Content uploaded by Andrii Onopriienko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrii Onopriienko on Apr 14, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
PREPARED BY:
ANDRII ONOPRIIENKO
APRIL 2025
2
Content
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Summary..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
1.1. Setting the Stage: The Global Leadership Landscape in the 21st Century ...................................................... 4
1.2. The Puzzle of Dominance: Elderly Male Leaders as the Prevailing Demographic ......................................... 5
1.3. Problem Statement and Research Questions ................................................................................................... 7
1.4. Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................................. 8
2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1. Theories of Leadership and Political Representation ...................................................................................... 9
2.2. The Aging of Political Elites: Trends and Explanations ............................................................................... 11
2.3. Gender and Political Leadership: Persistent Barriers and Progress ............................................................... 12
2.4. Intergenerational Dynamics in Politics and Governance ............................................................................... 14
2.5. Synthesis and Research Gaps ........................................................................................................................ 15
3. Data and Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 16
3.1. Data Sources .................................................................................................................................................. 16
3.2. Sample and Scope of Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 17
3.3. Analytical Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 17
4. Findings: The Demographic Landscape of Global Leadership ............................................................................ 18
4.1. The Prevalence of Elderly Male Leaders: A Statistical Overview ................................................................ 18
4.2. Regional Variations and Country Case Studies ............................................................................................. 19
4.3. Trends Over Time .......................................................................................................................................... 19
4.4. Summary of Key Demographic Findings ...................................................................................................... 20
5. Analysis and Discussion: Implications and Consequences .................................................................................. 20
5.1. Impact on Policy Innovation and Adaptation ................................................................................................ 20
5.2. Implications for Climate Change and Sustainability Policies ....................................................................... 21
5.3. Representation, Public Trust, and Political Engagement ............................................................................... 22
5.4. The Consequences of Gender Imbalance in Policymaking ........................................................................... 24
5.5. Interplay of Age and Gender in Leadership Dynamics ................................................................................. 25
6. Potential Reforms and Solutions .......................................................................................................................... 26
6.1. Term Limits: Promoting Political Renewal ................................................................................................... 26
6.2. Mandatory Retirement Ages: Ensuring Generational Shifts ......................................................................... 27
6.3. Quotas and Gender Parity Measures: Enhancing Female Representation ..................................................... 29
6.4. Youth Political Engagement Programs: Fostering Future Leaders ............................................................... 30
6.5. Electoral Reforms: Leveling the Playing Field ............................................................................................. 31
3
7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................ 33
7.1. Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................................................................. 33
7.2. Implications for Governance and Democracy ............................................................................................... 33
7.3. Recommendations for Future Research ......................................................................................................... 34
Annex 1. Table 2: Global Leaders by Country, Regime Type, Age, Gender, and Tenure (as of April 1, 2025) ..... 36
4
Abstract
This study examines the persistent overrepresentation of elderly male leaders in global governance, a
phenomenon highlighted by recent data indicating that a significant majority of the world's population is
governed by men over the age of 70. Drawing on demographic analysis and political studies, including a
2025 article from BILD1 (which served as one of the basis for this study), this paper analyzes the extent
of age and gender disparities in leadership across various nations. It explores the potential implications
of this demographic imbalance for policy innovation, responsiveness to contemporary challenges, and
the representation of diverse populations. Furthermore, the study discusses the consequences of
prolonged leadership tenures and the underrepresentation of women, considering the impact on
technological adaptation, climate policy, and public trust. Finally, it evaluates potential institutional
reforms, such as term limits, mandatory retirement ages, and gender quotas, aimed at fostering greater
intergenerational and gender diversity in global political leadership.
Summary
This study investigates the global overrepresentation of elderly male leaders and its implications for
governance, representation, and policy innovation. Drawing from updated 2025 data, it reveals that
approximately 67.5% of the global population (5.4 billion people) are governed by men over the age
of 70. These leaders often remain in power for decades, with limited institutional constraints such as
term limits or retirement ages.
Key Themes:
Age and Gender Disparities: A stark contrast exists between leadership demographics and
general population age and gender distribution.
Theoretical Underpinnings: The analysis draws from representation theory, elite theory, and
leadership models.
Barriers to Diversity: Structural, cultural, and institutional barriers continue to limit women's
and youth’s access to leadership.
Impacts on Governance: The dominance of older men potentially undermines responsiveness,
inclusivity, and innovation, especially concerning climate change, digital policy, and youth
needs.
Reform Pathways: Proposals include term limits, mandatory retirement, quotas for women, and
youth engagement initiatives.
1. Introduction
1.1. Setting the Stage: The Global Leadership Landscape in the 21st Century
Overview of Evolving Global Challenges
In the 21st century, the global landscape is marked by a convergence of complex and interrelated
challenges that demand adaptive, forward-thinking leadership. Among the most pressing are:
1) Climate Change and Environmental Degradation
The increasing frequency of extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and loss of biodiversity are urgent
indicators of the climate crisis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that
without rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land use, urban infrastructure, and industrial
systems, the planet risks irreversible damage. Effective leadership is needed to implement sustainable
5
policies, meet international climate agreements (e.g., the Paris Agreement), and transition to green
economies.
2) Technological Disruption and the Digital Divide
Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, automation, and digital technologies are transforming
economies and societies. While offering unprecedented opportunities for innovation and efficiency,
these changes also exacerbate inequalities—particularly between countries with robust digital
infrastructure and those without. Additionally, there are concerns about privacy, surveillance, and ethical
use of AI, all of which require informed and agile policy responses.
3) Geopolitical Tensions and Global Security
Increasing rivalry among major powers, regional conflicts, and shifting alliances are reshaping the
global order. The reassertion of authoritarianism, the militarization of emerging technologies, and
contested global norms challenge multilateralism and international cooperation. From the war in Ukraine
to tensions in the Indo-Pacific, global security threats require coordinated and principled leadership.
4) Public Health and Pandemic Preparedness
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant vulnerabilities in global health systems and governance
structures. Beyond the immediate crisis, long-term implications for economic resilience, public trust, and
health equity remain. Future pandemics are likely, and leaders must invest in global health infrastructure
and cross-border cooperation.
5) Economic Inequality and Social Fragmentation
The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, both within and between nations. Technological
change, globalization, and tax policies have disproportionately benefited a small elite, leading to public
dissatisfaction, populist movements, and political polarization. Addressing inequality requires inclusive
economic policies and social protections that reflect diverse societal needs.
These challenges are not isolated; they are deeply interconnected and require a new model of global
leadership—one that is inclusive, innovative, and responsive to the full spectrum of society. However,
the current overrepresentation of elderly male leaders raises questions about the capacity of existing
political structures to respond effectively to these evolving demands.
1.2. The Puzzle of Dominance: Elderly Male Leaders as the Prevailing Demographic
A defining feature of contemporary global leadership is the disproportionate dominance of elderly
male leaders.
According to recent data based on the article published by BILD in early 2025
1
, approximately 5.4
billion people are under the rule of male leaders older than 70. The oldest sitting leaders are Paul
Biya, President of Cameroon, who has been in office for 42 years at the age of 91 and Sultan Haji
Hassanal Bolkiah from Brunei Darussalam at the age of 79 with 58 years in power. Despite the
global push for increased youth and gender representation, power remains in the hands of a
disproportionately older demographic. Additionally, leaders such as Mahmoud Abbas, Ali Khamenei
and Teodoro Obiang have held power for extended periods, contributing to the lack of political
renewal in their respective regions.
1
https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland-und-internationales/politik-2-von-3-menschen-weltweit-werden-von-ue70-maennern-
regiert-678a8b956f10d97bb391cc72
6
Table 1: Examples of Oldest Political Leaders in the World (as of beginning of 2025)
Leader Country Age Years in Power
Paul Biya Cameroon 91 42+
Mahmoud Abbas Palestine 89 16+
Ali Khamenei Iran 86 36
Teodoro Obiang Equatorial Guinea 82 43
Denis Sassou Nguesso Congo 81 27+
Hassanal Bolkiah Brunei 79 58
Donald Trump USA 79 4+ (2nd term)
Narendra Modi India 75 11+
Vladimir Putin Russia 72 25 (5th term)
Xi Jinping China 72 12+ (3rd term)
This statistic underscores a striking demographic imbalance at the highest levels of political power. This
pattern is not confined to one region but spans across some of the world's most influential and populous
countries:
United States: President Donald Trump, age 79 (replaced Joe Biden, age 82), began his second
term in 2025, continuing to serve as one of the oldest elected heads of state in American history.
Russia: President Vladimir Putin, age 72, has been in power in various capacities since 1999,
with over 25 years of de facto rule (taking into account also his first entry at the end of 1999 and
position of the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation in 2008-2012).
China: While leadership transitions have occurred, the Communist Party's most senior officials,
such as Xi Jinping (72 in 2025), hold extended influence through highly centralized authority.
India: Prime Minister Narendra Modi, though comparatively younger at 75 in 2025, is part of a
broader political elite dominated by aging male figures.
Iran: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, age 86, has held the country’s highest religious and
political authority since 1989—a span of 36 years.
Cameroon: President Paul Biya, age 91, has governed since 1982, marking more than 42 years
in power, making him the longest-serving non-royal leader in the world.
Brunei Darussalam: Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah, age 79, was
proclaimed Sultan of Brunei on 5 October 1967 following the abdication of his father, Omar Ali
Saifuddien III, and was crowned head of state on 1 August 1968. 58 years in power are making
him the longest-serving royal leader in the world. In 2010, the Sultan of Brunei's personal wealth
was estimated at $20 billion.
Palestine: President Mahmoud Abbas, age 89, has remained in office since 2005, despite
multiple calls for democratic renewal.
Saudi Arabia, the Holy See/Vatican City State and Norway: are also led by leaders aged 88 or
older; however, in those cases, the leadership is explained by royal succession or church
appointment.
7
The median age of leaders is 65.3 years with 8.3 years of tenure length is based on snapshot done for
all countries as of April 1, 2025 is represented in Annex 1, Table 2: Global Leaders by Country, Regime
Type, Age, Gender, and Tenure (as of April 1, 2025). At the same time, the average time in power
increased to 18 years for the 20 countries whose leaders are aged 80 or older.
These leaders often operate in political environments where mechanisms such as term limits,
leadership succession, and age caps are either absent, weakly enforced, or circumvented. The resulting
political landscape reflects not just an age imbalance but often a concentration of power that hinders
institutional renewal and responsiveness to societal change.
This phenomenon invites deeper inquiry into the implications for democratic legitimacy,
intergenerational equity, and policy responsiveness in an era marked by rapid technological and
environmental change. In contrast to the aging leadership class, the median global age is just over 30,
and in some countries like Cameroon, it's as low as 18—further emphasizing the representational gap
between those in power and those governed.
1.3. Problem Statement and Research Questions
The dominance of elderly male leaders in global politics presents a growing concern for the
effectiveness, adaptability, and representativeness of modern governance. In a rapidly evolving world—
shaped by technological disruption, climate urgency, demographic shifts, and complex geopolitical
dynamics—the overrepresentation of leaders aged 70 and above raises critical questions about
institutional resilience and democratic legitimacy.
While experience and institutional memory are valuable assets, the prolonged concentration of political
power among aging male elites can hinder innovation, generational renewal, and responsiveness to the
needs of increasingly diverse and youthful populations. It also raises concerns about political stagnation,
detachment from emerging social realities, and resistance to necessary systemic reforms.
