Should we Get Rid of Term Limits?

by Tom Kando

When you look at the history of various countries around the world, you see success stories,  failures, and cases in-between. You also see, within the history of individual countries, periods of peace, progress and  prosperity, alternating with  dismal conflict, regression and misery. For example, less than a century ago, Germany went through a terrible phase, becoming a monstrous country, whereas today it is doing better than most; countries, economically, morally and in terms of its quality of life.

Probably what matters the most in determining whether a country does well or not is the quality of its LEADERSHIP, right? For example, President Franklin Roosevelt  took us out of the Great Depression and won World War Two. President James Buchanan got us into the Civil War.

And combined with that, there  is also the longevity of leadership: Good leadership is precious. So isn’t it possible that countries that hold onto their good leaders for longer periods of time will thrive more than countries that switch leaders frequently?  Other things being equal, longevity of leadership offers the advantage of stability.

We obviously want good  leadership, but in addition we might  re-think our infatuation with things like term-limits. Isn’t there  something to be said for experience, expertise, learning and getting better on the job?  Why must we get rid of a president after  four years or at the most eight years? Wouldn’t it be nice if  President Kennedy had lasted longer, or President Obama?  The only leaders in this country who stay in power for the rest of their lives are the Supreme Court Judges. Maybe it should be the other way around - longer presidential terms and shorter Supreme Court terms.

I hear  your immediate objections:

What about Trump?! Wasn't it a good thing that he was only there for four years?

And: The more important question to ask is, why do we elect good (or bad) leaders to begin with?

Or: Yes, stability is important, but there is a price to pay. China is very stable, but it is neither democratic nor free. And weren’t there many long-lasting leaders who were terrible leaders? What about Fidel Castro, Franco, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Putin? All creating stability, but at what cost?

In The Narrow Corridor, Daron  Acemoglu and James A. Robinson argue that  conflict between the State and Society is perennial. Liberty and Democracy are always precarious. To safeguard them, it is necessary to ‘shackle’  Leviathan (Thomas Hobbes’ metaphor for the State). Otherwise, the State will become abusive of the society over which it rules.  Term limits is the price we pay for  our ability to shackle the Government and our leaders. In the end, this is a better way to prevent despotism than leaving  it up to one man, good or bad. There is such a thing as ‘the slippery slope.’ Power corrupts.

I will return to these arguments in a moment. First, let me present my hypothesis:

Longevity of leadership is correlated with favorable societal conditions. In other words, other things being equal,  longevity of leadership provides stability, which in turns is conducive to peace and  prosperity.  Table One looks at some empirical examples:

Table One : Heads of State, ranked by their regime’s longevity 

Head of State	years in power	years	assessment	Grade
1. French King Louis XIV	1643-1715	72	While frequently at war, France enjoys stability, prosperity and great power	B+
2. British Queen Elizabeth II	1952-2022 so far	70	Britain enjoys peace and prosperity.	A
3. Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph	1848-1916	67	The Empire enjoys stability, but eventually collapses,  due to World War One	C+
4. British Queen Victoria	1837-1901	64	The British Empire enjoys peace, prosperity and great power.	A-
5. Japanese Emperor Hirohito	1926-1989	62	Japan becomes  industrially and  militarily powerful, then fascist, then collapses in World War II	F
6. Chinese Emperor Kangxi	1661-1722	62	China enjoys peace and prosperity, but stagnation	B
7. Chinese Emperor Qianlong	1735-1796	60	China enjoys peace and prosperity, but stagnation	B-
8. British King George III	1760-1820	59	Apart from the loss of America, the British Empire thrives.	B+
9. Dutch Queen Wilhelmina	1890-1948	58	Netherlands makes much progress	B+
10. Cuban leader Fidel Castro	1959-2008	49	Cuba is economic failure, but spirited	D+
11. British Queen Elizabeth I	1558-1603	45	Britain makes much progress	B
12. Roman Emperor Augustus	27 BC - 14 AD	41	Rome enjoys peace and prosperity,  authoritarianism	A-
13. Spanish dictator Franco	1939-1975	36	Spain is a backward dictatorship	D-
14. Soviet leader Stalin	1924-1953	29	Industrial progress at the cost of monstrous bloodbath	F
15. Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung	1949-1976	27	worst bloodbath in history of the world	F
16. Russian President Putin	1999-2922 so far	23	Stability with authoritarianism	D+
17. Roman Emperor Diocletian	284-305	20	Roman Empire recovers, somewhat	C+
18. German Chancellor Angela Merkel	2005-2021	16	Germany enjoys prosperity, peace and freedom	A
19. US President Franklin Roosevelt	1933-1946	8+	America recovers and thrives in every way	A-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs

There are many others: E.g. French King Louis XV (59 years), Brazilian King Pedro (58 years), Portuguese strong man Salazar (36 years, Napoleon (16 years), Hitler (11 years), etc.

