Term limits, one of the better example on term limits was Mexico, the PRI ruled in the
background and every new term limit a new set of PRI-puppets was offered to the "people"
(Luckily Mexico is going multy-party too)
That is, the general rule is that only disfunctional political and election systems
need "term limits".
One general exception is the task of the "president", partly because, or if, he has,
or has been given, "unproportional power" but also as he has more "access to the
campaigning" than any other elected person.
For example, prime ministers can usually be replaced by a "vote of no confidence"
at any time. The USA-style impeachment process is then "the only solution",
tough medicine for a tough problem. (skipping regular assassination)
My point, which is a very "traditional" and old point, that a functional
political and election system does not need term limits for congress.
However, an unproportionally powerful president needs it.
And worse, consider the "Mexico case"
Ilmarinen
Additionally, on "term limits", one need to define if they are "for life" or
just for one election inbetween, valid for both senate and house,
what about the ones in the states, governers, etc,etc..
Should the term be limited to one term,two terms, 20 years or 70 years??
(joke on the "seniority" principle)
As well as the need for some level of "continuity", at worst just having a
bunch of new puppets every election.
Btw, healthy multi-party systems often have a "natural" replacement-rate
of 20-30%, among the "newcomers", not those who have proven themselves
capable and have wide support. (another problem with single-seat-districts
is that they do not measure "wide support", instead one such district
can easily become a target just to get rid of one elected) |
