The Legislative Assembly election results in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh saw the Bharatiya Janata Party storm into power with a comfortable margin. BJP’s thumping victory put an end to the Samajwadi Party’s (SP) five-year rule in the state. The win also meant the end of Akhilesh Yadav’s five-year tumultuous tenure as UP’s chief minister.

When Akhilesh Yadav broke into the scene five years ago as the youngest Indian chief minister, he was nothing short of a hero. The 43-year-old leader had successfully spearheaded the SP’s election campaign. He had helped the party gain a majority in the parliament, defeating the incumbent chief minister Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party. He was charismatic and offered prospects of a makeover for his party, which was notorious for its gundagardi (hooliganism). Moreover, he had ushered in a glimmer of hope for improvements in what was often referred to as the “most unruly” state in India.

Inept youth leadership

Five years down the line, none of these aspirations were realised. If the recent election results were not proof enough, the facts speak for themselves. A report by the National Crime Records Bureau in 2015 showed that the rate of crime against women had increased from 41.7 percent to 53.9 percent following Akhilesh Yadav’s assumption of office. The young Yadav’s tenure also saw numerous communally volatile situations such as the Muzzafarnagar riots, which the government was completely inept at controlling. The chief minister resurrected dangerous traits reminiscent of his father’s rule, brazenly supporting gundas and the mafia. Civil servants who took on the mafia were sacked. He promised to improve the law and order situation, yet ironically created a ministerial cabinet where half of the ministers had some form of criminal charges against them.

So why did the “charismatic”, “dynamic” and foreign-educated leader with an apparently “modern outlook” fail? The answer is simple—because he was inept at his job.

When it comes to politics, we often hear about how “youths-at-the-helm-of-affairs” could be a solution to all political problems. This solution is much touted in Nepal, where people blame the prevailing political turmoil on the “old” leaders. Voices claiming that the youth should be allowed to take the stage are heard time and again. The old leaders are almost always accused of being corrupt and having vested interests. People seem to take youth leadership as some sort of a magic wand, with young leaders almost “guaranteed” to get rid of problems and steer the country towards prosperity.

This belief is misplaced. Political success is not determined by the “age factor”, it depends on a range of other factors such as political aptitude, far-sightedness and adoption of right policies.

Akhilesh Yadav’s partner in the recent elections, Rahul Gandhi, is another example of how young leaders can fail terribly. Having entered politics more than a decade ago, the 46-year-old is yet to establish himself as a credible leader. Appointed the coveted position of vice-president in the Indian National Congress at the age of 42, he has been unable to make any mark—either at the policy level or in terms of steering the party. Leading his party to an embarrassing defeat in the parliamentary elections, the young Gandhi is also responsible for Congress’s loss of all its stronghold states, including Assam, Uttarakhand, Haryana and Maharashtra.

The examples of inept young leaders are not just limited to our southern neighbour. Although starting out on a very promising note, the charismatic Tony Blair, who became the youngest prime minister of UK’s modern history, met with an unfortunate turn of events during the end of his tenure. He was ultimately forced to resign. Dmitry Medvedev, despite being elected as the president of Russia at the young age of 42, was a puppet to Vladmir Putin and was unable to bring about positive changes. In the US, the young Republican leaders promoted through the Republican Party’s “Young Guns” campaign in 2010 have been unable to produce any significant results as of yet.

Age is just a number

On the other hand, there have been many leaders in global politics who have excelled at an older age. Political stalwarts like Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela and Jawaharlal Nehru took charge of their office at a much later stage in their lives. Irrespective of their age, these leaders were able to make their mark on history for the issues they raised, their political dexterity and the changes they brought about. Their age was never a hindrance.

The argument that only young leaders can pave the way for prosperity is flawed. Most of the present day Nepali leaders started their political career as student politicians when they were young. What, then, is the guarantee that today’s youth will be any different?

One might argue that there are many young leaders in global politics who are very promising. True, there are some leaders like Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada, who have shown positive traits. However, Trudeau has been in office for only a year and a half and is yet to prove his mettle. His performance can only be properly evaluated at the end of his tenure.

Thus, there is much more than age that determines political success for any leader. Hopefully in the future, we get to hear slogans like “capable people should be allowed to take the stage”. After all, when it comes to politics, age is just a number.

Sharma is a political science graduate from Delhi University