Term Limits - Political Theory

If politics wasn't a career, would we have better or worse politicians? (judged on what they achieve as opposed to what they 'are')

If, like the presidency, you had a maximum time in office, so your goal was not to get re-elected and keep your job, but to fulfill the role you've been elected to, would we see greater benefits from our politicians?

Is the learning curve too steep for that? Would the one-time politicians be corralled by the loud and we'd see a noisy & unruly system. Or is the learning curve a self reinforcing tool built by the careerist politician / party politics & whip system that we're used to?

We need to somehow re-incentivize politicians not to pander but to perform.

Would the 'persons lost' from the politics route due to there not being a future long-term career as a politician be of that high a standard that it would be a terrible idea? Or would the abilities and freedoms that a politician would then have allow them to make more "unpopular but ultimately more correct" decisions? Resulting in a net gain for Ireland.

Relevant and semi interesting paper here - http://personal.lse.ac.uk/sturmd/pap...mart-sturm.pdf

Suggests that a politician's "selfishness" and decision making is different between their final term (if enforced) and any previous.

BoJack Horseman

I'd have no issue with term limits.

(In the US its only the prez who is subject to them though)

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'd have no issue with term limits.

(In the US its only the prez who is subject to them though)

The paper linked suggests that many states have term limits on Congressmen too.

nokia69

term limits for the Dail would be a great idea

serve 2 terms then sit one out, would mean the likes of bertie have less chance of doing so much damage

Rightwing

nokia69 wrote: »

term limits for the Dail would be a great idea

serve 2 terms then sit one out, would mean the likes of bertie have less chance of doing so much damage

Pros and cons. Who'd seriously consider it as a career with such restrictions - you are basically on the scrap heap after a few terms.

Manach

Perhaps instead of term limits, so set funding limits on that which can be spent and remove state funding of parties. This would have the effect of limiting the power of power centres that the parties are from dominating the electoral scene as well as encouraging people to run against incumbents.

nokia69

Rightwing wrote: »

Pros and cons. Who'd seriously consider it as a career with such restrictions - you are basically on the scrap heap after a few terms.

well most of our politicians would just go back to teaching

it would also result in a larger number of different people being elected

as it stands now we have people who have spent decades in the Dail and their only real achievement is getting re-elected

Rightwing

nokia69 wrote: »

well most of our politicians would just go back to teaching

it would also result in a larger number of different people being elected

as it stands now we have people who have spent decades in the Dail and their only real achievement is getting re-elected

Some would, but some have no qualifications. B Ahern had qualifications from the London School of Economics (only problem was they never knew he enrolled :rolleyes:).

http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/features/the-cv-fibbers-who-play-the-lying-game-25972475.html
Attempts by reporters to trace Mr Ahern's attendance record at UCD or the London School of Economics proved unsuccessful. The reference on the Fianna Fail website to his studies at the LSE was subsequently deleted.

The problem lies with the public, voting for gombeen men like Ahern.

Peregrinus

Rightwing wrote: »

Pros and cons. Who'd seriously consider it as a career with such restrictions - you are basically on the scrap heap after a few terms.

The theory behind term limits is that you don't want politics to be a career. You want the country to be governed by citizens, not by a professional political class. So you look to find people whose life is something other than politics, and get them to give some time to serving the public, before they return to their business, their profession, their farm, whatever. The idea is to keep government in the hands of people who are involved in the ordinary life of the community, and avoid the creation of a class of professional politicians.

Whether it works or not is another matter. But that's the idea.

Rightwing

Peregrinus wrote: »

The theory behind term limits is that you don't want politics to be a career. You want the country to be governed by citizens, not by a professional political class. So you look to find people whose life is something other than politics, and get them to give some time to serving the public, before they return to their business, their profession, their farm, whatever. The idea is to keep government in the hands of people who are involved in the ordinary life of the community, and avoid the creation of a class of professional politicians.

Whether it works or not is another matter. But that's the idea.

That's a flawed theory. Citizens will inevitably vote for gombeen parish pump politics men like Healy Rae/Ahern.

Godge

How would you enforce it in Ireland. We had three elections between 1981 and 1982 in Ireland. Nearly all of those elected in the last one would have been ineligible, having had more than one previous term.