I include President Franklin Roosevelt  because he was the longest-serving US president and he did more for America than anyone else. Some cases on my list may be  irrelevant. For example  British Queen Elizabeth II. Such modern-day figure-heads  have little impact on their countries’ conditions.

Table One contains  cases which demolish my hypothesis: Leaders such as Stalin and Mao Tse Tung combine longevity with catastrophic conditions in their countries during their reign.

Nevertheless, most of the remaining examples - Louis XIV, Queen Victoria, Emperors Kangxi and Qianlong, King George III,  Queen Wilhelmina, Queen Elizabeth I, Emperor Augustus, Emperor Diocletian, Chancellor Angela Merkel  and President Franklin Roosevelt -  support my hypothesis.

The statistical relationship between variables can be causal, or merely correlational. And when it is causal, it is not always clear which one  is the cause (independent variable), and which one  is the  effect (the dependent variable).

For example, the relationship between the birthrate and ice cream consumption  is correlational but not causal. Both are higher in the summer than in the winter. However, neither  of these two variables is a cause of the other.

Also, two variables may BOTH  have an impact on each other. Their relationship may be functional. Think of the chicken-or-egg relationship: Which one is cause and which one is effect?

 Four possible relationships between variables A and B:

1. Correlational:          A------B

2. Causal:                    A  ➔  B

3. Causal:                    A  »  B

4. Functional:              A»➔B

 In my hypothesis, the two variables are:

A. Leadership longevity

B. Stability, peace, prosperity and well-being

Therefore the  possibilities are:

1. Mere correlation: Leadership longevity is not the cause of prosperity: The two  may be correlated, but neither variable is the cause of the other.

2. Causal relationship: Leadership longevity produces stability and therefore causes peace, prosperity and well-being.

3. Causal relationship  in opposite direction: Peace, prosperity and well-being  cause leadership longevity: For example, in the US, when things  go well, people re-elect the president for a second term.

4. Functional relationship and feed-back between the two variables:   Leadership longevity contributes to stability, peace, prosperity and well-being, which in turn lead to leadership longevity.

My hypothesis combines scenarios #2 and #3, and  therefore amounts to scenario #4.

Here is an added example to support my hypothesis, taken from the Roman Empire:  From the death of Emperor Caracalla (AD 217) to the start of Emperor Diocletian’s reign (AD 284),  there were 32 Emperors over a period of 67 years, with an average two-year term! Nearly every one was   assassinated. This was also the era of the Roman Empire’s most catastrophic decline. Then, the Empire got a respite when Diocletian acceded to the throne in AD  284 and continued to rule for 20 years. This revived the Empire which then survived for another 111 years.

If I am right, the lesson is this: For several decades now, we have been enamored with measures such as term limits. Congress passed the twenty-second amendment in 1947, which limits the president to two terms in office. There are many term limits on executive, legislative and judicial positions at the state level as well. But shouldn’t we  re-think this policy, and consider lengthening rather than shortening political offices? Surely good leadership, experience and expertise are  precious commodities.

I am absolutely not advocating authoritarianism. I am  an avid supporter of democracy. All I am saying is that (1) the first order of business is to elect GOOD leaders democratically, but that (2) the frequent and rapid turn-over of leadership may contribute to instability and bad governance. In other words, OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, longevity and stability of leadership are better than their opposite.         

America has a unique history of facing this issue: The founding fathers argued over the question of “shackling Leviathan:”

Alexander Hamilton favored a strong central government (see the Federalist Papers), whereas Thomas Jefferson was in favor of strong states’ rights. This issue has divided the country ever since. The Federal government has often been a strong central force for progress, as during Reconstruction, the Civil Rights era, the presidencies of Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson. However, the Southern and Western states have often succeeded  in stymying progress by clamoring for “freedom” and states’ rights. Democratic administrations have pushed the beneficial role of the central government in policies such as Social Security and Medicare. In this country, the problem has been EXCESSIVE shackles on  the Leviathan, to the detriment of the people’s welfare. The trend continues today, as the Second Amendment becomes increasingly sacrosanct, vigilantism  is on the rise, all in the name of freedom.

Nor are the country’s institutions contributing to  leadership that benefits the people: The universities, the media and the cultural elite are focusing on identity politics and culture wars. Wall Street would reduce the state’s role in the economy to a minimum.  The options offered to Americans by Trumpism  are right-wing authoritarianism and anarchy. Democratic socialism is not an option.

But to get back to leadership:

The brief terms served by amateur politicians, Hollywood actors, wrestlers and real estate moguls have done great harm to the country. Does good government not require experienced professionals and  trained    experts  as much as any other field, rather than incompetent amateurs?  Those are the criteria used  in all  other fields of endeavor, be it universities, corporations, the armed forces or any other.

We should enable good leaders to continue to lead, rather than legislate their early replacement through legal mechanisms such as term limits. Think of the recent  example of Angela Merkel.  leave comment here