Term limits are elemental to a functional democracy. But can they also have ill effects on the public good?
One of the top priorities of a president's first term is to be reelected. During that period, it's critical they remain broadly popular by looking out for the interests of as much of the electorate as possible.
During a second term, all bets are off. Because reelection is not possible, a president can spend that time rewarding friends and allies with little regard for the political ramifications. Being in a position to accumulate vast and sustainable private influence, favor, and wealth can be well worth the cost of grave yet temporary unpopularity.
In principle, presidential terms are good for "capital-D Democracy." But are they good for our democracy?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Are term limits bad for democracy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
On the other hand, without term limits, a politician (and not just a president) is tempted to focus on helping those who most contribute to his/her political campaigns. Those people tend to be better off than the typical citizen.
If a politician cannot serve another term, s/he might choose to focus on those issues that best polish her/his reputation, rather than those that support re-election.
In other words, there are advantages and disadvantages to term limits, like most choices in life. I personally do not find them necessary, but I understand the logic of those who do.
Post a Comment