This demographic imbalance may undermine:
Effective governance, as aging leaders may struggle to keep pace with technological
advancements or shifting public expectations.
Policy inclusivity, given generational and gender differences in policy priorities, particularly in
areas like digital rights, education, climate policy, and social equity.
Political legitimacy and public trust, especially among younger citizens and underrepresented
groups who do not see themselves reflected in the corridors of power.
Institutional renewal, with long-serving leaders often resisting succession planning and the
decentralization of power.
These issues are not merely symbolic—they affect the performance and perception of political systems
globally. Addressing them requires a better understanding of how leadership demographics influence
governance outcomes and the democratic health of societies.
To explore the implications of the dominance of elderly male leaders in global governance, this study is
guided by the following core research questions:
1. What is the current demographic composition of global political leaders in terms of age and
gender?
o How prevalent is leadership among men aged 70 and older across regions and political
systems?
o What proportion of the global population is governed by women or younger leaders?
2. What are the consequences of this demographic imbalance for governance and policy
priorities?
8
o How does leadership age correlate with responsiveness to contemporary issues such as
climate change, digital transformation, and youth unemployment?
o Does prolonged tenure and advanced age affect political innovation and institutional
adaptability?
3. How does the underrepresentation of women and younger generations impact political
legitimacy and public trust?
o What evidence exists to suggest a disconnect between leadership demographics and the
populations they serve?
o How might generational and gender gaps in leadership influence civic engagement and
perceptions of democratic legitimacy?
4. What institutional reforms or policy interventions could promote more inclusive and
representative political leadership?
o Are term limits, age caps, gender quotas, or youth engagement programs effective in
improving demographic diversity in leadership?
o What examples of successful reform efforts exist, and what lessons can be drawn from
them?
These questions aim to bridge the empirical analysis of leadership demographics with normative
concerns about good governance, representation, and democratic health in the 21st century.
1.4. Significance of the Study
Understanding who governs is a foundational element of assessing the health, inclusivity, and future-
readiness of political systems. This study contributes to the global discourse on leadership and
governance by examining a demographic imbalance that is often overlooked: the sustained dominance of
elderly male leaders in shaping national and international policy.
The significance of this research lies in several key dimensions:
Timeliness and Relevance:
As the world navigates accelerating crises—including climate change, digital transformation,
inequality, and post-pandemic recovery—the ability of leaders to respond effectively and
innovatively is more critical than ever. An aging and demographically homogenous leadership
class may not be optimally positioned to address these rapidly evolving challenges.
Representation and Democratic Legitimacy:
Political systems gain strength through inclusive representation. When leaders do not reflect the
age or gender composition of their populations, this disconnect may erode political trust, reduce
civic participation, and diminish the legitimacy of democratic institutions.
Interdisciplinary Contribution:
The study contributes to broader academic debates in political science, sociology, gender studies,
and democratic theory by offering a fresh empirical analysis of leadership demographics,
informed by current events and grounded in existing theoretical frameworks.
Policy Impact and Reform Advocacy:
By evaluating potential reforms—such as term limits, age caps, and gender quotas—this study
offers practical insights for policymakers, electoral commissions, and civil society actors seeking
to revitalize political leadership and promote diversity in governance.
Global and Comparative Perspective:
The research moves beyond individual country case studies to offer a global perspective,
providing comparative insights that reveal both common patterns and regional specificities in
leadership trends.
9
Ultimately, the study underscores the need for political systems to evolve in step with the societies they
serve. In doing so, it supports efforts to build more inclusive, innovative, and representative institutions
for the 21st century and beyond.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theories of Leadership and Political Representation
Leadership is not just a matter of institutional power—it is also deeply connected to representation,
legitimacy, and responsiveness. Political scientists have developed several key frameworks to assess
how the demographic characteristics of leaders affect governance. Understanding the dynamics of
political leadership and representation necessitates an exploration of foundational theories that elucidate
how leaders emerge, operate, and connect with their constituents. Three primary frameworks—
descriptive representation, substantive representation, and symbolic representation—offer critical
insights into these dynamics.
Descriptive Representation
Descriptive representation refers to the extent to which elected officials physically resemble the
demographic characteristics of their constituents, such as race, gender, or age. The core premise is that a
governing body should mirror the diversity of the population it serves, under the assumption that shared
experiences and identities enhance understanding and advocacy for constituent interests
2
.
Research indicates that descriptive representation can bolster political efficacy among underrepresented
groups. For instance, a study published in the American Political Science Review
3
found that when
legislative bodies reflect the demographic composition of their communities, there is a positive impact
on public perceptions of legitimacy and trust in government institutions
4
.
As political theorist Hanna Pitkin argued, descriptive representation fosters trust and a sense of
legitimacy among constituents, especially those from underrepresented groups (Pitkin, 1967
5
).
Substantive Representation
Substantive representation focuses on the actions and policies enacted by representatives on behalf of
their constituents, emphasizing the advocacy of interests over shared characteristics
6
. This theory posits
that effective representation is achieved when officials actively promote and defend the policy
preferences and needs of the people they represent, regardless of whether they share the same
demographic traits
7
.
Beyond appearances, substantive representation focuses on the extent to which leaders advocate for and
implement policies that serve their constituents' interests. Studies have shown that younger and female
2
https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/descriptive-representation-election-administration
3
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/descriptive-representation-and-party-
building-evidence-from-municipal-governments-in-brazil/6F983B4F7AE5CDC5BB8352FD4D22A0B1
4
https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=crps
5
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Concept_of_Representation.html?id=AgUVWLswTNEC&redir_esc=y
6
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14789299231154864
7
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12874
10
leaders are more likely to prioritize issues like education, family policies, social justice, and climate
change (Schwindt-Bayer, 2010
8
).
Empirical evidence suggests a complex relationship between descriptive and substantive representation
9
.
A study in the British Journal of Political Science
10
examined women's representation and found that
while increasing the number of female legislators is correlated with greater attention to women's issues,
the mere presence of women does not automatically translate to substantive policy changes
11
.
Symbolic Representation
Symbolic representation pertains to the symbolic meaning and impact of having certain groups
represented in political offices. It addresses the psychological and cultural effects that the presence of
diverse representatives can have on public attitudes and societal norms. Symbolic representation can
influence citizens' perceptions of their own societal status and their trust in political systems
12
.
This dimension refers to the meaning and symbolism attached to leaders who "look like" their
constituents. The presence of younger or female leaders can inspire greater civic participation and
challenge entrenched hierarchies, even if policy outcomes remain unchanged (Mansbridge, 1999
13
).
An analysis in Political Science Now
14
highlights that symbolic representation shapes the context of
symbols and norms surrounding a representative's position and actions, thereby influencing their
legitimacy and the public's emotional responses.
Integrating Leadership Theories
Beyond representation, leadership theories provide additional perspectives on how leaders influence and
mobilize constituents. Transformational leadership theory, for example, emphasizes the role of leaders in
inspiring and motivating followers to achieve collective goals and enact significant change. This
approach underscores the importance of vision, communication, and the ability to address followers'
needs and aspirations.
A comprehensive review in the Annual Review of Psychology
15
discusses recent developments in
leadership theories, including transformational leadership, and their implications for effective
governance.
Understanding these theoretical frameworks is essential for analyzing the current landscape of global
political leadership
16
. The predominance of elderly male leaders raises questions about the extent to
which current governance structures embody these forms of representation and leadership, and how this
demographic trend impacts policy outcomes and public trust.
8
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263538215_Political_Power_and_Women%27s_Representation_in_Latin_America
9
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48693868
10
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/substantive-representation-of-women-
empirical-evidence/613F44D4EAD24A8F49AF572A8C0D971D
11
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010414017720702
12
https://spgs.asu.edu/symbolic-representation-conference
13
Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent "Yes". The Journal
of Politics, 61(3), 628-657. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2647821
14
https://politicalsciencenow.com/good-symbolic-representation/
15
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
16
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41296-023-00665-x
11
2 more related theories which provide a foundation for analysis of the global leadership demographic
composition are Elite Theory and Critical Mass Theory.
Elite Theory and Power Concentration
Elite theory holds that a small, often unchanging group controls key political and economic institutions,
regardless of formal democratic mechanisms. Aging male political elites often exemplify this theory, as
they maintain control through incumbency, patronage networks, and institutional inertia (Mosca,
1939
17
).
Critical Mass Theory
Some scholars argue that only once a critical threshold of women or younger individuals is reached in
leadership can meaningful institutional change occur. This challenges tokenistic or symbolic
appointments and advocates for systemic inclusion (Kanter, 1977
18
).
These theories provide a foundation for analyzing why the demographic composition of global
leadership matters—and how it influences policy, trust, and responsiveness. In the context of this study,
they help assess whether elderly male dominance limits inclusive, effective governance in an era of
global transformation.
2.2. The Aging of Political Elites: Trends and Explanations
The phenomenon of aging political elites is not new, but recent data suggests that the average age of
heads of state and government has been steadily rising across many regions. As of 2025, a significant
proportion of global leaders are well beyond the age of 70, and some—such as Cameroon’s Paul Biya
(91) and Iran’s Ali Khamenei (85)—have been in power for decades. This trend is particularly
pronounced in regions with weak institutional checks on executive tenure and limited political
competition.
Global and Regional Trends in Leadership Age
According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union and United Nations data, the global average age for heads of
state and government has increased in recent decades. For instance:
In sub-Saharan Africa, many leaders have remained in power for over two decades, including
Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda.
In North America and Western Europe, while democratic systems regularly hold elections,
older leaders like former U.S. President Joe Biden (82 at the end of his term) and former Italian
President Sergio Mattarella (83 at the end of his term) indicate that aging elites are still
electorally viable.
In Asia, leaders like Xi Jinping (71) and Narendra Modi (74) are central figures in their political
systems, with extended tenures or repeated reelections.
In the Middle East, longevity in leadership is often tied to centralized, semi-authoritarian
regimes—as seen with Abbas and Khamenei.
17
https://philpapers.org/rec/MOSTRC-2
18
https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1773374
12
A 2023 study from the Brookings Institution also noted that the average age of national leaders had
increased by nearly a decade since the early 1990s, driven by longer tenures, later entry into politics, and
changing voter attitudes (Brookings, 2023).
Factors Contributing to the Rise in Leadership Age
Several structural and cultural factors help explain this global pattern:
Incumbency Advantage
Incumbents often have access to state resources, name recognition, and institutional support that
can deter viable challengers. In weaker democracies or authoritarian regimes, this advantage is
compounded by the manipulation of electoral laws or suppression of opposition parties. Long-
serving incumbents are statistically more likely to be older simply due to tenure accumulation.
Voter Behavior and Perceptions
In some political cultures, age is equated with wisdom, stability, and experience. Older leaders
may be viewed as better suited to manage crises or maintain national identity, particularly in
countries facing internal division or external threats. This perception can lead voters to favor
continuity over change, even at the cost of generational renewal.
Career Trajectories and Political Pathways
Political careers often involve long ladders of advancement through party structures,
bureaucracies, or military hierarchies. As a result, many politicians only reach top leadership
positions in their late 60s or 70s. Furthermore, institutional inertia often discourages early
retirement or leadership turnover.
