that if the age limit of 70 years is implemented, he should reduce his prison term by 14 years. 

Oli's line is strong in UML. That's why most people nod in agreement with what he says. However, there is also a group of others who have a different opinion on these issues. The group trying to bring former president Bhandari into the party has made the 70-year age limit and two-term issue an issue. 

Is it appropriate to set an age to be active in politics? With the growing Vidya-Oli conflict within the UML, this question has again become a topic of debate. Before discussing this question further, let's see what the UML has been doing on the subject of age limit. 

UML made arrangements from the legislative convention held in October 2078 that the same person cannot remain in the executive position for more than two terms and after attaining the age of 70 years, he should leave in an honorable manner. However, the leadership, which keeps on changing the decision according to its own, did not implement it strongly. The arrangement was put on hold under the pretext of bringing back Mukund Nyupane, who had been cut from the United Socialist Party for 70 years, to the party. That opened the way for many others of UML who are approaching 70 to remain in the leadership. Everyone went 'you shut up, I shut up'.

In 2078, the UML had advocated that a system of entering and leaving the party in a dignified manner should be established to democratize the party, to make it lively and dynamic. At that time, he considered the need for a three-generation planned and statutory arrangement in building the party leadership. It was said in the report, "It is necessary to effectively implement the process of democratization of the party by establishing a tradition of friendly parental roles within the party by experienced and senior leaders."

Legislative convention of 2078 arranged for Oli, who is now 70 years old, to be a candidate for party leadership until he reaches 70 years of age and to remain in charge until the end of his term. Oli, who will be 70 years old on February 11, 2078, held a convention in November 2078 for that reason. Now he is saying that the age limit arrangement has failed and he is saying, 'Should the age be reduced by 4 years to take a vacation?' And, they are asking the question - looking at age or ability? 

Whenever there is a reference to the transfer of leadership or generation in politics, the matter of setting the age limit naturally comes together. And, at the same time, the question also arises - 'Is it appropriate to set an age to be active in politics?' There are two opinions on this question. 

Analysts from one angle say that it is not appropriate to arrange retirement from politics on the basis of age. This makes the issue of transfer of leadership in parties technical and administrative. The argument of those who say this is that, rather than age, the leadership's political views, competence and mobility should be the basis of retirement. 

Advocates from another angle say - the main basis of 'exit policy' is age limit. He argues that there is a limit to being physically active after a certain age. Creating a dynamic and energetic party is not possible with a relaxed body. If there is an age limit for those who take the leadership of the staff, judicial sector, why not set the political leadership? Medical science also talks about age-related physical activity and inactivity. 

Those who argue against the above argument say that the main thing is mental fitness. Of course, performance declines with age, but neuroscientists and psychologists say that some older people have greater mental acuity than people much younger than them. So it is difficult to conclude that someone is too old for leadership. 

On the one hand, when there is a majority of 70-year-olds in the leadership, there is no new idea, energy or long-term planning in politics. Energetic leadership is needed politically, mentally and physically to make the democratic system dynamic. From another angle, Pa's leadership has political experience, knowledge and maturity. Managing to retire from politics by imposing an age limit on the elderly leader elected by the people is not compatible with the spirit of democracy. 

However, more important than these arguments in our context is the search for the basis of the 'exit policy' of political parties. The reason is that there is no exit policy of political leadership here. Let's look at the main three main parties. Nepali Congress, UML and CPN (Maoist Centre). In all these three parties, the issue of leadership transfer and succession is raised from time to time. However, in all the three parties, there is an 'untouchable empire' of old leaders who are 70/80. No matter how much these parties advocate democracy, they themselves are indulging in the practice of 'gerontocracy'. 

The debate on transfer is more common in Congress than in other parties. In the open political environment after 2046, the issue of leadership transfer and succession in this party was raised several times. The issue led to factionalism and division in the party. In the last period, there was also a partial practice of Pusantranan in the Congress. Two new generation general ministers were elected by defeating the leaders of the old generation from the fourteenth congress. Party Chairman Sher Bahadur Deuba will now be deprived of leadership for the third time due to being bound by legislation. However, who will be the leader after the next convention? Everyone stares at him. In other words, Congress does not have an 'exit policy' to make the organization agile and effective. 

The 'monopoly' of Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal continues in the two main communist parties UML and Maoist. Dahal has been at the helm for nearly three and a half decades. Another leader, Janardan Sharma, has raised the issue of leadership transfer, but has not been able to break Dahal's dominance within the party. Oli's sole supremacy remains in UML. He is adept at marginalizing his opponents within or outside the party. In this background, a legitimate 'exit policy' is mandatory for major parties. In that case, on what basis will the 'exit policy' be decided in the parties? 

Some bases can be like this. First, reform the political culture. If the political parties were able to develop democratic behavior and culture, perhaps there would be no need for lengthy discussions about the 'exit policy'. If the political tradition of senior leaders voluntarily retiring after being in leadership for a certain period of time would be institutionalized, then the issue of generational change in parties would not be a priority. However, the top leadership of the major party has an attitude that the party is its own pewa or a private company. They do not have the culture of giving opportunities to the next generation based on merit. Therefore, the first and natural basis of 'exit policy' is political culture. which requires a miraculous correction. For that, the thinking of 'me and mine' should be lost in the top leadership and the feeling of 'we and ours' should be developed. 

Second, top leadership is not solely responsible for the lack of character development that naturally emerges from leadership. The opportunistic character growing up in the second, third generation leaders is also responsible for this. Except for one leader, the door of opportunity has been slammed shut without saying a word against the arbitrariness of the leadership in the major party. As a result, the issue of leadership transfer or handover becomes thin. In particular, leadership does not wait for its turn. This is a matter of challenging the original leadership on the basis of political and ideological qualifications. 

Neither the top leader is naturally ready to hand over leadership, nor can the next generation be willing to take over. In this case the third option is required. That is, the parties need to legally fix the age and term limits. And, the policy of not repeating the same person in executive leadership for more than two terms becomes necessary and meaningful here. Otherwise, the pace of transfer of responsibility to the new generation will not only slow down, but the country will fall into policy directionlessness. On the one hand, the people become disillusioned with the old face and the old way of working, and on the other hand, if the new generation is prevented from coming to the leadership, it will take time for the new vision of technology, economy and social reform to be born.