Presidential term limits help protect democracy - long ones can be dangerous

Legal scholars Rosalind Dixon and David Landau offer insights into the role of presidential term limits in a democracy.

The vast majority of presidential or semi-presidential systems around the world have a presidential term limit. The roughly 16% that do not are not well-functioning democracies, but rather authoritarian or semi-authoritarian systems.

Quite often autocratic presidents extend term limits as part of a strategy to consolidate power. In Venezuela, for instance, Hugo Chavez in 2007 lost a referendum to eliminate presidential term limits. He succeeded on a second attempt in 2009, and remained in power until his death in 2013.

In Africa, leaders in many countries have circumvented term limits. A recent study found 14 successful evasion efforts in the region since 2015. For example, in 2023 in the Central African Republic, voters approved a new constitution that extended the presidential term from five to seven years and got rid of a two-term limit. The vote allows incumbent president Faustin-Archange Touadéra to remain in power indefinitely.

There is no single right answer as to how presidential terms and term limits should be designed. Indeed, there is considerable variation among countries worldwide, both in term length and in whether an incumbent president can seek re-election to a second consecutive term.

But our research shows that virtually no true democracies permit presidents to serve beyond five or six years. And virtually no true democracies allow presidents to serve for more than two consecutive terms in office.

Lengthening presidential terms to seven years would place Kenya in a danger zone. Abnormally long presidential terms lead to a risk of the destruction of democracy. At a minimum, such a move should be paired with other reforms to prevent presidents from serving consecutive terms in office.

Two factors – length of term and re-election – interact.

Systems that have abnormally long presidential terms also tend to sharply restrict re-election. For example, Mexico has a comparatively long presidential term of six years. But it allows only one presidential term in a lifetime.

In Kenya, the current system restricts presidents to serving two five-year terms, which may be consecutive or non-consecutive, in a lifetime. A change to term length would potentially allow Kenyan presidents to stay in power for 14 consecutive years.

This would be an unusually and dangerously long time.

First, limiting the amount of time a single person can serve as president helps maintain the necessary divide, in the minds of the public, between the presidency as an office or institution and the person occupying it. This reduces the risk that a president will seek to overstretch their formal legal powers based simply on their personal popularity or charisma.

It can also reduce the likelihood that presidents attempt to overstay their constitutionally designated term in office – in the belief that doing so will have public support.

Second, term limits force a necessary alternation in leadership. This can help voters test whether a particular leader is in fact necessary to national stability or prosperity. Sometimes, a particular president may be unique in their capacity to deliver on these goals, in which case a constitutional system may wish to allow for a president to return after a period of time out of office.

But often, a change in presidential leadership demonstrates to voters that stability and prosperity are not linked to a single leader, but rather to a political party or movement. This can help reinforce a popular commitment to a system of true multi-party electoral competition.

Third, term limits help protect the independence of other key constitutional institutions – including courts and other independent institutions, such as electoral or human rights commissions.

Often, the president plays an important role in appointments to these bodies, but that role is limited and shared with other institutions.

When presidents remain in power too long, they could use their additional time in office to gain control over other institutions of the state. The independence that courts and other institutions must have in a constitutional democracy are lost.

Yes. Presidential term limits certainly have some downsides. For example, they limit the capacity for an experienced leader to remain in office and deliver on commitments to effective government. And they can reduce the accountability of a president who is unable to seek re-election.

In our prior work, we argue that limiting presidents to hold office for only one or two terms in a row, but permitting them to run again for the presidency after spending one or more terms out of power, may give them an incentive to leave office at the constitutionally appointed time rather than bending the rules to stay in office.

At the same time, such a limit on consecutive (rather than lifetime) terms still restricts the power of a single president to control the appointment of other independent institutions. And it gives voters the chance to experience alternative models of leadership during the period in which incumbents must leave office.

A term limit that restricts presidents to serving only one or two terms in a row, but allows them to return later, may not be the best answer in all countries or contexts. For example, it may not work if family members or close associates simply act as placeholders for departed presidents while they wait to return to power. But it is a model well worth considering.

This article is provided by The Conversation via Reuters Connect