MOTION #80: THIS HOUSE WOULD ENFORCE TERM LIMITS ON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT
Modern systems of
government seek, through constitutions and legislation to divide the powers of
the state between separate branches of government, so that power never rests in
the hands of any one individual. This is done with varying degrees of success
in governments around the world; developed European and North American
countries have constructed quite robust systems for the separation of powers,
while in much of the developing world, particularly in Africa, Asia, and parts
of South America power has settled in the hands of powerful individuals, both
elected and dictatorial. One of the major tools used to try to check executive
power is the institution of term limits. Term limits seek to limit the extent
to which single individuals can dominate the governments of countries, and have
succeeded in being upheld to varying extents around the world. The United
States for example has a limit of two terms for the presidency which was
changed from being an informal limit created by George Washington when he
refused a third term to being formal by the twenty second amendment in 1951
following Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s four term presidency from 1933-45. The
United Kingdom on the other hand has no term limits on its Prime Minister. This
debate should not be about individual office holders and whether they should
have had a third term – or in Roosevelt’s case not had one. Instead this debate
should be about the principle of term limits for the highest executive office.
POSSIBLE MECHANISM:
The executive is only one of the branches of government. The legislature
and the Judiciary often have equally important roles to play and in the context
of term limits it is up to them to set the limit. The term limit will require a
super majority of the legislature to pass as if it is to be effective it should
become part of the constitution so that it cannot be easily changed by the
executive and his supporters in the legislature. The United States did this in
1951 when the twenty-second amendment of the United States Constitution was
passed by two thirds majority in both houses of congress and ratified by three
quarters of the states.
Pros
|
Cons
|
The executive branch of government, having no
countervailing voices to the leader s’ within it, must be checked by limiting
tenancy in office. Term limits are a
necessary check on executive power to prevent an over mighty executive.
Whereas the legislature and judiciary are composed of many competing views,
with members of various parties and outlooks represented, the executive of a
country speaks with a single voice. In legislatures, party leaders are not
the sole sources of power, with factions and alternative nexuses of influence
forming throughout that branch of government. Executive power, on the other
hand, rests solely in the hands of the leader, usually a president. The
leader has full power over the policies of the executive branch of
government. Cabinets, which form part of the executive in practice, are
usually directly answerable to the leader, and ministers can be dismissed if
they are uncooperative or dispute the leader’s policies. Even in
parliamentary systems, leaders with a majority and a strong party whip can
command the same powers as a strong president, if not more. It is thus
necessary to have a check on the highly individual power that is the
executive. Term limits are the best such check. Term limits allow leaders to
enact their policies over a set time period and then usher them out of
office. This is essential, because too much power in the hands of a single
individual for too long can upset the balance of power in a country and shift
power in favour of the executive, thus damaging the protections to society
that checks provide. This is exactly what happened in the United Kingdom
under Tony Blair where from the start cabinet government virtually
disappeared Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler said “In the eight months I
was cabinet secretary when Tony Blair was prime minister, the only decision
the cabinet took was about the Millennium Dome,” and power continued to be
ever more centralized in response to terrorism.
|
Leaders may have a single view and be the sole centre
of power in the executive branch, but that does not mean the leader’s
remaining in office will somehow shift power away from the other branches.
The separation of powers is constitutionally protected in most countries, and
leaders’ powers will be circumscribed by these whether term-limited or not.
In the example of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while Blair was centralizing
power in Number 10 Brown at the Treasury always had an independent voice and
enough power to prevent the prime minister getting his way on domestic
policy.
|
The longer a single leader remains in power, the more
entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to
his personal advantage. Power has a strong
tendency to corrupt; it is highly intoxicating. For this reason, it should
not be left in the hands of one person for too long. When a leader is firmly
entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He
may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and
strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits the executive runs the
risk of becoming a personal fief, rather than the office of first servant of
the people, as it should be. This is seen particularly in parts of the
developing world where leaders use state funds to generate electoral support
from key groups and to maintain the loyalty of essential supporters. A
current example of this is in Venezuela where Hugo Chavez has been able to
monopolize power to the point where it is unclear who his successor would be
should he die suddenly. Term limits
serve to limit the ability of individuals to enact self-aggrandizing policies
and to retain power indefinitely. Instead, by maintaining term limits,
leaders have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus
toward genuinely benefiting the public.
|
People are not stupid. They will not vote for someone
who is using the powers of the executive to enrich himself. Rather, leaders
will only be able to stay in power so long as they do what the people want.