Constitutional and Electoral Rigidity
In some countries, constitutions lack clear provisions for term or age limits. This legal flexibility
allows political leaders to remain in office far longer than their counterparts in countries with
stronger democratic norms. For example, leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have
effectively extended or eliminated term limits to consolidate their authority.
Demographic Disconnection
Despite younger median populations globally—currently about 30.3 years worldwide, and under
20 in many African nations—leadership demographics remain skewed. This disconnection
between governed and governors creates a symbolic and substantive representational gap.
Supporting Studies and References:
International IDEA (2024). “Leadership Longevity and Democratic Fatigue.”
https://www.idea.int
Brookings Institution (2023). “Age and Executive Office: Global Trends.”
https://www.brookings.edu
Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) (2024). “Leadership Demographics by Region.”
https://www.ipu.org
Reuters Special Report (2022). “How Long Have the World’s Leaders Been in Power?”
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/world-leaders-power-duration/
2.3. Gender and Political Leadership: Persistent Barriers and Progress
Despite global commitments to gender equality, women remain significantly underrepresented in
political leadership at all levels. As of early 2025, only 26 countries are led by women, representing less
than 5% of the world’s population (approximately 380 million people). While some progress has been
made, particularly in regions such as Scandinavia and parts of Latin America, the overall pace of change
remains slow and uneven.
13
Structural and Institutional Barriers to Female Leadership
Women face numerous structural barriers that limit their access to political leadership positions:
Party Gatekeeping: Political parties often act as gatekeepers to leadership roles and may be less
likely to nominate or support female candidates, particularly in executive positions.
Resource Disparities: Campaigning for high office requires access to financial, social, and
institutional resources—areas in which women are often disadvantaged due to existing gender
norms and economic disparities.
Cultural and Societal Norms: Deeply rooted gender stereotypes continue to shape perceptions
of leadership. In many societies, leadership is still culturally coded as male, and women in
politics face scrutiny, sexism, and even violence at disproportionately high levels.
The "Double Bind" and Higher Expectations
Female leaders frequently encounter the “double bind”—a situation in which they are expected to be
both assertive (to lead) and nurturing (to align with gender expectations). Failing to strike this balance
can result in diminished public approval or media backlash. Moreover, women are often held to higher
standards than their male counterparts, and their leadership outcomes are more intensely scrutinized.
Policy Impact of Female Leadership
Empirical studies indicate that when women do reach leadership roles, they often bring different
priorities and policy approaches:
Social Policy Emphasis: Female leaders tend to prioritize education, health care, family welfare,
and gender equality legislation (UN Women, 2023
19
).
Transparency and Anti-Corruption: Several studies suggest a correlation between female
leadership and reduced levels of corruption, although findings vary by region and political
system (World Bank, 2023
20
).
Inclusive Governance: Governments with higher levels of female representation have been
shown to adopt more inclusive and participatory decision-making processes (IPU, 2024
21
).
Recent Trends and Progress
Despite ongoing challenges, some positive trends have emerged:
Quotas and Gender Parity Laws: Over 130 countries now use some form of gender quota,
leading to increases in female legislative representation in countries such as Rwanda, Bolivia,
and Mexico.
First-Time Female Heads of State: In 2024 alone, three countries elected women as heads of
state for the first time, including Moldova and Slovenia.
Role Models and Generational Shifts: Younger women, inspired by global movements and
high-profile female leaders, are increasingly entering political life, pushing for more inclusive
and intersectional approaches to governance.
19
UN Women (2023). “Women’s Leadership and Political Participation.” https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-
do/leadership-and-political-participation
20
World Bank (2023). “Gender and Governance.” https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/gender/publication/gender-and-
governance
21
Inter-Parliamentary Union (2024). “Women in Politics: 2024.”
https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/infographics/2024-03/women-in-politics-2024
14
Persistent Gaps and Areas for Action
Despite these gains, more than 100 countries have never had a female head of government or state,
and only a handful of women lead G20 nations. Institutional inertia, male-dominated power structures,
and societal resistance continue to hamper progress.
Supportive Reading:
Krook, M. L. (2020). Violence Against Women in Politics. Oxford University Press.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/violence-against-women-in-politics-9780190867584
2.4. Intergenerational Dynamics in Politics and Governance
Generational diversity in governance is crucial for ensuring that the interests and perspectives of all age
groups are reflected in political decision-making. Yet, the overwhelming dominance of political leaders
aged 70 and above underscores a global disconnect between those in power and the much younger
populations they serve.
Generational Gaps in Policy Priorities
Research consistently shows that different generations hold distinct policy priorities. Younger people are
more likely to advocate for:
Climate action and sustainability
Digital rights and technology regulation
Affordable education and housing
LGBTQ+ rights and social inclusion
In contrast, older generations may prioritize economic stability, national security, or traditional social
values. When governance is dominated by elderly elites, there is a risk that pressing concerns of younger
generations may be marginalized or underrepresented in policymaking.
For instance, a 2022 Pew Research Center study found that in most advanced economies, younger
citizens were significantly more likely to prioritize climate change and diversity-related issues than their
older counterparts (Pew Research Center, 2022
22
).
Barriers to Youth Political Participation
Despite representing a large portion of the global population, young people are drastically
underrepresented in political office. As of 2023:
Only 2.6% of parliamentarians globally are under the age of 30.
Fewer than 1% of heads of state or government are under 40.
Several barriers contribute to this underrepresentation:
Age eligibility laws that restrict younger individuals from holding high office.
22
Pew Research Center (2022). “Younger People Prioritize Climate and Equity.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/in-advanced-economies-publics-agree-about-threats-but-not-about-solutions/
15
Lack of mentorship and political access, particularly in systems dominated by entrenched
elites.
Financial constraints, which limit the ability of young candidates to compete in elections.
Skepticism and political disengagement, with many young people viewing politics as
inaccessible or unresponsive to their needs.
Youth-Led Movements and Alternative Participation
Although underrepresented in formal institutions, youth are increasingly turning to activism and digital
platforms to engage politically. Movements like Fridays for Future (led by Greta Thunberg) and global
youth climate strikes demonstrate young people's capacity to influence global discourse, even without
formal political power.
Social media has also emerged as a powerful tool for political expression and mobilization among youth,
challenging traditional hierarchies and enabling real-time engagement with issues. However, this "digital
participation" is not always translated into institutional reform or representation.
Generational Turnover: A Global Lag
Political scientists argue that periodic turnover in leadership is essential for democratic vitality.
However, many countries have yet to institutionalize mechanisms that facilitate generational transitions.
Without term limits, age caps, or leadership succession planning, older politicians may continue to
dominate decision-making—even in democracies.
Countries with recent examples of relatively young leaders, such as Finland (Sanna Marin, elected at age
34) and Chile (Gabriel Boric, elected at 35), remain exceptions rather than the rule.
Supporting Studies and References:
UNDP (2023). “Enhancing Youth Political Participation.”
https://www.undp.org/publications/enhancing-youth-political-participation
Inter-Parliamentary Union (2024). “Youth Participation in National Parliaments.”
https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/reports/2024-02/youth-participation-in-national-
parliaments-2024
Pew Research Center (2022). “Younger People Prioritize Climate and Equity.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/in-advanced-economies-publics-agree-about-
threats-but-not-about-solutions/
Cammaerts, B. et al. (2016). Youth Participation in Democratic Life: Stories of Hope and
Disillusionment. Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9781137540218
2.5. Synthesis and Research Gaps
The literature on political leadership, representation, and demographic disparities provides a robust
theoretical and empirical foundation for understanding the global leadership landscape. Several key
insights emerge from this review:
Key Takeaways from the Literature
Descriptive and Substantive Representation Matters: There is strong theoretical support for
the idea that leaders who reflect the demographics of the population—especially in terms of age
and gender—are more likely to pursue inclusive policies and enhance political legitimacy.
16
Aging Leadership Is a Global Trend: Numerous studies highlight the increasing age of
political elites, particularly among heads of state and government. Factors such as incumbency
advantages, institutional rigidity, and cultural reverence for age play major roles in reinforcing
this trend.
Gender Disparities Persist Across All Levels of Leadership: Despite some progress, women
continue to face systemic barriers to political leadership. Female leaders are underrepresented
globally, and even where present, they often occupy “soft” ministerial roles or face heightened
scrutiny.
Generational Underrepresentation Affects Policy Responsiveness: Younger populations—
especially in countries with low median ages—are frequently governed by much older elites.
This mismatch can result in disengagement, frustration, and policies that fail to address youth
priorities such as climate action, digital rights, and employment.
Identified Research Gaps
Despite a growing body of literature, several critical gaps remain that this study aims to address:
Combined Impact of Age and Gender in Leadership: While age and gender are often studied
separately, there is limited research exploring how their intersection—particularly the
overrepresentation of elderly men—shapes governance outcomes.
Quantitative Analyses Using Updated Global Data: Much of the demographic analysis of
leadership remains outdated or regional. This study incorporates new data from 2025, offering a
timely and global perspective.
Comparative Assessment of Reform Effectiveness: Existing work on reforms such as term
limits and quotas tends to focus on individual case studies. There is a need for broader analysis of
how these reforms affect leadership demographics across different political systems.
Public Trust and Legitimacy Metrics Related to Demographics: Although trust in institutions
is a well-studied field, few studies directly link leadership demographics to public perceptions of
legitimacy, particularly among younger or underrepresented groups.
Positioning This Study
By synthesizing insights from political theory, empirical studies, and global leadership data, this study
aims to fill these gaps and provide a holistic analysis of the implications of elderly male dominance in
political leadership. It does so through:
An up-to-date demographic assessment as of 2025;
A comparative lens spanning multiple regions and governance models;
A focused examination of the consequences for representation, legitimacy, and governance
outcomes;
Practical evaluation of reform options that could foster more inclusive and effective leadership.
3. Data and Methodology
3.1. Data Sources
This study draws on a combination of journalistic, institutional, and academic sources:
The 2025 BILD article highlighting that 67.5% of the global population is governed by men over
the age of 70.
17
Leadership demographic data from organizations such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU),
United Nations, World Bank, and OECD.
Supplementary political tenure and age data from Brookings, Reuters, International IDEA etc.
3.2. Sample and Scope of Analysis
The analysis focuses on current heads of state and government in all UN-recognized countries as of
April 1, 2025. Full list is available here: https://www.un.org/dgacm/en/content/protocol/hshgnfa and
here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government
The structured approach with the summary presented in the Table 1: Oldest Political Leaders in the
World (as of beginning of 2025) of the research item 1.2 which offers a snapshot of the global political
leadership landscape, highlighting the diversity—or lack thereof—in age, gender, and tenure among
world leaders. Full snapshot as of April 1, 2025 is represented in Annex 1, Table 2: Global Leaders by
Country, Regime Type, Age, Gender, and Tenure (as of April 1, 2025).
For the complete dataset, one would typically consult authoritative sources such as the United Nations
Protocol and Liaison Service, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, or the official government websites of each
country.
Notes:
Regime Type Classification: Based on widely accepted political classifications as of beginning
2025. The indicator uses the Regimes of the World classification by political scientists Anna
Lührmann, Marcus Tannenberg and Staffan Lindberg, source:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/political-regime
The classification distinguishes between closed autocracies (score 0), electoral autocracies (score
1), electoral democracies (score 2), and liberal democracies (score 3).
Leader Details: Ages and lengths of tenure are approximate as of April 2025.
