Some of those who voted yes had this to say:
• In Nagaland Democracy is decided by money and muscle power and so the public often cannot decide who they should elect by their own free will. So in most cases elections are continuously between the same politicians and younger people are not given the chance. So an age limit will encourage younger politicians to enter the fray and hopefully make a difference.
• YES>>Below 60. Also it would be really nice if we could pass a bill that says "no immediate family member of a minister could contest so long as his/her kin is in power. Another dream would be to make sure that no politician can be in power for more than two terms. If this are followed, there will definitely be some Positive changes
• Older politicians should pave the way for the youths of today. Many politicians are seen to be above sixty years of age, which medically they are said to be in their second childishness stage. Politicians of today should be have good qualification with clarity and freshness.
• For the sake of good governance and democracy, it will be best if an age limit for politicians is put in Nagaland. If we can have an age limit for civil servants, why should there not be for politicians. While civil servants are atleast trained and educated, the same cannot be said about politicians. This is the right time for Nagas to demand age limit for politicians as well.
• Young minds works better..
• Yes, there ought to be. IN this present day and age, we need dynamic leaders who can get the job done, leaders who have the ideas and know how. So definitely we need more young leaders and we will not get them unless some age limit is put. If not, just look at our senior politicians, they don’t get the job done, they just keep making promises but fail to implement it and don’t want to give up their seat of power. If Nagaland is to progress, there must be age limit for politicians so that no one can take their power for granted.
• Yes. We can give our best when we are physically, psychologically, morally fit. Hence all sensible person should retire when they cannot deliver the good for the people.
• We want dynamic and young nerves.
• Yes, there must be limit, if not just take a look at our politicians. Majority of them are old and badly out of touch with the situation. Most of them have been in power for a long time, and don’t care for the people. There are a number of younger politicians, but they must also be dreaming of remaining in power till they get old. Imagine what would happen to all of us then. It would destroy the public. We cannot afford such bankrupt politics. There must be some conditions, so that few politicians don’t monopolize the Naga people.
Some of those who voted no had this to say:
• I think our society respects age and the wisdom that comes with it! And rightly so!
• For what?
• Not necessary. But if a man become old and not in a position to render active service physically, mentally, etc to his society any longer, he should retire and give way for younger people who are better equipped and eager to do anything for the welfare of our people.
• This is not practical in our society. Besides the way we can change our society to see that the older generation leads in changing their worldview and attitude towards each other
Some of those who voted Others had this to say:
• Along with age limit, other criteria must be adopted. They cannot be allowed to stand more than 3 times and family members cannot stand immediately. Today we have so many politicians who want their sons and family members to take their place. This is not right. In some constituencies we have politicians belonging only to one family. How can this be called democracy. This is feudalism. No this systems of passing on the constituency from one family member to another must be stopped completely. When only one family has ruled for so long, they have all the money and power, so others will not challenge them. So age limit is not enough, even banning politicians only from one family to rule the same constituency is wrong and undemocratic.
• The age limit is a novel idea and it may work in a mature political society. But in Nagaland where age is still revered as the same thing as wisdom it may cause lot of tensions. Corruption, abuse of power, bad governance and the quality of politicians needs to be checked, and age is very much connected with this. Can we think of a more practical solution? Can a law be passed that a politician cannot serve more than two terms? I think this is a valid point, infact many democracies have limits on the number of terms politicians serve.
• Good idea, But leave those ugly politicians alone.
• Maybe. But if 45 years old men are counted as youths and 30 year old women as old hags, age limit may raise accusations of gender discriminations during nomination.
