Should leaders in democracies be subject to term limits?
Commentary
There is an ongoing debate in many Western countries regarding term limits for elected officials. These discussions are more common in non-parliamentary countries, where the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch and representatives often hold their seats for multiple terms.
In a parliamentary system, the government typically changes when there is a shift in the composition of parliament. Long, uninterrupted terms for the head of government are rare. If Justin Trudeau leads the Liberal Party in the next election, he will be vying to become the first Canadian federal politician to win four consecutive elections since Wilfrid Laurier achieved this in 1908.
In contrast, the United States has historically favored consecutive terms for presidents. Donald Trump would only be the second president, after Grover Cleveland, to be elected to non-consecutive terms if he wins the upcoming election. The US Constitution was amended to limit presidents to two terms after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four consecutive terms in office.
The argument against term limits is that effective leaders should be retained if they have the support of the majority. For example, if Roosevelt had not been re-elected to a third term, the outcome of World War II might have been different. Term limits could deprive a country of essential leadership during crucial times.
Roosevelt redefined American territorial waters, triggering events that led to significant geopolitical shifts. Leaders like Roosevelt played crucial roles in shaping history.
Long-serving leaders like those in Canada, who guided the country through challenging periods, demonstrate the importance of experienced leadership. Term limits may limit a country’s access to competent leaders when needed the most.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