Gender Representation: Female leaders are notably underrepresented globally.
Data Sources:
United Nations Protocol and Liaison Service
Inter-Parliamentary Union
Official government publications and reputable news outlets
3.3. Analytical Approach
This methodology aims to provide both empirical clarity and interpretive depth regarding the
demographic makeup of global leadership and its consequences for governance.
To address the research questions outlined in the introduction, this study adopts a mixed-methods
strategy that integrates quantitative and qualitative techniques for a holistic analysis.
A mixed-methods strategy is used:
Descriptive statistics to present leadership age and gender trends.
Comparative analysis to highlight regional disparities and reform outcomes.
Qualitative interpretation based on theoretical frameworks from the literature review.
18
Descriptive Statistics
The first layer of analysis involves descriptive statistical methods to summarize the demographic
characteristics of global leaders. This includes:
Calculating the average age of heads of state and government.
Categorizing leaders by gender, region, and regime type.
Assessing the distribution of leadership tenures across age groups and political systems.
These metrics provide a foundational snapshot of leadership demographics as of April 1, 2025,
highlighting patterns and anomalies in global governance.
Comparative Analysis
Building on descriptive findings, the study conducts regional and regime-type comparisons. Key
dimensions include:
The proportion of elderly male leaders across democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian
systems.
Regional differences in female leadership and youth representation.
Comparative outcomes in countries with recent reforms, such as term limits or gender quotas.
This comparative approach allows for the identification of contextual factors that shape leadership
demographics and reform efficacy.
Qualitative Interpretation
The study also draws upon qualitative methods to interpret the broader implications of leadership
patterns. This includes:
Applying theoretical frameworks—such as descriptive and substantive representation—to
evaluate how leadership composition affects public trust and legitimacy.
Integrating findings from scholarly literature to interpret the sociopolitical consequences of
prolonged leadership and demographic homogeneity.
Examining case studies of countries with long-serving elderly leaders or pioneering younger and
female leaders to understand variation in governance outcomes.
Together, these methods aim to provide both empirical clarity and interpretive depth, linking
leadership demographics to broader questions of democratic health, institutional resilience, and inclusive
governance.
4. Findings: The Demographic Landscape of Global Leadership
4.1. The Prevalence of Elderly Male Leaders: A Statistical Overview
As of April 1, 2025, 67.5% of the global population lives under leadership dominated by men over 70
years of age. From a sample of 197 UN-recognized states and observer entities:
Average Age of Leaders: 65.3 years
Average Tenure: 8.3 years
Leaders Aged 80+: 20 leaders, with average tenure rising to 18 years
19
Gender Distribution:
o Male: 87%
o Female: 13%
These figures emphasize a skewed concentration of power. Among the top 10 longest-serving and oldest
leaders are Paul Biya (91, 42+ years in power) and Teodoro Obiang (82, 43 years in power).
This pattern transcends political regimes, seen in both autocracies (e.g., Iran, Brunei) and democracies
(e.g., USA, India).
4.2. Regional Variations and Country Case Studies
Africa:
Cameroon’s Paul Biya (91) and Equatorial Guinea’s Obiang (82) exemplify prolonged
incumbency.
Uganda’s Museveni (81) has led since 1986.
Middle East:
Iran’s Khamenei (86) and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman (89) reflect both political and
hereditary leadership patterns.
Asia:
Xi Jinping (72) in China and Narendra Modi (75) in India symbolize enduring leadership in
highly centralized systems.
Western Democracies:
Donald Trump (79) began a second term in 2025, following Joe Biden (82).
Sergio Mattarella (84) in Italy and Michael D. Higgins (84) in Ireland are among Europe’s
oldest leaders.
Notable Female Leaders:
Only 26 countries have female heads of state or government:
Italy (Giorgia Meloni, 48)
Mexico (Claudia Sheinbaum, 62)
Finland (Alexander Stubb’s predecessor, Sanna Marin, 34 at election)
Slovenia (Nataša Pirc Musar, 57)
Still, women govern less than 5% of the global population, emphasizing the magnitude of gender
disparity.
4.3. Trends Over Time
Historical data indicates:
Rising average age of leaders since the 1990s (Brookings, 2023)
Stagnant gender inclusion, despite global calls for parity.
20
Technocratic and youth-oriented leaders, such as those in Finland and Chile, remain
exceptions.
No consistent global trend suggests a major generational shift in leadership.
4.4. Summary of Key Demographic Findings
Elderly men remain disproportionately dominant in global leadership.
Gender parity is far from being achieved.
Leadership demographics are increasingly disconnected from the global median population age
(~30.3 years).
Long tenures are more prevalent among the oldest leaders.
5. Analysis and Discussion: Implications and Consequences
5.1. Impact on Policy Innovation and Adaptation
The dominance of elderly male leaders in global governance presents significant challenges for policy
innovation and adaptability—particularly in an era marked by rapid technological change, evolving
public expectations, and increasingly complex global problems.
Challenges in Adopting New Technologies
Older leaders may be less likely to embrace or fully understand emerging technologies such as artificial
intelligence, blockchain, and digital governance platforms. While chronological age alone does not
determine technological literacy, studies in cognitive psychology and digital adoption patterns suggest
that older individuals are generally less inclined to engage with disruptive technologies or integrate them
into institutional frameworks (OECD, 2024)
23
.
This digital hesitancy can result in:
Lagging e-government initiatives and public service digitization
Slow adoption of cybersecurity strategies
Ineffective regulation of tech sectors (e.g., AI ethics, data privacy)
Missed opportunities in digital diplomacy or economic transformation
As governments increasingly require technological fluency to remain effective and competitive,
leadership that resists or lags in adopting such tools can place entire countries at a disadvantage—
particularly in global forums where digital policy is now central to economic and security agendas.
Policy Stagnation and Resistance to Change
Prolonged leadership tenures often correlate with institutional inertia. Leaders who remain in power for
decades tend to build personalized power structures that discourage dissent, prioritize loyalty over
innovation, and perpetuate status quo policies.
This tendency can result in:
23
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/06/enhancing-productivity-and-growth-in-an-ageing-
society_68a94c77/605b0787-en.pdf
21
Outdated policy agendas that fail to reflect new scientific or social realities
Entrenched administrative cultures resistant to reform
Exclusion of younger voices who might otherwise drive change
Low responsiveness to public demand, especially among youth
For example, leaders such as Paul Biya (Cameroon) or Ali Khamenei (Iran) have governed through
multiple generational shifts without significant institutional modernization. This has often contributed to
disillusionment among citizens—particularly the young—and has hindered meaningful reforms in areas
like education, environmental regulation, and governance transparency.
In democratic settings, even elected elderly leaders such as Donald Trump and Joe Biden have faced
criticism for their outdated approaches to digital infrastructure, youth policy, and innovation funding—
suggesting that long tenures and advanced age can affect reform momentum even in more flexible
systems.
Broader Implications
The stagnation associated with aging and prolonged leadership weakens institutional adaptability in a
volatile global landscape. In contrast, younger leaders are statistically more likely to support innovation-
centric policies—such as investments in green technology, digital education, and future-focused
infrastructure. The underrepresentation of such leaders thus constrains the pace at which national and
global institutions evolve.
Moreover, countries with mechanisms that encourage leadership turnover—such as Finland, New
Zealand, or Chile—often demonstrate greater agility in adapting to societal demands, technological
transitions, and global shocks.
5.2. Implications for Climate Change and Sustainability Policies
Leadership demographics significantly influence national and international responses to climate change.
As one of the defining issues of the 21st century, the climate crisis demands forward-thinking, long-term
policymaking—attributes that are often at odds with the tendencies of aging political elites who may
prioritize short-term stability over transformative action.
Younger Leaders and Climate Priority
Empirical evidence suggests that younger leaders are more likely to champion environmental
agendas, align with climate science, and engage with sustainability-oriented constituencies. Studies
from the Pew Research Center (2022)
24
and UNEP (2024)
25
show that politicians under 50 consistently
rank climate action among their top priorities, while their older counterparts tend to place greater
emphasis on energy security, economic growth, or industrial preservation.
Countries with younger or more progressive leadership—such as Finland (under Sanna Marin), New
Zealand (under Jacinda Ardern), or Chile (under Gabriel Boric)—have introduced ambitious
policies including carbon neutrality pledges, fossil fuel divestment, and green education reforms. These
contrasts illustrate how leadership age can shape a nation's climate trajectory.
24
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/19/us-adults-under-30-have-different-foreign-policy-priorities-than-
older-adults/
25
https://www.unep.org/resources/annual-report-2024
22
Aging Leadership and Delayed Action
In contrast, elderly and long-entrenched leaders may lack either the urgency, vision, or political will to
enact bold climate reforms. Several factors contribute to this hesitation:
Shorter personal time horizons, reducing incentive for long-term investments.
Institutional conservatism, where legacy policies are defended to maintain continuity.
Ties to established industrial or extractive sectors, limiting regulatory innovation.
Lower alignment with the values of climate-conscious youth, resulting in reduced public
pressure.
For instance, countries such as Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia—all led by aging male elites—have
been slow to adopt meaningful climate commitments or shift away from fossil fuel dependencies. In
democratic contexts, older leaders may also avoid divisive or ambitious climate policies out of fear of
alienating traditional constituencies, as seen in debates over the Green New Deal in the United States.
Global Coordination and Generational Friction
At the global level, the presence of elderly male leaders in key negotiating positions may hinder
multilateral progress. Despite growing scientific consensus and popular demand, climate summits
often yield diluted agreements due to risk-averse posturing or lack of political imagination from
senior leaders more attuned to 20th-century geopolitical dynamics.
This generational friction between those in power and youth-led climate movements (e.g., Fridays for
Future) represents a growing tension in climate governance. As younger generations bear the brunt of
climate impacts, their underrepresentation in decision-making forums exacerbates feelings of
alienation and frustration.
5.3. Representation, Public Trust, and Political Engagement
One of the most consequential impacts of the enduring dominance of elderly male leaders is the
widening disconnect between political institutions and the populations they serve. This disconnect
can erode public trust, reduce civic engagement, and undermine the legitimacy of governance systems—
particularly in increasingly diverse and youthful societies.
The Representation Gap
Globally, the median age is just over 30, yet the average leader is more than twice that age (65.3 years
as of 2025). This mismatch is particularly stark in regions like sub-Saharan Africa, where the median
age is under 20, yet heads of state are often in their 70s or 80s. Compounding this issue is the persistent
gender imbalance, with women comprising just 13% of global leaders.
This demographic gap has implications beyond mere optics. According to descriptive representation
theory, when leadership does not reflect the population’s composition, individuals—especially from
underrepresented groups—are less likely to feel politically included, heard, or valued (Pitkin, 1967). The
absence of visible diversity sends a symbolic message that power is reserved for a narrow demographic
elite.
23
Public Trust and Political Legitimacy
Trust in institutions is deeply intertwined with how representative those institutions appear to be. Studies
by the World Bank (2023)
26
and International IDEA (2024)
27
indicate that youth, women, and
marginalized communities report significantly lower trust in governments that lack inclusive
leadership.
This erosion of trust manifests in various ways:
Low voter turnout among younger citizens
Increased political apathy and cynicism
Rising support for anti-establishment or populist movements
Growth of alternative forms of activism, particularly online
In democratic systems, this can weaken participation and engagement. In authoritarian contexts, it can
fuel instability or civil unrest when citizens feel permanently excluded from decision-making.
