Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Term limits for politicians
Section B. Constitutional/governance
This debate addresses the question of whether we need to take any action to counteract the perceived dominance of older and more established figures in political life. It also raises the question of whether politics should be perceived as a career in itself. At present in the UK, there is no limit to the number of terms in office that an MP can serve, whether as a back-bencher, a minister, or even as prime minister. In the USA, there is no limit for members of the House of Representatives, but an individual may only serve as president for a maximum of two terms. A definition should clarify whether the debate is only about executive positions or also about members of the legislature. It will probably also want to set the number of terms and whether the limits are consecutive or lifetime.
Pros
[1] A regrettable trend in recent years has been the development of the ’professional politician’. Politics should be a brief interlude in a career, not a career in itself. Politics is enriched by life experience and career politicians narrow the perspective of government. Young people are diving into student politics, emerging as full-time political organisers and resurfacing as political candidates a few years later without ever having done a ’real job’. This produces bland politicians with no experience of the real world. Term limits would mean that people would be more inclined to accumulate experience before entering the political system for their one chance as an elected representative. Limiting members of parliament to a set number of terms (two or even one) would therefore be healthy for democracy.
[2] Politicians in their last term can be brave and principled as they are less afraid of the opinion polls, thus allowing them to be bolder in their decision making. For example, Bill Clinton continued to push for a peace settlement in the Middle East and began important negotiations with North Korea in the final months of his presidency.’
[3] Once elected, politicians enjoy a significant ’incumbency factor’. The publicity that their post affords them and the apparatus available to them provide a significant advantage to them and a disadvantage to their opponents; this is unfair and undemocratic.
[4] Like introducing a mandatory retirement age, limiting the amount of time a person can serve as a representative will create regular openings for talented people at the bottom end of the scale. Term limits would increase the number of younger and more energetic representatives and relax the stranglehold on power enjoyed by the career politician by virtue simply of his or her age. In practice, an experienced politician is never deselected in favour of a younger candidate, however out of touch he or she has become, and this perpetuates an ageing and ageist legislature. Legislation must be passed to force local party selection committees to select new candidates, say every 10 years, to counteract the current inequitable system and prevent stagnation.
[5] Term limits prevent a stranglehold on power. In turn this can reduce corruption, lessen the influence of special interest groups and produce a more open and accountable system. In countries with safe-seat constituencies or party lists, many senior politicians are untouchable and term limits can perform an important constitutional check.
Cons
[1] This is a perfectly valid view — but it is not valid to force this view onto the political system. If people want to prevent someone standing two or three times, they can vote against them. If we want to reelect a veteran politician, we should be able to. The experience and wisdom gained within politics can be as valuable as that learnt in business. To attempt to remove elected representatives by legal means is undemocratic as it restricts voter choice. Americans voted in Franklin D. Roosevelt to take a third term and prospered because of it.
[2] Term limits create ’lame duck’ politicians in their last term who know they will never face the electorate again. This has the double disadvantage of reducing their moral authority and eliminating their motivation to keep in touch with their public. Term limits would produce less effective representatives.
[3] There are plenty of examples of incumbent politicians being beaten in elections. Being in the spotlight highlights mistakes and unpopular policies and characteristics as well as successes; this is how accountability works.
[4] It is ageist to assume that younger politicians will be more dynamic and talented, and it is foolish to throw away the experience and skills of older politicians. In a system where politicians are under unprecedented pressure both from the executive and from lobbyists, inexperienced novices are ill-equipped to cope. Experienced legislators benefit both their constituents and parliament. Term limits would effectively abolish the experienced politician at a considerable loss to the nation. Even more power would then be concentrated in the hands of unelected civil servants and functionaries. This is particularly acute at times of crisis where continuity can be valuable. It is down to the political parties to select their candidates, and down to them to decide whether to value youth over experience or vice versa. This is not a decision that should be forced upon them by legislation.
[5] There are other checks against abuse of power in a democratic system — the legislature, the media, the courts and the electorate themselves. If all of these bodies are happy with the work of a politician, why should they not be allowed to continue to serve?
Possible motions
This House would limit the term of politicians.
This House regrets the rise of the career politician.
This House favours youth over experience in its politicians.
Related topics
State funding of political parties
Political candidacy, age of
Democracy
Politicians’ outside interests, banning of