John Paul II, a Vatican pontiff renowned for his unparalleled pastoral work, made his last trip outside Rome in May 2003, 83 years after his birth on May 18, 1920—virtually at the age of eighty-three. He died in 2005. Because of his tenacity, his charisma, and his unifying ability at the top of the Church, he has now been made a saint and is remembered as one of the most prolific popes in his work at the head of the Catholic Church.
His two successors have also shown the capacity that a healthy, eighty-year-old person can have to be the head of a religious organization that, in front of everyone, preserves its doctrine intact and, therefore, the basis of its existence.
The role of the Church is not comparable to that of the administration, as part of the State Government. The latter interacts on a daily basis with society to resolve the material problems that afflict it in the terms provided for by law. The head of the Executive has a material burden of being at the forefront of those current issues that attract the attention and concern of the broadest group of people among those who make up society, those who, by their contribution to government spending, determine its progress and its fate.
The proliferation of rhetoric in favor of non-discrimination has had its effects in the workplace, as well as in the field of public service. Not only have legislative changes been promoted with the purpose of protecting gender parity in the composition of the government, but those regulations that established age restrictions against anyone wishing to hold public office have also been changed or eliminated.
In the case of our country, Article 82 of the Federal Constitution requires that the candidate for the office of President of the Republic be 35 years old on the day of his election; however, it does not establish an age limit. This is not an example of what has happened throughout history for the rest of the members of the Federal Government. In the case of the ministers of the Supreme Court of Justice, for example, until 1994 they could not be appointed to the position if they were over sixty-five years old at the date of their appointment.
This Sunday we witnessed an outcome that had been announced for months, and which occurred as a consequence of the electoral phenomenon that took place after the attack – fortunately unsuccessful – against President Donald Trump, as a result of which the current President Joe Biden declined his candidacy for re-election as head of the presidency of the government of the United States of America.
His letter of declination, of course, does not provide an explanation of the reasons that led him to make this decision; however, given the significant amount of evidence recorded regarding health problems associated with his ability to focus and pay attention to the issues on his agenda, everything would make it seem that his decision comes from the recognition of the logical inability to meet his responsibilities, associated with his advanced age.
Given the great questions that human longevity in our time raises about the intellectual capacity of octogenarians to take on a public function in the face of the great challenges and responsibilities that this entails, the necessary question that we must ask ourselves has to do with that, precisely: is it valid and necessary for the law to establish limits on the age that a given candidate must have to hold public office?
There is no categorical or unique answer to this question. It is absolutely necessary that the issue be discussed, because we are not in a political-social deliberation field that is foreign to us: Mr. Manuel Bartlett, General Director of the CFE, a productive state enterprise on which the progress of our economy largely depends, is 88 years old.
I believe that the intellectual contribution that an older person can give us is invaluable. A historical vision in the important task of good governance favors the exclusion of errors and guarantees attention to points of interest that are crucial for society, which is well understood from a long-term perspective.
However, it is true that the vision and attention to problems is based on a generational perspective that is not negligible, and that requires the insurmountable presence of a person who has a level of understanding that is adequate and equivalent to the time in which a certain decision must be adopted. Governing requires energy and this, well expressed in experience, does not cease to require a certain degree of youth and empathy.
Our Constitution protects in its article 26 a human right to social mobility, a principle that ensures the inalienable right of each individual in particular, or of our society in general, to aspire to and achieve a better state of well-being.
Given the significant number of Mexicans who make up the human conglomerate we call the Nation, and in light of the human right to mobility, I believe that there will always be capable Mexicans who can contribute wisdom, energy and reason to govern well, who can be accompanied in a healthy way by many older Mexicans, from whom they can learn and acquire the wisdom necessary to make certain decisions.
It is my personal opinion that our Constitution should set respectful and reasonable limits on age or intellectual capacity, in accordance with which access to any popular election process for assuming public responsibilities should be established. Our leaders must be up-to-date in their understanding of the challenges facing Mexico; we cannot undertake the great paths of our future with ideas or ideologies clinging to the past, or with the help of people who lack essential intellectual capacity.
