By Elson Browne Low

Sitting in political science class at college, one of my quirkier professors, who somehow always seemed to be in the company of his big husky, mentioned to me the moment that democracy split into the two broad camps that have existed ever since. On the one hand, the more traditional view was that as much power as possible must be vested in the people, whereas the other was that this led to indecisiveness, and so power should be concentrated in some authority under popular consent.

Of course, what makes this debate so troubling is that it was taking place in the lead up to World War II, as Hitler moved to consolidate power in the midst of an inept, though quite democratic German state. The arguments we can easily guess at–the democracy was failing the German people because it facilitated harsh economic consequences imposed after the First World War. A man like Hitler, who could put Germany first, would put this right, and in order to do so he needed to concentrate his power over the government.

This argument, in one form or another, has endured ever since. The reason for this is simple– democracies do indeed revolve around discussion and discussion can both take a very long time and prove inconclusive. Periodic upheavals are healthy in that they break this deadlock; the problem stems when a temporary concentration of power becomes permanent. Germany is just one example of numerous times the argument for concentrating power has triumphed and a democratic system collapsed. My fellow Guyanese, this is what the debate on Presidential term limits locally is really about.

I can readily enough list good reasons why we might need a strong leader to be in office for a few decades in Guyana, but I believe in their heart of hearts each Guyanese worries that this will somehow lead to a permanent Presidency. Further, I don’t want to put down the former President, who is currently the only likely person to benefit from the relaxation of term limits, as many often do when discussing this issue because I think it is reasonable to say he is not inept. I can see why some are clamouring for him to have more opportunities to govern.

Instead, I want to say that Guyanese must seriously consider whether we want one man, even a competent man, to dominate the Presidency for a very extended period of time. Relaxing term limits will massively concentrate power in the leaders of the respective parties and especially in the office of the Presidency. Are we so desperate for competent leadership that we will risk this? Even further, in a resource rich country about to reap the benefits of an oil boom, isn’t it obvious that this could really get out of control?

It remains unclear how the CCJ case will turn out, and I recognize that the argument being made for relaxing the limits rests on a different ground than I have articulated- whether it infringes on citizens’ rights to restrict their choice of head-of-state. But this is just a repackaging of the broader argument that it is acceptable to increasingly concentrate power at the top. Further, this core debate is by no means restricted to Guyana, but roaring internationally as we see China doing away with term limits, Vladimir Putin returning to office and Donald Trump throwing the idea out as a possibility in the United States.

If the CCJ rules in favour of relaxing term limits, Guyanese will have an important choice to make as already some have mentioned a potential referendum on the issue. I want to leave you with an unorthodox argument for term limits, in the hope that it will make it clear, should such a referendum become necessary, why unlimited rule so often leads to disaster. In a way, no term limits makes politics a little like the childhood game “one, two, three, red light.”

As all ambitious politicians are likely to want to reach the maximum office in the country, and no term limits means one person may indeed govern for life, each politician is encouraged to try to find a way to overwhelm that maximum leader. Just as at the beginning of that childhood game, the political players are far from reaching the person calling out “one, two, three, red light,” so it is easy for them to do so. But as each player gets closer and closer, more and more politically powerful, what happens?

The person calling out starts to say the words faster and faster, eventually making a mistake and getting caught by some lucky player. It is very difficult to retain power for a prolonged period of time, and as political rivals grow more and more powerful, the margin for error decreases, just like in the game. This is probably why leaders who have long been in power make such critical mistakes near their tenure’s end. A Guyana without term limits means that critical mistake is something we have to accept is going to happen eventually. History has unfortunately shown us that leaders’ final “red light” moment of error coincides with national turmoil, from Charles 1’s England to Gaddafi’s Libya.