Barriers to Political Engagement
The underrepresentation of women and youth in leadership also reflects and reinforces broader barriers
to political engagement, such as:
Age and gender eligibility laws
Structural gatekeeping by political parties
Discriminatory cultural norms and media portrayals
Economic and time constraints, especially for young or caregiving individuals
Without targeted reforms or supportive ecosystems (e.g., mentorship programs, campaign financing
access), the pipeline to leadership remains narrow and exclusionary.
The Power of Symbolic Representation
Even when leaders do not enact immediate policy changes, their symbolic presence can reshape public
perceptions and aspirations. Female and younger leaders serve as role models, signaling the possibility
of political inclusion and inspiring future generations.
Notable examples include:
Sanna Marin (former Prime Minister of Finland), elected at 34, who helped normalize youth
leadership in the global spotlight.
Maia Sandu (Moldova) and Claudia Sheinbaum (Mexico), who broke gender barriers in their
regions.
These leaders illustrate how diverse representation can restore public confidence, revitalize political
interest, and foster a sense of shared ownership over national trajectories.
26
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099108512192312732/pdf/IDU1a6f1e873149a71446e19ec11b24376209e43.pdf
27
https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/media_resources/2024-International-IDEA-Programme-and-Budget_0.pdf
24
5.4. The Consequences of Gender Imbalance in Policymaking
The underrepresentation of women in global political leadership has far-reaching implications—not only
for symbolic equality but for the substantive quality of governance and policymaking. With women
comprising just 13% of world leaders and only 26 countries led by women as of 2025, global
governance continues to be shaped predominantly through a male lens, often neglecting issues that
disproportionately affect women, families, and marginalized groups.
Narrow Policy Agendas and Blind Spots
Research consistently shows that female leaders and legislators are more likely to prioritize:
Social welfare policies (education, health care, childcare)
Gender equity and anti-discrimination laws
Family support systems and domestic violence legislation
Inclusive environmental and development policies
Conversely, when policymaking circles are overwhelmingly male, these concerns are often deprioritized
or inadequately addressed. This leads to systematic blind spots in governance, where policies fail to
reflect the lived realities of half the population.
According to UN Women (2023)
28
, countries with greater gender parity in leadership score higher on
metrics of child health, educational access, and gender-based violence prevention. However, in most
countries, women remain confined to “soft” ministries or symbolic roles, while the centers of economic
and security decision-making remain male-dominated.
Disproportionate Scrutiny and Higher Expectations
Even when women ascend to leadership, they frequently encounter the ―double bind‖: expected to be
strong and authoritative while simultaneously nurturing and consensus-driven. This tension makes
female leaders particularly vulnerable to public and media criticism—often for traits that are considered
neutral or even positive in male counterparts.
Examples include:
Jacinda Ardern, praised globally for her empathy during crises, was also criticized for
perceived over-sensitivity in policymaking.
Hillary Clinton faced intense scrutiny for tone and demeanor in ways rarely applied to male
peers.
Claudia Sheinbaum (Mexico) has already faced gendered critiques about her leadership style
within months of assuming office.
Such expectations can discourage women from entering politics or advancing into top-tier leadership,
reinforcing the cycle of exclusion.
28
https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation
25
Loss of Innovation and Diversity in Perspective
Gender-diverse leadership teams are more likely to challenge groupthink, explore broader policy
options, and integrate intersectional perspectives. Homogeneous groups—especially those composed
of aging men—tend to reinforce existing power structures and resist change.
A 2024 report by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)
29
found that parliaments and cabinets with
higher female representation were significantly more likely to:
Enact environmental legislation with long-term focus
Promote data-driven policies on public health and education
Increase civic trust and transparency
Thus, the gender imbalance in leadership not only affects fairness and representation but also
diminishes the effectiveness and creativity of governance.
5.5. Interplay of Age and Gender in Leadership Dynamics
The dual axes of age and gender compound the challenges facing global governance today. While age-
related and gender-based exclusions are often analyzed separately, their intersection reveals deeper
structural inequities that sustain an unrepresentative and often unresponsive leadership class.
Intersectional Underrepresentation
The vast majority of world leaders—especially those with extended tenures—are older men. As of April
2025:
67.5% of the global population is governed by men over the age of 70.
Only 13% of world leaders are women, and an even smaller fraction are women under 50.
This demographic reality produces a narrow decision-making cohort that is not only age-homogeneous
but also gender-homogeneous, resulting in limited representation of younger voices, feminist
perspectives, or intersectional worldviews in high-level governance.
The result is what scholars call a "double dominance effect": policies and institutional cultures shaped
by individuals with shared generational experiences, priorities, and worldviews—often disconnected
from contemporary technological, environmental, and social realities.
Policy Blind Spots and Resistance to Change
The intersection of older age and male dominance often translates into:
Risk aversion in policymaking
Minimal prioritization of gender-sensitive legislation
Slow adaptation to emerging global issues such as climate change, digital governance, or mental
health
Defensive leadership cultures that protect existing hierarchies rather than fostering innovation
29
https://www.ipu.org/news/press-releases/2025-03/ipu-report-parliamentary-gender-gap-narrowed-over-past-30-years-
progress-stalled-in-2024
26
Such environments not only marginalize women and youth but also suppress alternative leadership
styles—those that value empathy, collaboration, and inclusivity.
Leadership Norms and Cultural Expectations
In many political systems, the normative image of a “strong leader” remains deeply gendered and age-
bound: authoritative, experienced, and male. Younger or female candidates who do not conform to these
expectations often face skepticism regarding their competence or legitimacy.
Even when women or young individuals do attain high office, their leadership is often scrutinized more
harshly, especially if they deviate from traditional styles. This creates a chilling effect, where future
aspirants—especially those at the intersection of youth, gender, or minority identity—may opt out of
political engagement altogether.
Structural Inertia and the Need for Reform
The persistence of older male dominance is not accidental—it is structurally reinforced by:
Political party gatekeeping
Lack of term or age limits
Informal patronage networks
Limited mentorship pipelines for diverse candidates
Addressing this dual imbalance requires not just individual opportunity but systemic change—from
legal reforms to cultural shifts in how leadership is perceived and supported.
6. Potential Reforms and Solutions
6.1. Term Limits: Promoting Political Renewal
One of the most frequently proposed and widely debated solutions to aging leadership and entrenched
incumbency is the implementation or enforcement of term limits. These limits serve as a mechanism to
promote political turnover, prevent authoritarian drift, and open space for younger and more
diverse candidates.
The Case for Term Limits
Proponents argue that term limits help:
Prevent power consolidation, especially in hybrid or authoritarian regimes
Encourage generational renewal, making room for new leaders, perspectives, and policy ideas
Reduce political stagnation, fostering greater responsiveness to current challenges
Break elite monopolies, weakening patronage networks and dynastic control
In systems where term limits are enforced, such as Mexico or Colombia, political leaders must
frequently renew their public mandate or make way for successors, contributing to greater policy
dynamism and institutional accountability.
27
Term limits also boost public trust, as citizens are reassured that no individual can hold power
indefinitely. This is particularly vital in regions with histories of authoritarianism or personalist rule,
where longevity in office is often associated with corruption or democratic backsliding.
Challenges and Limitations
However, critics of term limits highlight several drawbacks:
Loss of experience: Frequent turnover may remove seasoned policymakers who understand
institutional processes.
Short-term policymaking: Leaders facing imminent exit may lack incentives to pursue long-
term reforms.
Continuity gaps: Transitions can disrupt ongoing initiatives, particularly in fragile democracies
with weak bureaucracies.
Moreover, term limits are only as effective as their enforcement. Leaders such as Vladimir Putin, Xi
Jinping, and Paul Biya have either amended constitutions, circumvented legal frameworks, or
manipulated electoral systems to remain in office despite formal term restrictions. This underscores the
need for institutional resilience, judicial independence, and civil society oversight to ensure term
limits are respected in practice.
Global Trends and Reform Momentum
According to International IDEA (2024)27, there has been a modest resurgence of interest in term
limits, especially in Africa and Latin America, where civic movements have pushed back against “third-
termism” and lifetime presidencies.
Still, global enforcement remains uneven:
Over 30 countries have no term limits for heads of state.
In several democracies, term limits exist in law but are frequently contested or eroded.
To be effective, term limits must be coupled with transparent succession planning, strong electoral
institutions, and inclusive leadership pipelines that encourage participation from underrepresented
groups—not just a cyclical elite shuffle.
6.2. Mandatory Retirement Ages: Ensuring Generational Shifts
While term limits address duration in office, mandatory retirement ages target biological age
thresholds—setting a firm end point for leadership roles to ensure periodic generational renewal.
Although more common in judicial or bureaucratic institutions, the application of age caps to political
leadership has gained traction in public discourse amid concerns over gerontocracy and cognitive
decline in high office.
Rationale for Age-Based Limits
Supporters of mandatory retirement ages argue that such policies:
Guarantee leadership turnover, preventing indefinite rule by aging elites
Align leadership with population demographics, improving representation
28
Address concerns over mental and physical fitness, especially in high-stakes roles
Create institutional expectations of succession, encouraging preparation and mentorship
In an era of increasing life expectancy and longer careers, it's not uncommon for leaders to remain in
power into their 80s or 90s. However, advancing age brings greater health risks, slower decision-
making, and potential disconnects from technological and cultural change.
Public debates in countries such as the United States, France, and India have increasingly questioned
whether individuals nearing or exceeding 80 should continue to wield executive power—particularly in
contexts that demand rapid adaptation and complex problem-solving.
Global Precedents and Legal Frameworks
While rare for heads of state, mandatory retirement ages exist in various forms:
Many constitutional courts and public service roles impose age caps (typically between 65 and
75).
Some political parties have informal rules or traditions limiting candidate eligibility based on
age.
In Japan, government ministers often retire by convention at 70.
However, very few countries have applied age limits to executive leadership. This is due in part to:
Legal and constitutional constraints: Setting age-based restrictions may raise questions of
discrimination or violate democratic norms.
Political resistance: Incumbent elites, especially those directly affected, have little incentive to
legislate their own departure.
Cultural reverence for elders, particularly in parts of Asia and Africa, where seniority is
traditionally linked to wisdom and legitimacy.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
Imposing age caps raises complex ethical and legal questions:
Is it fair to exclude candidates solely on age, regardless of capacity?
Does this infringe upon voters' rights to choose their preferred representatives?
Could such policies unintentionally promote ableism or ageism?
Proponents counter that public trust, institutional integrity, and generational equity may outweigh
these concerns—particularly if retirement ages are framed not as punitive, but as a natural part of
democratic renewal.
Alternative Models
Rather than strict age bans, some reformers propose:
Cognitive and health assessments for leaders over a certain age
Voluntary age-based retirement incentives
Party-level internal regulations on maximum candidate age
Publicly transparent succession planning, especially in regimes with aging strongmen
29
These approaches aim to balance respect for experience with the need for institutional dynamism and
demographic relevance.
6.3. Quotas and Gender Parity Measures: Enhancing Female Representation
One of the most effective tools for correcting gender imbalance in political leadership has been the use
of quotas and parity laws. These mechanisms—ranging from voluntary party pledges to
constitutionally mandated thresholds—aim to institutionalize the inclusion of women in political
spaces that have historically excluded them.
