After claiming that politicians should not be permitted to cling to power deep into old age, Sihle Lonzi, a member of parliament for the Economic Freedom Fighters, has stirred up debate by insisting that they, too, should be subject to a mandatory retirement age.
This week, Lonzi made a statement in which he stated that it was unfair that professionals such as teachers, principals, and civil servants are required to retire at the age of 65, whereas politicians are allowed to remain in office for a significant amount of time afterwards.
The age of 65 should be the mandatory retirement age for politicians. It is unacceptable to allow somebody who is 70 or 80 years old to run for public office. Even if they are in good health, a significant number of educators, principals, and public servants are being compelled to retire. According to his argument, the same principle ought to be used to politicians, who even sleep in Parliament.
His comments come at a time when there is increasing criticism of South Africa’s ageing political leadership. This criticism is based on the fact that some prominent officials from a variety of parties are still serving in high position well into their seventies and eighties. According to Lonzi, this culture is detrimental to the options available to newer generations and poses a threat of stagnation in relation to governance.
Politicians should be forced to retire at age 65.
No 70 or 80 year old should be allowed to take public office.
There are many Teachers, Principals and Civil Servants who are healthy, yet forced to retire.
The same should apply for politicians, who even sleep in Parliament!
— Sihle Lonzi (@SihleLonzi) August 27, 2025
The individuals who are in favour of Lonzi’s proposition feel that a retirement age might help open up opportunities for younger leaders who have new ideas, while also ensuring that the laws that are followed in the public service sector remain consistent. The current structure, according to their argument, enables career politicians to maintain their hold on public service for decades, frequently putting up a fight against change and innovation.
Critics, on the other hand, believe that the implementation of such a law may be construed as age discrimination and would prevent the nation from benefiting from the knowledge and expertise of more seasoned leaders. Voters, not lawmakers, should be the ones to decide whether or not a politician should continue to serve in government, according to their argument.
The comments made by Lonzi also reignite a debate that has been going on for a long time about political renewal in South Africa. Opposition parties frequently advocate for younger leaders to be given the opportunity to create the future of the country under their leadership.
Lonzi’s call has added weight to a discourse that continues to resonate with a public that is becoming increasingly impatient with slow governance and ageing leadership. Although no formal proposal has been presented in Parliament, the conversation has continued to resonate with the public. The proposal has already created a new discussion about the balance between experience and rejuvenation in South African politics, but it remains to be seen whether or not it will acquire support in the future.