Peregrinus

Rightwing wrote: »

That's a flawed theory. Citizens will inevitably vote for gombeen parish pump politics men like Healy Rae/Ahern.

They do that anyway, even without term limits.

Godge

Godge wrote: »

How would you enforce it in Ireland. We had three elections between 1981 and 1982 in Ireland. Nearly all of those elected in the last one would have been ineligible, having had more than one previous term.

Specify that "a term" is a minimum of two years and a maximum of 5 years?

realitykeeper

Deleted User wrote: »

If politics wasn't a career, would we have better or worse politicians?

I think that one term is enough for Irish politicians given their proclivity toward corruption and cronyism. Limiting service in the DAIL to a one-off stint of 4 or 5 years would have a very positive impact on Ireland. The problem is how to make it happen. Obviously the politicians will not be the driving force behind such reform so it would have to come by some other interventionist means.

One possibility would be a military coup which would end the Republic and launch a second Republic. The idea of a second Republic was floated recently but I think it was a socialist who wanted Ireland to be some sort of leftist paradise i.e. hell. A second Republic would be a good idea however if it was done right.

A popular uprising would be another means to a second Republic but again I fear the stupidity of the masses would result in an even more leftist shower than that already in power.

If the Irish people were clever, an ultra right wing group of politicians would be elected and replaced en-masse every five years by a new group of like minded representatives.

To clarify, when I say "ultra right wing" I mean that is what it would be by Irish standards. If the same party were in power in Germany, it would be labeled correctly, i.e. Center right. Recently, I heard one leftist refer to the left wing party Fine Gael as "a very right wing party"! Fine Gael is the party that nationalized the banks! Fine Gael is the party that has presided over the biggest borrowing splurge in the history of the state to fund the Bolshevik civil "service" AKA the Self Service. Fine Gael is not a right wing party, it is every bit as Bolshevik as Sinn Fein.

oscarBravo

I think this is a perfect example of the axiom that to every difficult problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.

Let's talk about the extreme example of term limits: a politician can only ever serve one term in office. What could go wrong?

Well, for one thing, the theory of representative democracy is that the elected representative is answerable to the electorate. That currently takes the form of having to present him- or herself for re-election. But if re-election is precluded, where is the answerability? A politician can promise the earth, and if they fail to deliver, the outcome is identical to that of the politician who delivers in spades: they get turfed out at the next election.

PopePalpatine

realitykeeper wrote: »

If the Irish people were clever, an ultra right wing group of politicians would be elected and replaced en-masse every five years by a new group of like minded representatives.

As if that didn't happen for the first 50-60 years of this State's existence. I'd rather not go back to the dark ages of politicians falling over each other to please pious authoritarians.

realitykeeper

oscarBravo wrote: »

... if re-election is precluded, where is the answerability?

A politician can promise the earth, and if they fail to deliver, the outcome is identical to that of the politician who delivers in spades: they get turfed out at the next election.

The courts exist to deal with criminal negligence or other matters that need to be addressed after a politician has served his term.

Politicians who "deliver in spades" are so rear you have a better chance of being struck by lightening. Given those odds, I think one term is a sensible safeguard against the all too common politicians who can do a lot of damage, like Bertie Ahern for example.

Peregrinus

What makes you think that the replacement is likely to be any less damagiing than the one who is barred from standing again?

If you have a politician who you think, on the whole, has not done too badly, where is the sense in not being allowed to re-elect him, and being forced to choose between candidates about who are all untried quantities?

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

What makes you think that the replacement is likely to be any less damagiing than the one who is barred from standing again?

If you have a politician who you think, on the whole, has not done too badly, where is the sense in not being allowed to re-elect him, and being forced to choose between candidates about who are all untried quantities?

The replacement is likely to be less damaging than the one who is barred from standing again because if a politician can stand again, he will use his term in office to try get re-elected for a another term. Typically, this involves bribery at some level. Even if it is only doing some minor favour for a constituent in the hope that person will vote for them next time around, - that is no different to taking a brown envelope stuffed with cash.

Ideally, the standard should be higher than politicians who haven`t done "too badly" but that is the best you can hope for when they can be re-elected. If they get one shot only, the overall calibrate of politicians will improve greatly because the incentive to pander to vested interests is removed.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

The replacement is likely to be less damaging than the one who is barred from standing again because if a politician can stand again, he will use his term in office to try get re-elected for a another term. Typically, this involves bribery at some level. Even if it is only doing some minor favour for a constituent in the hope that person will vote for them next time around, - that is no different to taking a brown envelope stuffed with cash.