If leaders are maintaining their power by other means, such as
institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term
limits on the leader, but rather because of other fundamental problems of
government in those states, in such cases as with Chavez the executive will
have enough power simply to override the imposed term limits.
|
Term limits check the power of incumbency as an
election-winning tool and allow new and energetic leaders and ideas to
flourish. Incumbency provides a huge
election advantage. Leaders and politicians generally, almost always win
re-election. Such has been the case in the United States, for example, where
presidents are almost always re-elected for a second term. Leaders are
re-elected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate
and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for those who they
recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to
benefit their interests. This problem has become particularly serious in
developing world in which revolutionary leaders from the original
independence movements are still politically active. These leaders often
command huge followings and mass loyalty, which they use to maintain power in
spite of poor decisions and corruption in many cases. Such has been the case
in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe winning presidential elections in spite of
mass corruption and mismanagement. Only recently have the people finally
voted against him, but it was too late, as his power had become too
entrenched to unseat him. The uphill battle that will always exist to unseat
incumbents makes term limits necessary. Countries need new ideas and new
leaders to enact them. Old leaders using election machines to retain power do
their country a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over
time in order allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing
world.
|
Voters will choose the leader they think will do the
best job, if this is the incumbent then that is democracy. Election machines
and lobby groups may be able to help an incumbent somewhat, but at the end of
the day the leader must be able to convince the people that he has done a
good job and is still suitable to lead. As to the issue of countries like
Zimbabwe, if the people want to keep electing a revolutionary hero, that is
their choice. The overruling of election results, as occurred in the most
recent Zimbabwean election, however, is not democratic and thus unacceptable
for a mature state. Mugabe’s ability to flaunt the will of the people was not
due to a lack of term limits, however, but on an inadequate separation of
powers inherent in the system. Adding term limits to that system, and indeed
any system, will do little to redress imbalances between branches of
government. The case of Vladimir Putin is similarly instructive, despite
stepping down after his second term, he thereafter took the office of Prime
Minister and maintained effective power. Term limits are no barrier to those
determined and popular enough to hang on to power.
|
Freeing the executive from re-election concerns can
help focus attention on the public interest. A focus of a leader who is looking toward the next
election is on getting votes. It is often the case that hard decisions need
to be made by leaders, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are
concerned with being re-elected. A leader has an incentive to put tough decisions
off if he can retain power by doing so. When constrained by term limits,
leaders must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in
greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform. Furthermore, the
need to constantly fight elections places leaders in the pocket of
lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always
need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are
in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this
behaviour, it is curtailed by term limits, as leaders in their final term
will not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again.
Furthermore, leaders who develop strong party
structures can influence the choice of their successor, ensuring that they
have a legacy. In this way term limits encourage the development of
party-based systems, rather than personality based systems of government.
|
A leader who is term-limited suffers from the effects
of being a lame duck. A final term leader will not be able to command the
same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term.
Furthermore, as to lobby-group support, a leader on the way out who cannot
seek another term has an incentive to favour groups and firms that will place
him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for
leaders, paid for often at the expense of the public.
|
Term limits protect democracy. While people may not be
able to vote for a leader again who has reached his limit of service, they
can still vote for a continuation of his policies by voting for his chosen
successor or for his political party’s candidate. Limiting individual leaders
to specified terms, however, prevents them from becoming too powerful and
damaging the democratic system of checks and balances.
|
Term limits are
undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent
decisions about their leaders on their own. Term limits are grossly undemocratic. If a leader is popular and desired
by the people to continue to lead them, then it should be their choice to
re-elect him. The instituting of term limits assumes voters cannot act
intelligently without proper guidance. This is an insult to the intelligence
of voters. The electorate will see whether a leader is doing a good job and
will vote accordingly. Preventing a potentially popular candidate from
standing for re-election simply removes the right to make important political
decisions from the electorate. The reason some countries have overpowered
presidents and executives is not due to a lack of term limits, but because of
a system designed to suppress opposition. Term limits are not a concern when
considering why countries have corrupt and authoritarian leaders. In such
countries or where the leader is very popular the leader will be able to
overturn the term limits anyway rendering them redundant. This occurred in
Venezuela in 2009 when Chavez the Venezuelan President won a referendum to
end term limits. The people, if they have the freedom to choose who should
lead them, should have the freedom to choose incumbents, and to do so
indefinitely if that is what the popular will demands.
