A case for term limits

By Ronald Austin Jr

– power must be checked by laws and statutes

THE proponents of term limits argue that limitations on power are wholly necessary to be mindful of Lord Acton’s dire warning, ‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely’. They argue passionately that the citizenry in progressive societies deserve diverse perspectives in government and different choices. These advocates are adamant that one leader must not usurp power for such a long time, because this denies other aspiring individuals, a chance to lead.

They say after every two terms, new blood must be given a shot at leadership at the highest level. Some even posit that power, once possessed for a long period of time, does something to the brain that we cannot explain, it leads invariably to the abuse of power. This represents the general thrust of the arguments for term limits.
On the other side of the argument, there are those who vehemently baulk at the suggestion that their choices must be limited by laws and statutes. Opponents of term limits take the position that if a leader presents himself/herself at the ballot box on unlimited occasions, they should have the right to choose in any democracy. Dissenting opinions on the need for term limits point to the fact that in times of crisis, a nation needs the best person who can provide this leadership. Term limits detractors argue that there is a loss of experience when the leader with so much institutional memory is denied a chance to lead. By doing this, I have documented the general theme that comes with the arguments against term limits.

As a student of history, it is extremely difficult for me to support unlimited rule by one individual or a president-for-life scenario. Two terms should suffice and no more. If you say, citizens must always have a choice to select who they wish at the ballot box, I will say that choice means that the maximum leader must exit at some point to allow more choices to present themselves to the electorate. So choice must be taken into a broader perspective. If you say that in times of crisis, a nation needs the best leadership available and term limits prevent this, I will say ask, what is the point of talent when it comes with the abuse of power with all its concomitant negativities? If you say, it is a waste of institutional memory to deny a leader with 10 years of experience a chance to rule, I will say again, what is the point of a wealth of experience when it brings destructive rule?
The idea surrounding the need for term limits did not drop from the sky, nor was it plucked out of thin air; this is being advocated by some due to egregious examples available once you take a cursory glance at history. How about Ivan the Terrible of Russia, who launched the massacre of Novgorod in 1570, thousands were slaughtered, based on a simple rumour that the city was plotting to assassinate him? How about Joseph Stalin, who embarked on an economic programme, The First Five-Year Plan that resulted in widespread famine and the death of millions? How about the scores of bad leaders who usurped power for their narrow ends to the detriment of their populations? I submit, the cases highlighted demonstrate the dangers of power, it is a weapon that teems with the potential for widespread destruction, once abused. Please, do not lecture about magnanimous dictatorship or the case of good dictators, we must not leave such a thing of such consequence to the whims and fancies of man’s nature; power must be carefully monitored by laws and statutes.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.