Beyond the Number: When Age Becomes a Distraction from Leadership

Beyond the Number: When Age Becomes a Distraction from Leadership

The recent campaign ad by the FNM portraying Prime Minister Davis as “too old” to lead—while contrasting him with younger Caribbean figures like Mia Mottley, Andrew Holness, Terrance Drew, and Dickon Mitchell—has sparked a deeper question: how do voters really view age in leadership?

For many older voters, this messaging does not land favorably—it feels personal. It suggests that age diminishes value, when in truth, experience often strengthens judgment. These voters are not simply defending a candidate; they are defending a lifetime of contribution. Leadership, to them, is not about youth—it is about steadiness, wisdom, and the ability to navigate complexity. To reduce that to a number risks alienating a significant and thoughtful voting bloc.

Younger voters, on the other hand, are not as easily swayed by age-based attacks as campaigns might assume. They tend to reject ageism outright, seeing it as outdated, hypocritical, and inconsistent with their values of fairness and INCLUSION. What they are actually demanding is relevance. They want leaders—young or old—who understand their realities, speak to their challenges, and offer forward-looking solutions. Memes showing Mr. Davis nodding off or video clips showing him unable to recall precise details or fatigue may generate clicks, but they rarely build trust.

Ageism as a political strategy is risky. When a campaign leans heavily on age, it can appear as though it lacks substance—substituting ridicule for real ideas. Ironically, even the leader of the Free National Movement, himself no stranger to the passage of time, cannot escape the same age question that his party is promoting. He will be 62 years old this year.

In the end, voters are not asking who is youngest. They are asking who is most capable or competent to lead. And that is a far more difficult question to answer with slogans alone.

-Abigail Cartwright