|
The executive, at least in Presidential and
Parliamentary systems of government, already has the extra power of being an
individual wielding the entire power of the branch of government. There are
always competing power groups within legislatures, so it can never run the
risk of becoming tyrannical in the same way the executive can. Term limits
are an essential check on the huge individual power that the executive
bestows on leaders.
|
Term limits on
leaders unbalances power in favour of non-limited legislators and the
judiciary. When one branch is in constant
flux and another retains the ability to maintain a degree of continuity, the
power balance is naturally unequal. An executive who can continuously seek
re-election is better equalized with the other branches. Fear that a leader
somehow will be able to override the checks instituted by the constitution
and laws of a state are entirely unfounded. A third-term president in the
United States, for example, is no more innately powerful than a second-term
one. He can no more change the constitution, or take power from the other
branches of government than he could previously. In cases where leaders have
wrested power from the other branches and become dictators, as in Zimbabwe,
the cause of the problem is not a lack of term limits, but rather a lack of
adequate separation of powers in government. Term limits do not stop tyranny,
as a would-be dictator can easily enough remove term limits by fiat. The
solution to dictatorship is the establishment of robust democratic
institutions and a genuine separation of powers. Furthermore, a strong leader
may be necessary to counter the potential tyranny of a dominant legislature
as much as the reverse. Removing term limits ensures balance among the power
centres of government.
|
While some continuity is desirable in leadership, it is
not worth the costs of allowing a single individual to retain so much power
for so long. If there are crises to face or long-term legislative agendas to
push forward, the leader may still offer insight and support out of office
and may back a candidate to succeed him who will continue his policies. The
boons of continuity can thus be maintained without the risks of despotism and
corruption that too long held office encourages.
|
A strong, consistent
executive may be desirable in many cases. Continuity and experience in leadership has real value. Experienced
hands can be best for navigating the often-treacherous waters of politics,
and such experience is especially necessary in the executive. Furthermore,
the prospect of future tenure gives incumbent leaders the leverage to get
things done. When there are no term limits, lame duck leaders are generally
eliminated. The status quo undermines the ability of last-term leaders to act
effectively, since members of the other branches of government, and the
public, know they are on the way out and thus lack the same ability to enact
policy. Eliminating term limits allows leaders to make the most of every term
they serve to enact policy. It also allows leaders to focus on long-term
projects that might take more than the time allotted to them by their term
limits. When considering the ascension of new leaders, it is necessary to
consider that they will always take some time acclimating themselves to their
new office, time that is thus not put to efficient use in governing. Constant
changing of leadership brought about by term limits serves only to exacerbate
this problem. In other words, leadership is like anything else—one gets
better with experience. Additionally,
lobbyists and powerful legislators will more easily exploit amateurish
newcomers to leadership. Naiveté on the part of new leaders who are unused to
the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Continuity in
leadership is especially important in times of crisis. For example, the
United States needed the continuity and strength of Franklin Roosevelt during
Great Depression, and later during World War II. Americans were willing to
break with the tradition of presidents serving only two terms of office for
the sake of that leadership. Clearly, it is better to have a tried and tested
leader in times of struggle than a potentially disastrous, untested newcomer.
|
A leader who has to constantly concern himself with
re-election is likely to be far more beholden to special interest groups and
lobbyists than one who is term-limited. While a term-limited leader may
suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek
electoral support is far more damaging to the ability to do what is right for
the nation. Leaders who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what
is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a leader who has
only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively
seeks to implement his vision.
Furthermore, reducing the incentive to pander to
self-interest groups in one’s final term can be achieved through offering
good retirement benefits to ex-leaders, including international jobs.
|
The incentive for
corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits. With term limits, a leader will, after he enters his
final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again,
meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption
and self-enrichment on the part of leaders in their final term of office when
they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is
likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters,
since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck.
Furthermore, lame duck leaders can devote time to buddying up to businesses
and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after
they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where
former heads of state and government find themselves being offered highly
profitable positions upon their retirement. Imposing term limits necessarily
increases this sort of behaviour, as leaders look more toward their
retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests
of the people.
|
0 Comments