Types of Gender Quotas
Gender quotas typically fall into three categories:
1. Legislated Candidate Quotas
Mandated by law, these require political parties to field a minimum percentage of female
candidates (e.g., 30% or 50%).
2. Legislated Reserved Seats
Certain seats in legislatures or local councils are set aside specifically for women (used in
countries like Rwanda, Uganda, and India at the local level).
3. Voluntary Party Quotas
Political parties adopt internal rules to ensure gender balance among candidates or leadership
positions. These are common in many European social democratic and green parties.
Some countries also implement zipper systems (alternating male and female candidates on electoral
lists) or financial incentives (e.g., increased campaign funding for parties that meet parity thresholds).
Impact on Representation and Policy
The evidence is clear: quotas significantly increase the numerical representation of women in political
bodies. As of 2025:
Over 130 countries have adopted some form of gender quota (IPU, 2025).
Countries like Rwanda (61.3%), Mexico (50%), and Sweden (47%) rank among the highest
globally for female parliamentary representation.
The global average for women in national parliaments has more than doubled since 1995—from
11.3% to 27.2% (IPU, 2025).
Beyond the numbers, quotas often lead to greater substantive representation, with women pushing
forward legislation on:
Gender-based violence and reproductive rights
Education, healthcare, and family support
Environmental protection and social equity
Criticisms and Challenges
Despite their effectiveness, quotas are not without criticism:
30
Tokenism concerns: Some argue that quotas may lead to the selection of unqualified candidates,
though evidence shows that quota-elected women perform as well—or better—than their male
counterparts.
Elite capture: In certain contexts, political elites install female relatives or allies to fulfill quota
requirements without promoting genuine inclusion (the so-called “proxy candidate” problem).
Resistance and backlash: Male-dominated political institutions often resist quotas, claiming
they undermine meritocracy or democratic competition.
Moreover, quotas tend to have less impact at the executive level (heads of state or government), where
appointments and elections are often less regulated by proportional representation systems.
Making Quotas Work
To be effective and sustainable, quotas must be:
Legally enforceable, with penalties for noncompliance
Paired with leadership development programs, mentorship, and campaign support
Monitored by independent electoral commissions
Expanded beyond legislatures, including to ministerial cabinets, party leadership, and local
governance
Ultimately, quotas are not a silver bullet—but they are a critical tool in accelerating gender parity,
disrupting entrenched political monopolies, and ensuring that leadership better reflects the diversity of
modern societies.
6.4. Youth Political Engagement Programs: Fostering Future Leaders
While term limits, age caps, and gender quotas address who currently holds power, fostering a more
inclusive future also requires proactive investment in youth political engagement. With the global
median age just over 30—and even younger in many regions—ensuring meaningful youth representation
is essential for building resilient, forward-looking democracies.
Why Youth Engagement Matters
Younger generations face unique political and social challenges:
Disproportionate impacts from climate change, economic precarity, and technological
disruption
High unemployment and underrepresentation in formal institutions
Rising disillusionment with traditional politics
Yet, as of 2023, only:
2.6% of parliamentarians globally are under 30
Fewer than 1% of heads of government are under 40 (IPU, 2024)
This gap creates a cycle of disengagement, where young people feel excluded and, in turn, opt out of
political processes.
31
Successful Engagement Models
Governments, international organizations, and civil society have experimented with a range of initiatives
to build youth participation:
Youth Parliaments and Advisory Councils
Platforms like the UN Youth Delegate Program and national youth parliaments (e.g., in
Finland, Ghana, and Canada) provide young people with a voice in policymaking and exposure
to democratic processes.
Civic Education and Leadership Training
Programs such as the European Youth Forum, Restless Development, and UNDP’s
YouthConnekt Africa train young leaders in advocacy, public speaking, and political literacy.
Lowering Age Requirements
Some countries have reduced the age thresholds for candidacy or voting to encourage earlier
engagement (e.g., Austria allows voting from age 16 in federal elections).
Youth Quotas
Although less common than gender quotas, some countries (e.g., Uganda, Kenya) reserve
parliamentary seats for youth representatives.
Digital Engagement Platforms
Social media campaigns and digital town halls have emerged as tools to connect policymakers
with youth constituencies, particularly in countries where physical access is limited.
Barriers and Limitations
Despite progress, significant obstacles remain:
Tokenism: Youth are often included in consultative roles without decision-making power.
Financial barriers: Campaigning requires resources that younger individuals often lack.
Cultural resistance: Age-based hierarchies in politics, especially in more traditional societies,
limit youth access to real influence.
Burnout and frustration: Many young activists experience disillusionment when their ideas are
ignored or co-opted.
Recommendations for Scalable Impact
To ensure youth engagement leads to leadership:
Mainstream youth representation into political party structures
Provide state-funded campaign support or stipends for young candidates
Integrate youth voices into national development strategies
Enforce accountability mechanisms for youth inclusion pledges
Youth political engagement is not just a demographic imperative—it is a strategic investment in
democratic renewal. Societies that fail to empower their young citizens risk increasing polarization,
protest-driven instability, and erosion of public trust.
6.5. Electoral Reforms: Leveling the Playing Field
Structural barriers to political entry—particularly for young people, women, and marginalized
groups—are often embedded in the design of electoral systems. To create a more inclusive and
competitive democratic environment, comprehensive electoral reforms are essential. These reforms aim
32
to level the playing field, reduce incumbency advantages, and broaden access to leadership for
underrepresented demographics.
Barriers in Current Electoral Systems
Many political systems privilege established elites through:
High candidacy fees or complex nomination requirements
First-past-the-post (FPTP) voting, which tends to favor major parties and incumbent candidates
Campaign financing structures that benefit wealthy or well-connected individuals
Lack of proportional representation, which limits the chances of smaller or emerging parties
Limited media access for non-traditional candidates
These conditions disproportionately disadvantage newcomers, particularly those without deep
institutional support or access to networks of power.
Reform Options and Innovations
Several electoral reforms have been shown to improve access and representation:
Proportional Representation (PR)
PR systems tend to increase the number of women and youth in legislatures by encouraging
party diversity and enabling entry through party lists. Countries with PR systems—such as
Sweden, New Zealand, and South Africa—consistently outperform majoritarian systems in
diversity metrics.
Public Campaign Financing
State subsidies or matching funds help reduce the financial burden of campaigning. When
coupled with spending caps and transparency laws, public financing can help equalize
competition and reduce corruption.
Caps on Campaign Spending and Donations
Limiting how much candidates can raise and spend reduces the influence of wealthy donors and
levels the field for candidates with fewer resources.
Access to Free Media and Debates
Guaranteed airtime for all registered candidates, as practiced in countries like Brazil and
France, increases visibility for lesser-known contenders.
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)
Also known as preferential voting, RCV allows voters to rank candidates by preference,
reducing the "spoiler effect" and encouraging more positive, issue-based campaigning. This
method has gained momentum in cities across the U.S. and in countries like Australia.
Independent Electoral Commissions
Ensuring that electoral oversight bodies are free from partisan control strengthens legitimacy and
public trust in the fairness of elections.
Benefits for Inclusive Leadership
When electoral systems are more accessible, transparent, and representative, they enable:
More frequent entry of younger, female, and minority candidates
Reduced dominance of entrenched elites
Greater issue diversity in political discourse
Increased voter engagement, particularly among underrepresented groups
33
Challenges and Political Resistance
Despite these benefits, electoral reforms often face strong opposition from incumbents who benefit
from the current system. Reforms require:
Broad coalitions, often including civil society and international support
Persistent advocacy, often led by youth and women's organizations
Sometimes, constitutional amendments, which can be politically contentious
However, the long-term payoff is clear: more equitable electoral systems produce more responsive,
representative, and resilient democracies.
7. Conclusion
7.1. Summary of Key Findings
This study has demonstrated that the dominance of elderly male leaders in global governance is not
merely a statistical anomaly but a deeply entrenched feature of political systems worldwide. As of April
2025:
67.5% of the global population is governed by men over the age of 70.
The average leader is 65.3 years old and male, with only 13% of global leaders being women.
Prolonged leadership tenures—often exceeding two decades—are common, especially among the
oldest leaders.
This demographic imbalance has far-reaching implications:
Policy Innovation is slowed by age-related risk aversion, resistance to digital and technological
adaptation, and long-term incumbency that limits institutional renewal.
Climate Change Response is weakened by leaders whose priorities often misalign with the
urgency felt by younger generations.
Public Trust and Political Engagement are eroded by leadership that fails to reflect the
societies they govern, particularly among youth and women.
Gender Inequality in political leadership reinforces policy blind spots and limits inclusive
governance.
The intersection of age and gender compounds exclusion, solidifying a narrow elite at the top
of global political hierarchies.
Efforts to address this imbalance—through term limits, retirement ages, gender quotas, youth
engagement programs, and electoral reforms—have shown varying degrees of success, but
widespread structural change remains slow and uneven.
7.2. Implications for Governance and Democracy
The sustained dominance of elderly male leaders poses a significant challenge to the quality,
adaptability, and legitimacy of governance in the 21st century. In an age defined by rapid
technological change, intensifying climate risks, and growing social complexity, leadership that fails to
reflect demographic and ideological diversity risks becoming increasingly disconnected from the
populations it serves.
34
Democratic Legitimacy and Representation
Democratic legitimacy is not only about free and fair elections—it also depends on whether institutions
reflect and respond to the diverse realities of the governed. When leadership skews heavily toward a
single demographic—older men—entire generations and genders may feel politically alienated, leading
to:
Declines in voter turnout
Surging populism or anti-system movements
Decreased trust in public institutions
This erosion of legitimacy weakens social cohesion and increases the vulnerability of democratic
systems to authoritarian backsliding or democratic fatigue.
Governance Capacity and Future-Readiness
Governments led by aging, long-serving elites may lack the flexibility and foresight to:
Address emerging challenges like AI governance, platform regulation, or green transitions
Engage effectively with youth movements and digital constituencies
Design intergenerationally fair policies, especially in health care, housing, and labor markets
By contrast, systems that incorporate younger leaders and gender-balanced teams have demonstrated
greater responsiveness, policy innovation, and inclusive dialogue, even during periods of crisis.
Institutional Evolution and Political Renewal
Ultimately, the persistence of an unrepresentative leadership class points to the need for systemic
renewal:
Political institutions must evolve to facilitate turnover, diversify pipelines, and support
equitable participation.
Civil society, media, and multilateral organizations have a role to play in holding power to
account and advocating for reforms.
Above all, political systems must recognize that diverse leadership is not a threat to
stability—it is a prerequisite for it.
7.3. Recommendations for Future Research
While this study offers a comprehensive snapshot of the demographic composition of global leadership
as of 2025, it also opens avenues for further inquiry. Future research can deepen our understanding of
how leadership diversity—or the lack thereof—affects governance outcomes and democratic resilience
in practice.
A. Policy Impact of Leadership Demographics
More empirical work is needed to assess how age and gender of leaders influence specific policy
domains:
Does younger leadership lead to stronger climate policy?
35
Are countries with more women in power more likely to pass social welfare or anti-corruption
legislation?
How do age and gender shape digital governance, labor reforms, or education investments?
Cross-national comparisons and longitudinal studies could help clarify these relationships and quantify
the benefits of leadership diversity.