Ideally, the standard should be higher than politicians who haven`t done "too badly" but that is the best you can hope for when they can be re-elected. If they get one shot only, the overall calibrate of politicians will improve greatly because the incentive to pander to vested interests is removed.

I see no reason to assume this. You could equally argue that if a politician has no prospect of being re-elected, his primary incentive is (a) to enrich himself as much as possible while he still can, and/or (b) to position himself to leverage his political career into a successful post-political career by doing favours with those in a position to provide him with lucrative employment when he is required to leave office.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

I see no reason to assume this. You could equally argue that if a politician has no prospect of being re-elected, his primary incentive is (a) to enrich himself as much as possible while he still can, and/or (b) to position himself to leverage his political career into a successful post-political career by doing favours with those in a position to provide him with lucrative employment when he is required to leave office.

And you would like an individual like that to have multiple chances at re-election? Limiting politicians to one term also limits their ability to do such things as you describe. Limiting opportunities in politics would have the beneficial effect of sending the worst of the mefeiners to more lucrative pastures, in pursuit of their parasitic and selfish goals.

Peregrinus

My point, realitykeeper, is that whether a politician is public-spirited or corrupt is independent of whether term limits apply. Term limits do not protect us against corrupt politicians; they just incentivise them to manifest their corruption in different ways. And while they may be effective to limit the term of office of a corrupt politician (a) they do nothing to ensure that his successor will be any less corrupt, and (b) they are equally effective at limiting the term of office of an honest and capable politician, who may well be replaced by one less honest or less capable.

I'm not saying that political corruption - or, for that matter, political incompetence - are not problems. I'm saying that, to the extent we have these problems, we have no reason to think that they will be ameliorated to any extent by term limits; they are just as likely to be made worse. There may be a good case for term limits, but this isn't it.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

My point, realitykeeper, is that whether a politician is public-spirited or corrupt is independent of whether term limits apply. Term limits do not protect us against corrupt politicians;

I disagree. If Bertie Ahern had only one term as a politician he who never have become Taoiseach. That said, many politicians start out with good intentions but then they change and become part of the problem.

I say let them start and finish with good intentions. One term is enough for any of them. The present system makes good politicians bad and bad politicians worse.

oscarBravo

realitykeeper wrote: »

I disagree. If Bertie Ahern had only one term as a politician he who never have become Taoiseach.

That's an inherently nonsensical argument. If every politician is limited to one term, then - by definition - every Taoiseach will be a first-term politician, and there's no reason to believe that a corrupt politician couldn't become Taoiseach.

Your arguments are inherently self-defeating.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

I disagree. If Bertie Ahern had only one term as a politician he who never have become Taoiseach.

But somebody would have. Somebody who might have been as bad as Ahern. Or worse. Or better.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

But somebody would have. Somebody who might have been as bad as Ahern. Or worse. Or better.

Yes but in all probability that person would have been better. After all, being worse would require a deliberate effort to be as bad as possible.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

Yes but in all probability that person would have been better.

I see no reason to assume that.

realitykeeper wrote: »

After all, being worse would require a deliberate effort to be as bad as possible.

No, it just requires being as fallible as Ahern was, or more so. And there is nothing in your term limits proposal to filter out such people.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it just requires being as fallible as Ahern was, or more so. And there is nothing in your term limits proposal to filter out such people.

You are assuming that Ahern was fallible as opposed to deliberately bad.

It was in his interests to pay the public sector well because he would be among the chief beneficiaries. It is also easier to say yes to demands for hirer pay than it is to say no. So not only did he enrich himself by his policies, he had a nice time doing it and gained a lot of well paid friends and nicely placed cronies along the way.

Had Ahern been allowed only won tern in office, the probability is he would not have become Taoiseach and if he had, he would have had less time to do damage and the single term may have deterred him from politics altogether for these reasons.

People who have a true calling would not be deterred by a reduced ability to self enrich or self promote.

realitykeeper

Here is an interesting article on the topic of term limits:

http://www.americasquarterly.org/pros-and-cons-of-term-limits