Term limit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also Rotation in office

A term limit is a legal restriction that limits the number of terms a person may serve in a particular elected office. Term limits are found usually in presidential and semi-presidential systems as a method to curb the potential for dictatorships, where a leader effectively becomes "president for life". There are different types of term limits. Sometimes, there is an absolute limit on the number of terms a person can serve, while in other cases, the restrictions are merely on the number of consecutive terms a person can serve.

[edit] Use of term limits

Term limits have a long history: Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, two early civilizations which had elected political offices, both imposed limits on some positions. In ancient Athenian democracy, no citizen could serve on the council of 500, or boule, for two consecutive annual terms, nor for more than two terms in his lifetime, nor be head of the boule more than once. In the Roman Republic, a law was passed imposing a limit of a single term on the office of Censor. Also the annual magistrates -- tribune of the plebs, aedile, quaestor, praetor, and consul -- were forbidden reelection until a number of years had passed.^[1] See Cursus honorum

Many modern presidential republics employ term limits for their highest offices. The United States, one of the first countries of the modern era to have elected political offices, placed a limit of two terms on its presidency by means of the 22nd amendment of the Constitution in 1951, and limits are in place on a number of other political offices as well (such as state Governors and some state legislators). Formal limits in America date back to the Pennsylvania Charter of Liberties of 1682, and the colonial frame of government of the same year, both authored by William Penn and providing for triennial rotation of the provincial council -- the upper house of the colonial legislature.^[2] (See also term limits in the United States).

Term limits are also common in Latin America, where most countries are also presidential republics. Early in the last century, the Mexican revolutionary, Francisco Madero, popularized the slogan, Sufragio Efectivo – no Reelección (effective suffrage, no reelection). In keeping with that venerated principle, the Mexican system divides the congress into a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies; and the Constitution states that "Deputies and Senators cannot be reelected for the next immediate term."^[3] Likewise the President of Mexico is limited to a single six year term.

Countries which operate a parliamentary system of government are less likely to employ term limits on their leaders. This is because such leaders rarely have a set "term" at all: rather, they serve as long as they have the confidence of the legislature, a period which could potentially last indefinitely. Nevertheless, such countries may impose term limits on the holders of other offices — in republics, for example, a ceremonial presidency may have a term limit, especially if it has reserve powers.

Offices of local government, such as a mayoralty, may also have term limits.

[edit] Arguments

[edit] In favor of limits

• It also prevents incumbents from using the benefits of office to remain in power indefinitely. In some situations, merely being in office provides an elected official with a distinct advantage in further elections. Supporters of term limits argue that this advantage is undemocratic, and means that incumbents no longer fear losing their offices and cease to be concerned with the needs of their constituents. Term limits ensure that all officials are eventually removed from power.
• In the United States, limiting Congressmen to a single term would be a more effective remedy for plutocracy than Campaign finance reform. It would eliminate the incumbent's need for a campaign war chest, and thus deprive corporate lobbyists of much if not all of their leverage over sitting U.S. Representatives. For the details of such a reform, see chapter six, part III, of the cited online book.^[4].
• It makes room for fresh candidates, and encourages participation. Imposing term limits on an office ensures that there will always be vacancies for new candidates to pursue. This may encourage citizens who would normally not consider running for office to do so, as they will not be challenging an established, entrenched opponent. Many proponents claim that term limits will increase diversity in a legislature, bringing the law-making body's demographics more in line with those of the general population.
• It stops politicians from making choices solely to prolong their career. If a politician can serve as many terms as they wish, they may be tempted to follow policies which will ensure their long-term political survival, rather than policies which further the interests of voters. Supporters of term limits sometimes argue that if politicians know from the beginning of their service that their time in office is limited, they will act differently (and less self-servingly) than “career” legislators.
• It reduces the advantage which can be gained by a representative's seniority. In some legislatures, power and influence tend to increase as a legislator gains seniority — a politician who has served many terms will carry more responsibility than one who has just been elected, even if both are representing the same number of voters. If one district continually re-elects the same politician, while another district frequently changes its politician, the first district will have greater sway in the legislature than the second, because its representative has had time to accrue seniority. Term limits ensure that each district has representatives of similar seniority.

[edit] Against limits

• It is undemocratic. The most common argument against the use of term limits is that it takes away the right of voters to be represented by the politician of their choice. It is argued that if the public wish to re-elect their representative, it is undemocratic to prevent them from doing so. Allow the electorate to do its job, argue opponents, and non-responsive legislators can still be held accountable. Finally, it can deny the voters the right to vote someone out of office; this is especially true in offices where re-election is not allowed.
• It results in a lack of experienced politicians. Term limit opponents argue that, with experience, comes greater skill. The very use of the term “freshman representative” is indicative of the fact that the first-term legislator is less likely to be able to “get things done” in the legislature, and in fact might make a lot of "freshman mistakes" due to his/her inexperience. It is further argued that inexperienced politicians will be more reliant on advice and guidance from un-elected officials and lobbyists. Permanent committee staffers, who ostensibly work for the representatives, would become more knowledgeable and powerful than the members themselves. Moreover, lobbyists in the employ of special interests might tend to grow more powerful, as they can offer to “help” inexperienced members gain a foothold. Because both staffers and lobbyists are unelected, opponents argue, term limits are undemocratic as it places more power in the hands of the unelected. The Michigan budgetary crisis of 2007 is a textbook example of strict term limits hampering the productivity of the Michigan Legislature.
• It means that politicians approaching their term limit no longer have to worry about what voters think. Another argument against term limits is that it is the very fact that politicians need to go back to the voters for approval and reelection that keeps them responsive. With term limits, a lame duck legislator no longer has any motivation to continue heeding the concerns of his constituents. In such a circumstance, a legislator could use their last term to set themselves up for a job in the private sector after the end of their legislative career.
• It simply results in frequent trading of office between the same people, not an influx of new people. In contrast to the claims that term limits allow new faces to enter politics, opponents claim that there are enough political offices for elected officials to simply "play musical chairs". In response to claims that term limits promote diversity, on August 15, 2006 the United States' National Conference of State Legislatures issued a report at its annual meeting stating that "term limits have not led to significant increases in female or minority representation in state legislatures, according to a survey of the 15 states with term limits." [1]

[edit] References

1. ^ Robert Struble, Jr., Treatise on Twelve Lights, chapter six, part II, "Rotation in History."
2. ^ Francis N. Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws..., 7 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1909) 5:3048, 3055-56, 3065.
3. ^ Constitution of 1917, article 50, 59.
4. ^ Struble, supra, chapter six, part III.

[edit] See also

• Constitution of the Roman Republic
• List of political term limits
• Term limits in the United States

[edit] External links

• Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever, an article by Doug Bandow in favor of term limits.nl:Herverkiezing