B. Comparative Studies of Reform Effectiveness
While term limits, quotas, and engagement programs have been discussed, few studies systematically
compare their effectiveness across political systems and cultural contexts. Future research could
explore:
Why some reforms succeed where others fail
How political culture and institutional design affect reform adoption
What conditions enable youth or women to move from symbolic inclusion to actual influence
C. Intersectionality in Leadership Dynamics
Most current data treats age, gender, and race/ethnicity as separate variables. A deeper intersectional
analysis—particularly in post-colonial or ethnically diverse societies—could uncover how multiple
identities interact to shape political access and power structures.
D. Public Perception and Civic Trust
Surveys and focus groups can provide richer insight into how leadership demographics affect public
trust, perceived legitimacy, and political efficacy—especially among youth, women, and minority
groups.
This can help explain the emotional and psychological dimensions of political disconnection and offer
more targeted pathways for engagement.
E. Emerging Leaders and Alternative Power Structures
Finally, research should track non-traditional forms of leadership—including digital influencers,
movement organizers, and technocratic advisors—who often shape political discourse from outside
formal institutions. Understanding how these figures rise, build influence, and interface with state power
could reshape how we define "leadership" in the 21st century.
36
Annex 1. Table 2: Global Leaders by Country, Regime Type, Age, Gender, and Tenure (as of April 1, 2025)
#
Country
Regime Type
Leader Name (Head of State)
Age
Gender
Length of
Tenure,
years
1
AFGHANISTAN
closed autocracies
Office abolished. De facto led by emir Hibatullah Akhundzada
65
Male
3,6
2
ALBANIA
electoral democracies
Mr. Bajram Begaj
58
Male
2,7
3
ALGERIA
electoral autocracies
Mr. Abdelmadjid Tebboune
79
Male
5,3
4
ANDORRA
electoral democracies
76
Male
12,9
5
ANGOLA
electoral autocracies
71
Male
7,5
6
ANTIGUA AND
BARBUDA
electoral democracies
His Excellency Sir Rodney Williams; His Majesty King Charles III
77
Male
10,6
7
ARGENTINA
electoral democracies
Mr. Javier Gerardo Milei
54
Male
1,3
8
ARMENIA
electoral democracies
Mr. Vahagn Khachaturyan
66
Male
3,2
9
AUSTRALIA
liberal democracies
Her Excellency Ms. Sam Mostyn; His Majesty King Charles III
60
Female
0,8
10
AUSTRIA
electoral democracies
Mr. Alexander Van der Bellen
81
Male
8,2
11
AZERBAIJAN
electoral autocracies
Mr. Ilham Heydar oglu Aliyev
63
Male
21,4
12
BAHAMAS
electoral democracies
Her Excellency Ms. Cynthia A. Pratt; His Majesty King Charles III
79
Female
1,6
13
BAHRAIN
closed autocracies
His Majesty King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa
75
Male
26,1
14
BANGLADESH
electoral autocracies
Mr. Mohammed Shahabuddin
75
Male
1,9
15
BARBADOS
liberal democracies
Ms. Dame Sandra Mason
76
Female
3,3
16
BELARUS
closed autocracies
Mr. Aleksandr Lukashenko
71
Male
30,7
17
BELGIUM
liberal democracies
le Roi Philippe
65
Male
11,7
18
BELIZE
electoral democracies
Her Excellency Ms. Froyla Tzalam; His Majesty King Charles III
54
Female
3,8
19
BENIN
electoral autocracies
Monsieur Patrice Athanase Guillaume Talon
67
Male
9,0
20
BHUTAN
electoral democracies
His Majesty King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck
45
Male
18,3
21
BOLIVIA
electoral democracies
Luis Alberto Arce Catacora
62
Male
4,4
22
BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINA
electoral democracies
Her Excellency
58
Female
0,4
23
BOTSWANA
electoral democracies
Mr. Duma Gideon Boko
56
Male
0,4
24
BRAZIL
electoral democracies
79
Male
2,2
25
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
closed autocracies
Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah
79
Male
57,5
26
BULGARIA
electoral democracies
Mr. Rumen Radev
62
Male
8,2
37
#
Country
Regime Type
Leader Name (Head of State)
Age
Gender
Length of
Tenure,
years
27
BURKINA FASO
closed autocracies
37
Male
2,4
28
BURUNDI
electoral autocracies
Monsieur Evariste Ndayishimiye
57
Male
19,3
29
CAPE (or CAPO) VERDE
electoral democracies
65
Male
3,4
30
CAMBODIA
electoral autocracies
His Majesty Preah Bat Samdech Preah Boromneath Norodom Sihamoni
72
Male
20,4
31
CAMEROON
electoral autocracies
Monsieur Paul Biya
92
Male
42,4
32
CANADA
electoral democracies
Her Excellency Ms. Mary J. Simon; His Majesty King Charles III
78
Female
3,7
33
CENTRAL AFRICAN
REPUBLIC
electoral autocracies
Monsieur Faustin Archange Touadera
68
Male
9,0
34
CHAD
electoral autocracies
41
Male
0,9
35
CHILE
liberal democracies
Gabriel Boric Font
39
Male
3,0
36
CHINA
closed autocracies
Mr. Xi Jinping
72
Male
12,0
37
COLOMBIA
electoral democracies
65
Male
2,7
38
COMOROS
electoral autocracies
Monsieur Azali Assoumani
66
Male
8,8
39
CONGO
electoral autocracies
Monsieur Denis Sassou Nguesso
81
Male
27,4
40
COSTA RICA
liberal democracies
Rodrigo Chaves Robles
64
Male
2,9
41
COTE D'IVOIRE
electoral autocracies
Monsieur Alassane Ouattara
83
Male
14,3
42
CROATIA
electoral democracies
58
Male
5,1
43
CUBA
closed autocracies
-
65
Male
7,0
44
CYPRUS
electoral democracies
Mr. Nikos Christodoulides
51
Male
2,1
45
CZECHIA
liberal democracies
Mr. Petr Pavel
63
Male
2,1
46
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
(NORTH KOREA)
closed autocracies
Mr. Kim Jong Un
43
Male
13,1
47
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
OF CONGO
electoral autocracies
-Antoine Tshisekedi Tshilombo
62
Male
6,2
48
DENMARK
liberal democracies
His Majesty King Frederik X
57
Male
1,2
49
DJIBOUTI
electoral autocracies
77
Male
25,9
50
DOMINICA
electoral democracies
Mrs. Sylvanie Burton
61
Female
0,5
51
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
electoral democracies
Luis Rodolfo Abinader Corona
58
Male
4,6
52
ECUADOR
electoral democracies
Daniel Roy-Gilchrist Noboa Azin
37
Male
1,4
53
EGYPT
electoral autocracies
Mr. Abdel Fattah Al Sisi
70
Male
10,8
38
#
Country
Regime Type
Leader Name (Head of State)
Age
Gender
Length of
Tenure,
years
54
EL SALVADOR
electoral autocracies
Nayib Armando Bukele
44
Male
5,8
55
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
electoral autocracies
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo
82
Male
42,5
56
ERITREA
closed autocracies
Mr. Isaias Afwerki
79
Male
31,9
57
ESTONIA
liberal democracies
Mr. Alar Karis
67
Male
3,5
58
ESWATINI
closed autocracies
His Majesty King Mswati III
57
Male
38,9
59
ETHIOPIA
electoral autocracies
Mr. Taye Atskeselassie Made
69
Male
0,5
60
FIJI
electoral democracies
Mr. Ratu Wiliame Maivalili Katonivere
61
Male
3,4
61
FINLAND
liberal democracies
Mr. Alexander Stubb
57
Male
1,1
62
FRANCE
liberal democracies
Monsieur Emmanuel Macron
47
Male
7,9
63
GABON
closed autocracies
Monsieur Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema
50
Male
1,6
64
GAMBIA
electoral democracies
Mr. Adama Barrow
60
Male
8,2
65
GEORGIA
electoral autocracies
Mr. Mikheil Kavelashvili
54
Male
0,3
66
GERMANY
liberal democracies
Mr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier
69
Male
8,0
67
GHANA
electoral democracies
Mr. John Dramani Mahama
66
Male
0,2
68
GREECE
electoral democracies
Mr. Konstantinos Tasoulas
66
Male
0,1
69
GRENADA
electoral democracies
Her Excellency King Charles III
72
Female
11,9
70
GUATEMALA
electoral democracies
66
Male
1,2
71
GUINEA
closed autocracies
45
Male
3,6
72
GUINEA-BISSAU
electoral autocracies
53
Male
5,1
73
GUYANA
electoral autocracies
Mr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali
45
Male
4,7
74
HAITI
closed autocracies
Monsieur Fritz Alphonse Jean
69
Male
0,1
75
HONDURAS
electoral democracies
Iris Xiomara Castro Sarmiento
66
Female
3,1
76
HUNGARY
electoral autocracies
-62, -69
62
Male
14,8
77
ICELAND
liberal democracies
56
Female
0,7
78
INDIA
electoral autocracies
Mr. Narendra Modi (Head of government)-75, Ms. Droupadi Murmu
(President)-67
75
Male
10,9
79
INDONESIA
electoral autocracies
Mr. Prabowo Subianto
73
Male
0,4
80
IRAN
electoral autocracies
Ali Hosseini Khamenei (Grand Ayatollah Sayyid)-86, Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian
(President)-71
86
Male
0,7
81
IRAQ
electoral autocracies
Mr. Abdullatif Jamal Rashid
81
Male
2,5
82
IRELAND
liberal democracies
Mr. Michael D. Higgins
84
Male
13,4
39
#
Country
Regime Type
Leader Name (Head of State)
Age
Gender
Length of
Tenure,
years
83
ISRAEL
electoral democracies
Mr. Isaac Herzog (President)-65, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu (Head of
government)-75
65
Male
3,7
84
ITALY
liberal democracies
Mr. Sergio Mattarella (President)-84, Ms. Giorgia Meloni (Head of
government)-48
84
Male
10,2
85
JAMAICA
liberal democracies
His Excellency Sir Patrick Allen; His Majesty King Charles III
74
Male
16,1
86
JAPAN
liberal democracies
His Majesty The Emperor of Japan
65
Male
5,9
87
JORDAN
closed autocracies
His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein
63
Male
26,1
88
KAZAKHSTAN
electoral autocracies
Mr. Kassym-Jomart Tokayev
72
Male
5,8
89
KENYA
electoral democracies
Mr. William Samoei Ruto, C.G.H.
58
Male
2,5
90
KIRIBATI
electoral democracies
Mr. Taneti Maamau
65
Male
0,4
91
KOSOVOi
electoral democracies
Ms. Vjosa Osmani
43
Female
4,0
92
KUWAIT
electoral autocracies
His Highness Sheikh Meshal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah
85
Male
1,3
93
KYRGYZSTAN
electoral autocracies
Mr. Sadyr Zhaparov
56
Male
4,2
94
LAOS
closed autocracies
Mr. Thongloun Sisoulith
79
Male
4,0
95
LATVIA
liberal democracies
52
Male
1,7
96
LEBANON
electoral autocracies
General Joseph Aoun
61
Male
0,2
97
LESOTHO
electoral democracies
His Majesty King Letsie III
62
Male
29,1
98
LIBERIA
electoral democracies
Mr. Joseph Nyuma Boakai, Sr.
