I think we are getting things wrong on this one. To illustrate this we need to state @Sparkly's argument clearly.

The argument runs: If a person is considerably old, or ill to the point that odds are relatively high that death will come sooner rather than later, then he/she shouldn't be in a leadership position.

This argument appears to be similar to that being made by the emperor of Japan whom some have been suspecting, may abdicate given age and state of health. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37007106

But look at how Japan has reacted: despite having public support and even political support, this isn't just a matter to dealt with lightly. Laws have to be amended. So, given that this case isn't novel or even rare, why does it seem that @Sparkly's argument runs counter to the norm, not just in Africa but all over the world?

I can give the following reasons:

1. Leadership isn't a one person business. Leaders are made out of political interactions involving many pressure groups, and the person who bears the leadership mantle is often the symbol of compromise among the forces. Re-balancing forces when a leader is alive is an unnecessary threat to the status quo. In Cuba, an old and ill president gave to a younger member of the old generation...

2. Age isn't a very important factor in leadership (though different systems have different age thresholds for political participation). In North Korea, the leader is barely in his thirties... his father of course had refused to abdicate; but made sure his son was safe among oldies...

3. In a political system, the older you are the more networks you have; therefore those who are very old and with one foot in the grave will be with the most power. To illustrate this we can recall Tsipras the Greek PM. Young and with fervor, he rushed into the field only to meet old hands in Europe, ala, Junker and c. Right now, Tsipras seems to be following the old worn paths.

I'm saying this because it's important for youthful leadership to emerge and be trusted. And to get such an effect, the youthful need to understand their political systems intimately and to know how to maneuver within them.

@Masukuma says, 'Vijana wanyakue.' But that's the worst path the youth can take...

Power is built up, and shared either among the few or the many. The old mentor their own and pass the baton to others but according to their interests.

In a country like ours, the youth who are part of the masses must know how they'll build power to meet their needs and those of who they are building the power with.

[quote=tycho
Power is built up, and shared either among the few or the many. The old mentor their own and pass the baton to others but according to their interests.

In a country like ours, the youth who are part of the masses must know how they'll build power to meet their needs and those of who they are building the power with.
[/quote]
Why cant these old wazees align their interests to that of the country and the youth?

How have the young ascended to power in Hong Kong?

How is the battle field in European politics?

How is the battle field in Kenyan and African politics? Are there patterns that can be used to generate power in Kenya?

Political thinking is difficult, but worth the effort. The secret is out. The 21st century needs new paradigms. Whoever does it successfully gets power.

http://www.theguardian.c...-the-left-have-a-future

I can't help but laugh at the truth of this.

Yes our leadership is bad. But it must also be said that the people are allowing themselves to be hoodwinked into thinking that having a member of their tribe in state house is the most important thing even if it means making peace with a person who threatened to kill you in the past or might do so in the future.
The leadership up there eats and in order to consolidate their power, they tell people that members of certain tribes are their enemy. When alliances change, that tribe is suddenly your best friend. Then 5 years later, they are your enemy again. Psycholgy ya Kenyans nayo.