When age becomes a political question

At 88, Nabih Berri remains Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, while Michel Aoun was 87 when he completed his term as Lebanon’s president. Yet Lebanese law places no upper age limit on elected members of Parliament or government ministers. This raises a poignant question, at what point does age become more than just a number? Is there a threshold beyond which mental sharpness, memory, and decision-making inevitably decline? And if so, should that threshold matter for those entrusted with a nation's highest offices?

While the law sets minimum requirements for political participation, it does not impose a maximum age for constitutional office, leaving questions of individual capacity, reflecting a broader tension between constitutional eligibility, medical capacity, political experience and the electorate’s right to choose.

The medical perspective: A question without a number

Dr. Fadi Saad, orthopedic surgeon, former member of parliament, and CEO of Notre Dame Hospital, began by rejecting the idea that a single age can define capability. "There is no doubt that a person's abilities decline with age, but there is also no doubt that their experience increases with age.” How that is depicted "depends on each individual and each particular case.”

To explain the gap, he drew on a concept from his surgical training, "it is called physiological age which is distinct from the chronological age.” That measure is shaped by "a person's physical makeup, genetics, exercise, lifestyle, weaknesses, IQ, and how much experience they have accumulated." It is why in his view, "we cannot simply say that there is a specific age at which someone, whether in politics or medicine, must retire."

But Dr. Saad's sharper points to the significance of self-awareness among people in positions of responsibility. He sees the same pattern in medicine and in politics.

The really intelligent people know how to step away while they are still at the top.

On politics specifically, he offered a vivid contrast, “there are politicians who are quite old but whose energy and vitality remain comparable to those of much younger people. Conversely, there are politicians who are relatively young, but in the way they speak, move and carry themselves, you can sense that they have already aged.” Age is almost beside the point. What matters is whether a person retains the insight to see themselves clearly.

The constitutional debate: Should there be an age limit for elected office?

Supporters argue that advancing age may affect decision-making, cognitive abilities, and the capacity to fulfill the demands of public office, while opponents contend that imposing age ceilings could undermine democratic choice and unfairly exclude experienced leaders. Consequently, the debate has shifted beyond medical and social considerations to encompass constitutional principles, electoral rights, and the balance between legal eligibility and voters’ judgment.

Lebanese lawyer and constitutional expert Said Malek told The Beiruter that the Lebanese Constitution draws a clear distinction between the minimum age required to exercise political rights and the absence of any maximum age for holding political office.

The Lebanese Constitution sets a minimum age, but it does not establish a maximum age for holding political office.

He noted that Article 21 of the Constitution establishes the minimum age at which a Lebanese citizen may exercise civil and political rights, setting the threshold at 21 years old. However, he stressed that the Constitution does not impose any upper age limit for political participation or for assuming elected constitutional positions.

Malek explained that this constitutional approach differs from the rules governing public employment. He pointed out that, both in Lebanon and in many other countries, laws regulating the civil service generally establish mandatory retirement ages for public employees. These age limits are tied to the nature of public employment and apply within the framework of retirement systems. Constitutional offices, however, are treated differently. Positions such as president of the republic, speaker of parliament, members of parliament, and ministers are constitutional offices whose holders derive their legitimacy through election rather than ordinary public employment.

He further noted that only a limited number of constitutions around the world establish a maximum age for holding such constitutional positions. As examples, Malek cited Iran, where individuals over the age of 75 are not eligible to run for the presidency. While acknowledging that similar examples exist elsewhere, he stressed that these remain exceptions rather than the prevailing approach, and that Lebanon has no comparable constitutional or legal restrictions.

Given the absence of an upper age limit in Lebanon, Malek argued that responsibility ultimately lies with voters. He said it is the electorate, not the Constitution, that determines whether an older candidate should be entrusted with public office. While acknowledging that advanced age could potentially influence an officeholder’s performance, he maintained that Lebanese law leaves this assessment to citizens at the ballot box rather than imposing a legal prohibition based solely on age.

Ultimately, the responsibility rests with the voter.

In his view, the Lebanese constitutional framework therefore places democratic choice above statutory age restrictions, allowing voters to decide whether a candidate, regardless of age, remains capable of assuming the responsibilities of elected office.

The question of whether age has compromised a leader’s fitness for office is left to be answered by those who elected them repeatedly at every election, rather than settled once by statute. Perhaps the answer is not found in a birth certificate alone. But that leaves a more difficult question, can the responsibility for assessing a politician’s capacity rest entirely with the voter?

Elections can determine whom the public chooses to represent them, but they do not necessarily provide a measure of an officeholder’s mental sharpness, memory, physical capacity or ability to meet the demands of the position at a given point in time. Nor does the absence of an age limit address the question of political renewal, should leadership naturally make room for younger generations, particularly as societies and their institutions change.

Between constitutional eligibility, medical capacity, democratic choice and the need for generational rotation, the debate ultimately goes beyond the number of candles on a birthday cake. It is about how a political system determines when experience remains an asset, when individual capacity needs to be questioned, and when the law should have a role in drawing that line.