80
Male
1,2
99
LIBYA
closed autocracies
Mr. Mohamed Younis A Menfi
49
Male
4,2
100
LIECHTENSTEIN
electoral democracies
His Serene Highness Prince Hans-Adam II von und zu Liechtenstein
80
Male
35,4
101
LITHUANIA
electoral democracies
61
Male
5,7
102
LUXEMBOURG
liberal democracies
Son Altesse Royale Le Grand-Duc Henri de Luxembourg
70
Male
24,5
103
MADAGASCAR
electoral autocracies
Monsieur Andry Nirina Rajoelina
51
Male
6,2
104
MALAWI
electoral democracies
Mr. Lazarus McCarthy Chakwera
70
Male
10,8
105
MALAYSIA
electoral democracies
His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim
66
Male
1,2
106
MALDIVES
electoral democracies
Mr. Mohamed Muizzu
47
Male
1,4
107
MALI
closed autocracies
41
Male
3,9
108
MALTA
electoral democracies
Ms. Myriam Spiteri Debono
72
Female
1,0
109
MARSHALL ISLANDS
electoral democracies
Ms. Hilda Heine
74
Female
1,2
110
MAURITANIA
electoral autocracies
Monsieur Mohamed Ould Cheikh El Ghazouani
68
Male
5,8
111
MAURITIUS
electoral autocracies
Mr. Dharambeer Gokhool, GCSK
75
Male
0,3
40
#
Country
Regime Type
Leader Name (Head of State)
Age
Gender
Length of
Tenure,
years
112
MEXICO
electoral democracies
Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo
63
Female
0,5
113
MICRONESIA
(FEDERATED STATES OF)
electoral democracies
Mr. Wesley W. Simina
64
Male
1,9
114
MONACO
electoral democracies
Le Prince Albert II
67
Male
20,0
115
MONGOLIA
electoral autocracies
Mr. Khurelsukh Ukhnaa
57
Male
3,8
116
MONTENEGRO
electoral democracies
38
Male
1,9
117
MOROCCO
closed autocracies
Mohammed VI
62
Male
25,7
118
MOZAMBIQUE
electoral autocracies
Mr. Daniel Francisco Chapo
48
Male
0,2
119
MYANMAR
closed autocracies
Mr. Win Myint
73
Male
7,0
120
NAMIBIA
electoral democracies
Mrs. Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah
72
Female
0,0
121
NAURU
electoral democracies
Mr. David Ranibok Adeang, M.P.
55
Male
1,4
122
NEPAL
electoral democracies
Mr. Ramchandra Paudel
80
Male
2,1
123
NETHERLANDS
liberal democracies
His Majesty King Willem-Alexander
58
Male
11,9
124
NEW ZEALAND
liberal democracies
Her Excellency Dame Cindy Kiro, GNZM, QSO; His Majesty King Charles III
67
Female
3,4
125
NICARAGUA
electoral autocracies
Daniel Ortega Saavedra
79
Male
18,2
126
NIGER
closed autocracies
64
Male
1,6
127
NIGERIA
electoral democracies
Mr. Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR
73
Male
1,8
128
NORTH MACEDONIA
electoral democracies
Mrs. Gordana Siljanovska-Davkova
72
Female
0,9
129
NORWAY
liberal democracies
His Majesty King Harald V
88
Male
33,8
130
OMAN
closed autocracies
His Majesty Sultan Haitham Bin Tarik
69
Male
5,2
131
PAKISTAN
electoral autocracies
Mr. Asif Ali Zardari
70
Male
1,1
132
PALAU
electoral democracies
Mr. Surangel S. Whipps Jr.
57
Male
4,2
133
PANAMA
electoral democracies
66
Male
0,8
134
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
electoral autocracies
His Excellency Sir Bob Dadae, GCL, GCMG, KStJ; His Majesty King Charles III
64
Male
8,1
135
PARAGUAY
electoral democracies
46
Male
1,6
136
PERU
electoral democracies
Dina Ercilia Boluarte Zegarra
63
Female
2,3
137
PHILIPPINES
electoral autocracies
Mr. Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos Jr.
68
Male
2,8
138
POLAND
electoral democracies
Mr. Andrzej Duda
53
Male
9,7
139
PORTUGAL
electoral democracies
Mr. Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa
76
Male
9,1
140
QATAR
closed autocracies
His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani
45
Male
11,8
141
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
electoral democracies
Mr. Yoon Suk Yeol
64
Male
2,9
41
#
Country
Regime Type
Leader Name (Head of State)
Age
Gender
Length of
Tenure,
years
(SOUTH KOREA)
142
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
electoral democracies
Ms. Maia Sandu
53
Female
4,3
143
ROMANIA
electoral democracies
Monsieur Ilie-Gabril Bolojan
56
Male
0,1
144
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
electoral autocracies
Mr. Vladimir V. Putin
72
Male
25,3
145
RWANDA
electoral autocracies
Mr. Paul Kagame
67
Male
24,9
146
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS
electoral democracies
Her Excellency Dame Marcella Liburd, GCMG; His Majesty King Charles III
72
Female
2,2
147
SAINT LUCIA
electoral democracies
His Excellency Sir Cyril Errol Melchiades Charles; His Majesty King Charles III
82
Male
3,4
148
SAINT VINCENT AND
THE GRENADINES
electoral democracies
Her Excellency Mrs. Susan Dougan, OBE; His Majesty King Charles III
70
Female
5,7
149
SAMOA
electoral democracies
His Highness Tuimalealiifano Vaaletoa Sualauvi II
78
Male
7,7
150
SAN MARINO
liberal democracies
His Excellency Mr. Italo Righi-66; Her Excellency Mrs. Denise Bronzetti-52
66
M+F
0,0
151
SAO TOME AND
PRINCIPE
electoral democracies
Monsieur Carlos Manuel Vila Nova
66
Male
3,5
152
SAUDI ARABIA
closed autocracies
The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud
89
Male
10,2
153
SENEGAL
electoral democracies
45
Male
1,0
154
SERBIA
electoral autocracies
55
Male
7,8
155
SEYCHELLES
liberal democracies
Mr. Wavel Ramkalawan
64
Male
4,4
156
SIERRA LEONE
electoral autocracies
Mr. Julius Maada Bio
61
Male
7,0
157
SINGAPORE
electoral autocracies
Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam
68
Male
1,5
158
SLOVAKIA
electoral democracies
Mr. Peter Pellegrini
49
Male
0,8
159
SLOVENIA
electoral democracies
57
Female
2,3
160
SOLOMON ISLANDS
electoral democracies
His Excellency Sir David Vunagi, GCMG (died); His Majesty King Charles III
75
Male
5,7
161
SOMALIAii
closed autocracies
Mr. Hassan Sheikh Mohamud
69
Male
2,9
162
SOUTH AFRICA
liberal democracies
Mr. Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa
72
Male
7,1
163
SOUTH SUDAN
closed autocracies
Mr. Salva Kiir Mayardit
74
Male
13,7
164
SPAIN
liberal democracies
Su Majestad Don Felipe VI
57
Male
10,8
165
SRI LANKA
electoral democracies
Mr. Anura Kumara Dissanayake
56
Male
2,7
166
SUDAN
closed autocracies
First Lt. General Abdel-Fattah Al-Burhan Abdelrahman Al-Burhan
65
Male
6,0
167
SURINAME
electoral democracies
Mr. Chandrikapersad Santokhi
66
Male
4,7
168
SWEDEN
liberal democracies
His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf
79
Male
51,3
169
SWITZERLAND
liberal democracies
Madame Karin Keller-Sutter
61
Female
0,2
42
#
Country
Regime Type
Leader Name (Head of State)
Age
Gender
Length of
Tenure,
years
170
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
closed autocracies
Mr. Ahmed al-Sharaa (Transitional President of Syria)
42
Male
0,2
171
TAIWANiii
liberal democracies
Mr. Lai Ching-te (also known as William Lai)
65
Male
0,9
172
TAJIKISTAN
electoral autocracies
Mr. Emomali Rahmon
72
Male
30,4
173
THAILAND
electoral autocracies
His Majesty King Maha Vajiralongkorn Phra Vajiraklaochaoyuhua
73
Male
8,5
174
TIMOR-LESTE (EAST
TIMOR)
electoral democracies
-Horta
75
Male
2,9
175
TOGO
electoral autocracies
59
Male
19,9
176
TONGA
electoral autocracies
His Majesty King Tupou VI
66
Male
13,0
177
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
electoral democracies
Ms. Christine Carla Kangaloo, O.R.T.T.
63
Female
7,0
178
TUNISIA
electoral autocracies
67
Male
5,4
179
(TURKEY)
electoral autocracies
71
Male
10,6
180
TURKMENISTAN
electoral autocracies
Mr. Serdar Berdimuhamedov
44
Male
3,0
181
TUVALU
electoral democracies
His Excellency Mr. Tofiga Falani; His Majesty King Charles III
n/a
Male
3,5
182
UGANDA
electoral autocracies
Mr. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni
81
Male
39,2
183
UKRAINE
electoral autocracies
Mr. Volodymyr Zelenskyy
47
Male
5,9
184
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
closed autocracies
His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan
64
Male
2,9
185
UNITED KINGDOM
electoral democracies
His Majesty King Charles III
76
Male
2,6
186
UNITED REPUBLIC OF
TANZANIAiv
electoral autocracies
Ms. Samia Suluhu Hassan
65
Female
4,0
187
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
liberal democracies
Mr. Donald J. Trump
79
Male
4,2
188
URUGUAY
liberal democracies
58
Male
0,1
189
UZBEKISTAN
electoral autocracies
Mr. Shavkat Mirziyoyev
68
Male
8,3
190
VANUATU
electoral democracies
Mr. Nikenike Vurobaravu
73
Male
2,7
191
VENEZUELA
(BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC
OF)
electoral autocracies
Nicol
62
Male
12,1
192
VIET NAM (VIETNAM)
closed autocracies
Mr. Luong Cuong
68
Male
0,4
193
YEMEN
closed autocracies
Mr. Rashad Mohammed Al-Alimi
71
Male
3,0
194
ZAMBIA
electoral democracies
Mr. Hakainde Hichilema
63
Male
3,6
195
ZIMBABWE
electoral autocracies
Mr. Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa
83
Male
7,4
43
#
Country
Regime Type
Leader Name (Head of State)
Age
Gender
Length of
Tenure,
years
196
HOLY SEE
absolute theocracy
His Holiness Pope Francis, head of Catholic Church and sovereign of Vatican
88
Male
12,1
197
PALESTINE/GAZA
closed autocracies
Mr. Mahmoud Abbas
89
Male
16,5
Summary: average age of leaders – 65.3 years, average length of tenure – 8.3. Gender distribution: 87% - Male, 13% - Female.
i
Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a landlocked country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition. The Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized state in
Southeastern Europe, on the Balkan Peninsula, in the geographical region of Kosovo.
ii
Somaliland, officially the Republic of Somaliland, is an unrecognized state in the northern part of the Horn of Africa on the territory of the former colony of British Somalia. It is recognized
by the international community as part of Somalia.
iii
Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia. The island of Taiwan is the subject of a geopolitical dispute between the Republic of China (ROC), which controls
it, and the People's Republic of China (PRC), which claims it as part of its territory.
iv
Zanzibar is owned by Tanzania so it is not listed as a separate state