How can a leader of modern country go past ten years

lostexpectation

Australia PM to go for fifth term

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5230102.stm

Mr Howard, who has been in office 10 years, is Australia's second-longest serving prime minister. Robert Menzies, who held office for over 18 years, holds the record.

No modern so called democracy should have a leader longer then 10yrs, even if the same party is get into power again ones hopes that policies would be looked at with a leadership constant.

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote:

No modern so called democracy should have a leader longer then 10yrs, even if the same party is get into power again ones hopes that policies would be looked at with a leadership constant.

Why do you say this?

flogen

lostexpectation wrote:

Australia PM to go for fifth term

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5230102.stm

Mr Howard, who has been in office 10 years, is Australia's second-longest serving prime minister. Robert Menzies, who held office for over 18 years, holds the record.

No modern so called democracy should have a leader longer then 10yrs, even if the same party is get into power again ones hopes that policies would be looked at with a leadership constant.

Guh? Next year Bertie Ahern will be Taoiseach for ten years and will run to take another term... if the people want it how is it undemocratic?
It is even arguable that the US system is undemocratic, considering that the people are denied the opportunity to vote for someone they may have wanted to re-elect, the same applies to the individual who is denied the right to stand even if they want to...
I know I shudder at the thought of another Bush term but thems the breaks.

Oh, and to assume that political parties policies are based around the leader alone is odd; look at how Brown in the UK is mirroring Blair on most issues as his shot at leadership gets closer; he's doing it because Blair's policies are (or were once) solid enough to carry party support and public support...

lostexpectation

then? 15yrs elected? 20yrs lected?

seamus

If the Australians have a similar set up to us, then technically the PM isn't elected by the people, but rather their party is elected by the people, and as leader of that party, he becomes PM.

Effectively, by attempting to limit a leader's time in office, then you would have to limit the amount of time a party can sit in majority. If the elections are held fairly, then why shouldn't a party be allowed to get elected year-on-year?

Dirk Gently

I don't see why there should be a limit put on any one persons term as long as there are regular elections. If a particular leader is making progress and continues to govern well then s/he should be allowed to continue with their vision. What would be the point in getting rid of a good leader and having to elect someone not as good just because their term is up? (Not talking about Howard here, I don't really rate him much).

If a nation wishes to democratically reelect the same person every time then that’s fair enough. I don't agree with the cliché that "every leader will always go stale after so many years". Leaders should be rated on their performance and not on clichés. If it’s a case of it aint broke then don’t fix it. Having said all that I hope Howard doesn't get re-elected and I'm really happy that G.W.Bush will be forced to stand down but that’s still no guarantee that the same administration with a different head won’t get re-elected. At the end of the day it’s down to voters to decide and they shouldn't have their choices limited because of a limit on terms.

lostexpectation

seamus wrote:

If the Australians have a similar set up to us, then technically the PM isn't elected by the people, but rather their party is elected by the people, and as leader of that party, he becomes PM.

Yes I understand that.

Effectively, by attempting to limit a leader's time in office, then you would have to limit the amount of time a party can sit in majority. [/QUOTE]

No your not at all as said even if the party gets in the leadership should change, if were happen in say South America he would be called a dictator.

We may live in democaracy but is far from perfect and our elections are far from perfect too.

As I've said before no European current leader has led more then 11 years.

InFront

I do not think it undemocratic to have a leader have such a long tenure.

However, I think it can often be very unhealthy for the state. Having 'one man' effectively holding the controls or steering the ship for 10... 15 years is going to raise issues of stagnancy and public resentment for a party. His choice of ministerial colleagues and public appointments, for example in the judiciary, will have major knock-on effects for future years. Too long a time in office has indirect ramifications for society in that it is in danger of emphasising too strongly a particular political mindset or economic ideal, etc.
Having such a long tenure allows for the very effective 'grooming' of his successor as leader by possibly giving that person desirable, yet very public portfolios. Or indeed, it may lead to a complete incompetance and lack of empowerment and of real leadership within the ruling party.
I think the DeValera and Lemass era is one such case. DeValera, in my opinion, stayed in office for too long a time period. Had he not, who knows how much greater the legacy of Lemass would be today, and whether the economic boom that occured here in recent years, would have been foreshadowed by a much earlier prosperity.

I do not think there are very many leaders whose role is so great that in an 18 year long time period, for the Menzies example, there would not be a better or an equally competant replacement.
I do believe there should be certain limits imposed on the length of service that a leader holds in all democratic states.

Victor

It is unhealthy in a number of ways

1. It prevents people moving up the ranks
2. The status quo becomes too fixed.
3. When that leader eventually moves on or dies, people are left somewhat at a loss as to what to do.
4. Absolute power ...

lostexpectation

InFront wrote:

I do not think it undemocratic to have a leader have such a long tenure.

