See what a high band reads like.

P1Across the democratic world, constitutions differ sharply on whether leaders should be bound by fixed terms or allowed to seek re-election indefinitely. This debate touches on the fundamentals of accountable governance, and both positions carry reasoning that deserves serious attention before a judgement is reached.

P2The case for strict term limits rests on the dangers of entrenched power. A leader who governs for decades, however popular initially, tends to conflate personal continuity with national interest. Allies are appointed to key institutions, dissent is quietly suppressed, and the machinery of democracy begins to serve incumbency rather than citizens. The constitutional provisions of the United States, which restrict presidents to two terms, were framed precisely to guard against this tendency, and the contrast with leaders who have circumvented such limits, sometimes with catastrophic results for pluralism and press freedom, reinforces the original logic.

P3Opponents of mandatory limits argue, not unreasonably, that artificial constraints on tenure can deprive a nation of exactly the leadership it needs. A capable, reform-minded prime minister who has built trust with foreign partners and established economic momentum may be constitutionally obliged to stand aside at the very moment their expertise is most valuable. Democracies, the argument runs, already possess the corrective mechanism of elections; voters, rather than constitutional timers, should decide.