Why fixed terms beat indefinite ones
Rulers for life, also known as lifelong or indefinite rulers, are usually worse than fixed-term rulers for reasons rooted in political theory, history, and human behavior. Sometimes they are declared rulers for life, and sometimes they rig so-called elections to achieve in practice that which is denied them in constitutional law.
Fixed-term rulers must seek reelection or reappointment, giving them an incentive to act in the public's interest. Rulers for life by contrast, face no electoral consequences, thus reducing their motivation to govern responsibly or respond to public concerns.
Lifelong rulers often consolidate power over time, weakening checks and balances. They often suppress dissent, manipulate laws, and use violence or propaganda to stay in control. Unlimited terms lead to authoritarian repression.
Fixed-term systems provide regular, peaceful transitions of power, but lifelong rulers tend to cling to power, making transitions uncertain and potentially violent, with coups, revolutions, or civil wars. They have no peaceful exit strategy
Rulers who stay too long often become entrenched and resistant to change.
Fresh leadership in fixed-term systems on the other hand, often brings new ideas, energy, and responsiveness to evolving problems. As the fixed term nears its end, younger, more innovative minds switch to the likely successors and prepare a renewal agenda.
Lifetime rulers have succession problems and rarely plan effective, stable succession. Their death or removal often creates a power vacuum or internal struggle, especially in non-democratic systems.
Long-term rule can lead to patronage networks where loyalty is rewarded over merit. Corruption and cronyism become the order of the day. Corruption tends to increase as there is less oversight and more incentive for rulers to enrich themselves over time.
There are many historical examples. Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe ruled for decades with increasing oppression and economic decline. Both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping turned themselves from fixed term leaders into lifetime rulers and became less influenced by opinions, both domestic and foreign, in the process. Both have become more aggressive and threatening to any peaceful world order.
In contrast, many stable democracies with term limits, such as Western European countries, have more robust institutions and transitions and have seen new leaders emerge peacefully with new ideas.
The conclusion has to be that limiting power through term limits helps prevent abuse, promotes accountability, and supports democratic health. History overwhelmingly shows that power without limits leads to stagnation, corruption, and repression.
Madsen Pirie