What is generational Inequity?
Generational Inequity refers to a phenomenon influencing various aspects of life such as politics, commerce, and even the judiciary. To best understand generational inequity, let’s illustrate it with an example. I’m not critiquing any particular viewpoint or policy here; rather, I aim to clarify the term.
Humanity has long been grappling with a climate crisis, which bears all the hallmarks of requiring immediate action, akin to historical events like Hitler’s declaration of war on Poland or the advent of nuclear weapons. The threat is well-known, immediate, and importantly, affects not just a single group, but humanity as a whole. Despite these well-established criteria for identifying a crisis, it’s surprising that we’ve made little significant progress in addressing climate change. We’ve been attempting to tackle this issue for some time now. My first encounter with environmental concerns was with the discovery of the Hole in the Ozone layer. It’s commendable how nations worldwide united to enact policies and effect change to combat what was considered a serious threat to every person on the planet. This global collaboration exemplified humanity’s capacity to work together to address urgent issues, as seen in the eradication of Smallpox, another notable achievement.
Given our history of successfully uniting in the face of existential threats, it begs the question: why are we unable to do so now? I believe generational inequity is a fundamental reason why policy changes have been sluggish. Smallpox, polio, ozone layer depletion, and nuclear weapons were all immediate existential threats that directly affected the current generation, prompting an urgent need for action. Policymakers who mobilized to address these issues faced direct consequences for failure. However, climate change appears more abstract. Even I am uncertain about the full extent of what climate change entails at this point. It’s an umbrella term encompassing various natural disasters caused by human activity, with increasing carbon emissions being just one aspect.
So why the lack of action? It seems that the individuals in power are often too entrenched in old ways of thinking to fully grasp the urgency of the concept. This concept of people with the power to make change being too stagnant and slow to adapt is what I mean by generational inequity. Often the people who need to make the changes are entrenched in their positions and thoughts and find it difficult to step out of the comfort zone to address changes immediately.
Isn’t it good to have some experience in the mix?
A common justification often heard for senior individuals holding prominent roles is their wealth of experience. However, a simple observation of daily life reveals that this assertion may not hold true. Over the past 20 years, there have been significant tectonic shifts and disruptions, rendering the experience of a thirty-something comparable to that of a sixty-something. When everything is new, everyone starts with zero experience. In fact, the inertia among senior individuals may be more pronounced, as it represents a departure from their accustomed ways of doing things. For instance, during the Covid pandemic, courts in India were urged to utilize virtual conference facilities to conduct business, yet these methods fell into disuse once the pandemic subsided. Even for tech-savvy individuals, hopping onto a conference call can be frustrating, let alone for those over sixty. While it’s understandable that judges may be reluctant to deal with such hassles, like all things, it’s a matter of simply getting accustomed to it. An argument can be made that excessive experience isn’t necessarily a boon. Individuals with extensive experience may be well-versed in the myriad reasons why something should not be done, rather than possessing the enthusiasm that often accompanies a degree of ignorance.
The current Chief Justice serves as a shining example of youth tempered with experience. Though not young by conventional standards, he holds the distinction of being the youngest Chief Justice by a significant margin. Set to retire in November 2024, during his tenure, he has implemented numerous changes addressing crucial social, economic, and constitutional issues. In contrast, previous judges tended to defer cases until their retirement. Consistently, there have been glowing reviews of his well-reasoned and steady-handed approach in Supreme Court judgments. Thus, it becomes evident that there is a compelling case for why excessive experience may not always be advantageous and how a lack of it can introduce innovative ways to address longstanding problems.
Why is it important to bring in Fresh Blood?
The more alignment there is between policymakers and those impacted by policies, the smoother the interaction tends to be. Differences between policy makers and stakeholders often lead to friction. The infusion of individuals more aligned with the task at hand ensures that:
- Changes requiring consistent effort over a prolonged period don’t fizzle out as policymakers rotate out of the system.
- They are more open to trying out new ideas and accepting failure.
- They don’t view their tenure as a reward for a long career and play it safe toward the end of their term.
So, is there no downside to bringing in new folks?
Technically, no, there isn’t. It might seem contradictory to the conventional approach, but not every problem has two sides. Take politics, for example: a young MP is just as likely to be corrupt as an older one, and there might even be a case for why they would be less expensive. Senior party members may simply leverage their position to secure gains toward the end of their career. What about the judiciary? I’ve already provided an example of how the current CJI has been performing exceptionally compared to his predecessors. Combined with the willingness of younger judges to try new approaches to reduce case backlogs, we could really unclog the system. Furthermore, younger judges do not carry the baggage of traditions from a bygone era. This could lead to a more progressive stance on issues like abortions, gender equality, and same-sex marriage, not to mention constitutional rights. The same applies to commerce as well. A glance at the founders of unicorn startups clearly shows that it’s a young person’s game. Many companies have faltered due to the CEO’s inability to adapt. With recessions occurring more frequently, the agility of a young CEO will yield significant dividends for any organization willing to hire one. Recent examples include major IT companies changing CEOs in light of the Cloud and AI revolution.
Arguments against entrusting young individuals with complete authority often revolve around concerns of impulsiveness, lack of information, or susceptibility to influence. However, these are character flaws that can also apply to senior individuals. So, what should the senior members be doing? It’s time to rethink conventional roles and allow them to explore new avenues outside the typical day-to-day operations. For instance, policymakers could be youthful, while implementation could be overseen by senior individuals. These seasoned professionals would work behind the scenes to ensure smooth operations and prevent any oversights. Picture a scenario where a CEO in their thirties collaborates with a COO in their sixties, with the young CEO driving innovation while the senior COO provides stability and guidance. Similarly, envision a young Chief Justice supported by a panel of experienced justices, collectively refining legal nuances. Or consider a dynamic young politician, reminiscent of JFK, rallying the nation, backed by seasoned politicians who offer measured responses during crises, akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis. This approach leverages the strengths of both youth and experience, fostering a harmonious balance between innovation and stability.
A lot more can be said about the topic but I don’t want to labour the point.