The importance of term limits
The mechanisms of democracy don’t have to follow a set example.
The writer is an international lawyer who has worked on human rights and humanitarian law projects in the US, Europe, Asia and Africa
Political Science majors in US universities will inevitably be challenged by their professors at some point during their coursework to think critically about the question of term limits. The president is subject to them, but Congress and the Supreme Court are not. The president, members of the House of Representatives and senators are all subjected to regular elections (every four, two and six years, respectively); Supreme Court judges are essentially appointed for life, although they must be vetted and approved by Congress prior to donning the robes.
There are varying pros and cons to the imposition of term limits. At its most basic, the debate comes down to weighing the advantages of institutional memory against the advantages of having a regular supply of fresh ideas. I can’t recall what my younger self decided when first confronted with the question; however, recent international political calamities have shoved my sensibilities firmly into the ‘pro’ camp.
I don’t have specific guidelines in mind and the American political system is far from perfect. While regular elections should guarantee periodic turnover, in practice, the incumbent sometimes wins just because he or she is the incumbent. It’s also often alleged (perhaps, apocryphally) that because of term limits, the only chance the president has to really make important policy initiatives is during the first half of his second term (assuming he has one). Otherwise, he is worried about re-election or his legacy.
Given this uneven track record, why am I going on the record as a member of ‘Team Term Limit’? One word: Mugabe. While the Zimbabwean strongman’s latest election ‘victory’ isn’t surprising, it is profoundly disappointing. Absent political pressure and moral leadership from other African nations, the Zanu-PF’s entrenched manoeuvrings and willingness to resort to violence will not permit any improvement to the socioeconomic status of ordinary Zimbabweans any time soon. Mugabe has been in power for three decades and his ‘ideas’ on governance are demonstrably a failure. And yet, Zimbabwe’s citizens are stuck with him indefinitely.
There is similar cause for disillusionment elsewhere: Cambodia has also just held an election. That contest involved a credible and relatively organised opposition, and the results were close (notwithstanding allegations of fraud on the part of the ruling party). However, the CPP’s leader, Hun Sen, was quick to claim victory even when the final tallies were disputed and even quicker to deploy the military in armed personnel carriers when demonstrations were threatened. Hun has led Cambodia for the past 28 years. His primary political strategies have apparently evolved to colluding with rapacious multinationals to forcibly evicting peasants from their land and ensuring that his political cronies are well-stocked with Lexus SUVs.
Contrast these cases with one of the most surprising narratives emerging on the international stage these days: Pope Francis. The new pontiff is clearly cut from a different cloth than both his predecessors and peers in the political firmament. He has not only broken with tradition regarding the trappings of power (famously carrying his own luggage and living in simple quarters), but he gives frank interviews questioning long-held tenets of Catholic theology and has been outspoken on that most taboo of subjects: pedophile priests. While it is too early in his tenure to state definitively that Pope Francis can be the one to stanch the mass exodus of young Catholics from the Church’s ranks, he has made many lapsed believers take a new look at a very old institution. That is the power of fresh ideas.
The mechanisms of democracy don’t have to follow a set example; each country should be encouraged to create a ‘term limit model’ that best fits its own cultural, religious, historical and demographical needs. The citizens of the world will be best served by an infusion of novelty and innovation on a regular basis and leaders who recognise this should be commended for showing real leadership.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 15th, 2013.
There are varying pros and cons to the imposition of term limits. At its most basic, the debate comes down to weighing the advantages of institutional memory against the advantages of having a regular supply of fresh ideas. I can’t recall what my younger self decided when first confronted with the question; however, recent international political calamities have shoved my sensibilities firmly into the ‘pro’ camp.
I don’t have specific guidelines in mind and the American political system is far from perfect. While regular elections should guarantee periodic turnover, in practice, the incumbent sometimes wins just because he or she is the incumbent. It’s also often alleged (perhaps, apocryphally) that because of term limits, the only chance the president has to really make important policy initiatives is during the first half of his second term (assuming he has one). Otherwise, he is worried about re-election or his legacy.
Given this uneven track record, why am I going on the record as a member of ‘Team Term Limit’? One word: Mugabe. While the Zimbabwean strongman’s latest election ‘victory’ isn’t surprising, it is profoundly disappointing. Absent political pressure and moral leadership from other African nations, the Zanu-PF’s entrenched manoeuvrings and willingness to resort to violence will not permit any improvement to the socioeconomic status of ordinary Zimbabweans any time soon. Mugabe has been in power for three decades and his ‘ideas’ on governance are demonstrably a failure. And yet, Zimbabwe’s citizens are stuck with him indefinitely.
There is similar cause for disillusionment elsewhere: Cambodia has also just held an election. That contest involved a credible and relatively organised opposition, and the results were close (notwithstanding allegations of fraud on the part of the ruling party). However, the CPP’s leader, Hun Sen, was quick to claim victory even when the final tallies were disputed and even quicker to deploy the military in armed personnel carriers when demonstrations were threatened. Hun has led Cambodia for the past 28 years. His primary political strategies have apparently evolved to colluding with rapacious multinationals to forcibly evicting peasants from their land and ensuring that his political cronies are well-stocked with Lexus SUVs.
Contrast these cases with one of the most surprising narratives emerging on the international stage these days: Pope Francis. The new pontiff is clearly cut from a different cloth than both his predecessors and peers in the political firmament. He has not only broken with tradition regarding the trappings of power (famously carrying his own luggage and living in simple quarters), but he gives frank interviews questioning long-held tenets of Catholic theology and has been outspoken on that most taboo of subjects: pedophile priests. While it is too early in his tenure to state definitively that Pope Francis can be the one to stanch the mass exodus of young Catholics from the Church’s ranks, he has made many lapsed believers take a new look at a very old institution. That is the power of fresh ideas.
The mechanisms of democracy don’t have to follow a set example; each country should be encouraged to create a ‘term limit model’ that best fits its own cultural, religious, historical and demographical needs. The citizens of the world will be best served by an infusion of novelty and innovation on a regular basis and leaders who recognise this should be commended for showing real leadership.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 15th, 2013.