However, I think it can often be very unhealthy for the state. Having 'one man' effectively holding the controls or steering the ship for 10... 15 years is going to raise issues of stagnancy and public resentment for a party. His choice of ministerial colleagues and public appointments, for example in the judiciary, will have major knock-on effects for future years. Too long a time in office has indirect ramifications for society in that it is in danger of emphasising too strongly a particular political mindset or economic ideal, etc.

atlast someone catches my drift

I do not think there are very many leaders whose role is so great that in an 18 year long time period, for the Menzies example, there would not be a better or an equally competant replacement.
I do believe there should be certain limits imposed on the length of service that a leader holds in all democratic states.[/QUOTE]

and that was in 1951 to 1969, a different era to today.

sceptre

It's an easy thing to argue that by taking away the right of the people to directly elect a leader or by taking away the right of directly elected representatives to directly elect (and from the point of view of "the people", indirectly elect) a leader, in a simple sense one is restricting the right of the people to either directly or indirectly elect the leader they want and hence shackles are being placed on democracy. I think we can take that argument as given so I don't feel the need to expand on it.

Having said that, I'm a slight fan of term limits for one simple recent reason: George W Bush.

However, I'm not a fan of taking a specific case and applying it generally unless there are specific good reasons for doing so. Dictators aren't dicators merely because they've ruled a long time, even in South America - the method of their reign as well as the method of their continual re-election or re-appointment is the major factor on whether a leader is a dictator or not. One can be a dictator in a reign lasting minutes, one can be a champion of democracy in a reign lasting years.

InFront

sceptre wrote:

It's an easy thing to argue that by taking away the right of the people to directly elect a leader or by taking away the right of directly elected representatives to directly elect (and from the point of view of "the people", indirectly elect) a leader, in a simple sense one is restricting the right of the people to either directly or indirectly elect the leader they want and hence shackles are being placed on democracy. I think we can take that argument as given so I don't feel the need to expand on it.

Democracy, in its absolute form is unfeasable.
It has to be contained within the limits of practicality. We might similarly argue it to be undemocratic that a minor cannot be elected to the Presidency, or that a person who has reached 18 years of age, cannot be elected to Dail Eireann. Voting for an 18 year old in the next election would be a silly move, but denying the people the opportunity to vote for that 18 year old might be perceived as undemocratic because to do so is to impose cultural and social norms upon the democratic principle.

It is not an unreasonble suggestion, that a state's democratic constitution and its learned creators should take into account the practical effect that an excessively long tenure in office (whatever they decide that to be) has upon the well being of the machinery of state - the parliament and the civil service, including the judiciary and the various government departments.

A great many democratic nations - among them, even Ireland, impose restrictions on the length of time they allow their heads of state or often government their tenure to last.

One can be a dictator in a reign lasting minutes, one can be a champion of democracy in a reign lasting years.

True, but we are presuming that in a state where the leader is being continually re-elected, the democratic principles are being upheld. Obviously this doesnt apply to Saddam's Iraq, or China. The concern is not for democracy, which is assumed, but for healthy politics and a fresh, innovative, entrepreneurial and forward thinking substrata of political representation.

I think the long tenure of PAP the hasn't been very healthy for democracy in Singapore.

Zombrex

As far as I know there is no legal reason the US President has to stand down after 2 terms in office, and presidents such as Rosevelt have stood for a third term.

But it is generally considered unhealthy for the country, and for the party the President is a member of.

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

As far as I know there is no legal reason the US President has to stand down after 2 terms in office, and presidents such as Rosevelt have stood for a third term.

But it is generally considered unhealthy for the country, and for the party the President is a member of.

FDR actually got elected for a fourth term iirc, but i reckon the men in grey suits got a bit peed off at that because they did bring in some sort of amendment after he died, that two terms is now the maximum tenure permitted under US Law.

dam099

sceptre wrote:

Having said that, I'm a slight fan of term limits for one simple recent reason: George W Bush.

But given how close Gore came in 2000 and Clintons popularity despite his sexual adventures it is arguable that if Clinton had not been limited to 2 terms Bush might never have been elected in the first place.

InFront

Thats a very good point actually. Just on a tangent, it's a pity Clinton didnt come four years later (no pun etc.) I'd be very interested to see what he would really have done in the run up and aftermath of 9-11.

Come to think of it I may be in favour of longer terms for certain candidates... which doesnt say much for my kind of democracy at all:)

lostexpectation

well the notion of two term president is slighly different then the more varied length of parliaments in the rest of the world,is there any time limit on the Taoiseach, I don't think Paul Howard is going to do a fifth either now that I think of it, their election is next yr.

I guess our country is still very young.

I guess it has alot to do with his keeping the middle-class happy, him being Australia's Thatcher (without the social liberalism as it says in wiki ).

BTW did anyone see Bertie interviewed at the races today, boy was he coifed and dapper, I'm sure he was wearing more makeup.

Kaiser_Sma

Short term politics are largly the product of putting limits on leadership. You get policies with little regard to the longterm future prospects. That is why any working plan towards long term managment issues such as the environment and foreign interventionalisim is largly out of reach. That said, lifting restrictions on leadership terms won't only benifit in the case of a long term leader, they only have to realise the opportunity exsists for it to reflect in their policy making.