As far as the "child prodigy" thing, if we were to extrapolate that the Naboo was a viable society with thousands of years of its own traditions, and technology allowing to identify gifted individuals at an extremely young age - if one were to be "canon" on Star Wars, one can't help but remember Qui-Gon's comment on "were he born in the Republic, he would be identified at very young age" on Anakin - or something close to that... it is not impossible that the society would generally prefer to have younger elected leaders for a number of reasons.
One, the lack of real-life experience that comes with age could be seen as a boon because it also means less corruptibility, while the council of experienced older advisors could make up for the general common sense that would go with an older leader. Thus, there is a leader that is less likely to be corrupt.
Two, in a society where the concept of being a "maverick" is not necessarily seen as a dangerous challenge to status quo, but is instead looked at as a vital measure that propels such society forward, a leader who might be seen as having the "maverick" quality would be valued, and the quality would be encouraged. As such, this society might give preference to a leader who is effectively teenage and elect one due to the potential for more risky, but ultimately profitable actions... such actions would be checked first by the leader's intelligence (which is a given, considering this person ended up where they're at), and by the intricate system of checks and balances within the government itself.
This could actually constitute a non-Star Wars timeline where in ATL society the younger individuals are usually considered more capable to lead than older, resulting in a MAXIMUM age in which one can be elected to the offices... anyone wants to take a stab at it?
One, the lack of real-life experience that comes with age could be seen as a boon because it also means less corruptibility, while the council of experienced older advisors could make up for the general common sense that would go with an older leader. Thus, there is a leader that is less likely to be corrupt.
Two, in a society where the concept of being a "maverick" is not necessarily seen as a dangerous challenge to status quo, but is instead looked at as a vital measure that propels such society forward, a leader who might be seen as having the "maverick" quality would be valued, and the quality would be encouraged. As such, this society might give preference to a leader who is effectively teenage and elect one due to the potential for more risky, but ultimately profitable actions... such actions would be checked first by the leader's intelligence (which is a given, considering this person ended up where they're at), and by the intricate system of checks and balances within the government itself.
This could actually constitute a non-Star Wars timeline where in ATL society the younger individuals are usually considered more capable to lead than older, resulting in a MAXIMUM age in which one can be elected to the offices... anyone wants to take a stab at it?
