Love him, hate him, or simply don't care
about him, Vladimir Putin will be allowed to serve as President of Russia for
the foreseeable future. But one thing that many sensationalist headlines are
ignoring, is that he actually has to be elected to continue in his role as the
Russian head of state. Whether you think Russia has fair elections or not, it
brings a broader question into the fore; should political term limits even
exist?
Let’s move west of the Kremlin, and think
about this political situation with some leaders who are more favourable to
westerners than the beast from the east. Barack Obama was not allowed to run
for a third term in office in 2016, ultimately leading to the election of
Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton was simply not as likeable as Obama, something
that wasn’t helped by the email scandal or her attack on republican supporters
that had an affect on the middle ground. Obama, a much more liked public
figure, would have surely retained the White House for a third term were he
allowed to run.
In Ireland, President Michael D. Higgins,
is currently serving his second and final term, after proving to be the most
popular candidate by some margin during the 2018 election. Yes, he’s old, but
we can’t write off people purely on their age, remember Dev was 90 when he finished
his second term in Áras an Uachtaráin. In all likelihood, Michael D. would win
a third term in office if he were willing and allowed to run.
Not wanting to turn this article into a
list of popular presidents and former presidents from around the world, we’ll
move on to the question again, should term limits exist?
From a democratic perspective, nobody
should be excluded for running for election, for any reason, at the end of the
day democracy is about the will of the people. If a president is running for
their fifth term in office, and they receive the support of 50+% of the
electorate, then that is the will of the people. By forbidding someone to run
for office, it will never be known for sure if the will of the people has been
betrayed or followed.
On the other hand, there are some
theoretical downsides to not having a term limit. For one, the goalposts could
be moved during the president’s term, giving them an advantage. An example of
this is in the US where in some states, convicted felons are routinely denied
and then granted their supposed ‘right’ to vote. According to the documentary 13th,
this is because many felons are black, and 90+% of black people vote for
Democrats. So when a Democrat is in power, they can vote; when a Republican is
in power they can’t. Again, I want to emphasise that this is not across the
entire US.
There is also something known as the ‘Incumbent
Advantage’, which means that the person who already holds the office, has an
advantage over a newcomer, as they are more well known by their constituency.
This is often exaggerated do dissuade challengers, but it does exist to some
degree. However it is arguable that party support levels and the state of the
economy play a much larger role in elections, and after all aren’t all
elections based on the state of economic and social issues, rather than
incumbency?
Terms limits seem to be here for the
long-haul, but should they be?
Comments
Post a Comment