This House would enforce term limits on the executive branch of government
Modern systems of government seek, through constitutions and legislation to divide the powers of the state between separate branches of government, so that power never rests in the hands of any one individual. This is done with varying degrees of success in governments around the world; developed European and North American countries have constructed quite robust systems for the separation of powers, while in much of the developing world, particularly in Africa, Asia, and parts of South America power has settled in the hands of powerful individuals, both elected and dictatorial. One of the major tools used to try to check executive power is the institution of term limits. Term limits seek to limit the extent to which single individuals can dominate the governments of countries, and have succeeded in being upheld to varying extents around the world. The United States for example has a limit of two terms for the presidency which was changed from being an informal limit created by George Washington when he refused a third term to being formal by the twenty second amendment in 1951 following Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s four term presidency from 1933-45. The United Kingdom on the other hand has no term limits on its Prime Minister. This debate should not be about individual office holders and whether they should have had a third term – or in Roosevelt’s case not had one. Instead this debate should be about the principle of term limits for the highest executive office.
POSSIBLE MECHANISM:
The executive is only one of the branches of government. The legislature and the Judiciary often have equally important roles to play and in the context of term limits it is up to them to set the limit. The term limit will require a super majority of the legislature to pass as if it is to be effective it should become part of the constitution so that it cannot be easily changed by the executive and his supporters in the legislature. The United States did this in 1951 when the twenty-second amendment of the United States Constitution was passed by two thirds majority in both houses of congress and ratified by three quarters of the states.[1]
[1] Political Notes. 1951. “The 22nd Amendment”. Time, 5th March 1951, Available: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,805716,00.html
Points For
The executive branch of government, having no countervailing voices to the leader s’ within it, must be checked by limiting tenancy in office.
Term limits are a necessary check on executive power to prevent an over mighty executive. Whereas the legislature and judiciary are composed of many competing views, with members of various parties and outlooks represented, the executive of a country speaks with a single voice. In legislatures, party leaders are not the sole sources of power, with factions and alternative nexuses of influence forming throughout that branch of government.[1] Executive power, on the other hand, rests solely in the hands of the leader, usually a president. The leader has full power over the policies of the executive branch of government. Cabinets, which form part of the executive in practice, are usually directly answerable to the leader, and ministers can be dismissed if they are uncooperative or dispute the leader’s policies. Even in parliamentary systems, leaders with a majority and a strong party whip can command the same powers as a strong president, if not more. It is thus necessary to have a check on the highly individual power that is the executive. Term limits are the best such check. Term limits allow leaders to enact their policies over a set time period and then usher them out of office.[2] This is essential, because too much power in the hands of a single individual for too long can upset the balance of power in a country and shift power in favour of the executive, thus damaging the protections to society that checks provide. This is exactly what happened in the United Kingdom under Tony Blair where from the start cabinet government virtually disappeared Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler said “In the eight months I was cabinet secretary when Tony Blair was prime minister, the only decision the cabinet took was about the Millennium Dome,”[3] and power continued to be ever more centralized in response to terrorism.
[1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
[2] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/debating-the-pros-and-cons-of-term-limits/
[3] Press Association. 2007. “Blair cabinet ‘took one decision in eight months’”, guardian.co.uk, 29th May 2007, Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/may/29/tonyblair.labour1
COUNTERPOINT
Leaders may have a single view and be the sole centre of power in the executive branch, but that does not mean the leader’s remaining in office will somehow shift power away from the other branches. The separation of powers is constitutionally protected in most countries, and leaders’ powers will be circumscribed by these whether term-limited or not. In the example of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while Blair was centralizing power in Number 10 Brown at the Treasury always had an independent voice and enough power to prevent the prime minister getting his way on domestic policy.
The longer a single leader remains in power, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage.
Power has a strong tendency to corrupt; it is highly intoxicating. For this reason, it should not be left in the hands of one person for too long. When a leader is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits the executive runs the risk of becoming a personal fief, rather than the office of first servant of the people, as it should be. This is seen particularly in parts of the developing world where leaders use state funds to generate electoral support from key groups and to maintain the loyalty of essential supporters. A current example of this is in Venezuela where Hugo Chavez has been able to monopolize power to the point where it is unclear who his successor would be should he die suddenly.[1] Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to enact self-aggrandizing policies and to retain power indefinitely.[2]Instead, by maintaining term limits, leaders have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.
[1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/28/if_hugo_goes?page=0,0
[2] Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/200708271340511xeneerg0.287472.html
COUNTERPOINT
People are not stupid. They will not vote for someone who is using the powers of the executive to enrich himself. Rather, leaders will only be able to stay in power so long as they do what the people want. If leaders are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on the leader, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states, in such cases as with Chavez the executive will have enough power simply to override the imposed term limits.[1]
[1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/28/if_hugo_goes?page=0,0
Term limits check the power of incumbency as an election-winning tool and allow new and energetic leaders and ideas to flourish.
Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Leaders and politicians generally, almost always win re-election. Such has been the case in the United States, for example, where presidents are almost always re-elected for a second term. Leaders are re-elected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for those who they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. This problem has become particularly serious in developing world in which revolutionary leaders from the original independence movements are still politically active. These leaders often command huge followings and mass loyalty, which they use to maintain power in spite of poor decisions and corruption in many cases. Such has been the case in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe winning presidential elections in spite of mass corruption and mismanagement.[1] Only recently have the people finally voted against him, but it was too late, as his power had become too entrenched to unseat him. The uphill battle that will always exist to unseat incumbents makes term limits necessary. Countries need new ideas and new leaders to enact them. Old leaders using election machines to retain power do their country a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.
[1] Meredith, Martin. 2003. Mugabe: Power and Plunder in Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
COUNTERPOINT
Voters will choose the leader they think will do the best job, if this is the incumbent then that is democracy. Election machines and lobby groups may be able to help an incumbent somewhat, but at the end of the day the leader must be able to convince the people that he has done a good job and is still suitable to lead. As to the issue of countries like Zimbabwe, if the people want to keep electing a revolutionary hero, that is their choice. The overruling of election results, as occurred in the most recent Zimbabwean election, however, is not democratic and thus unacceptable for a mature state. Mugabe’s ability to flaunt the will of the people was not due to a lack of term limits, however, but on an inadequate separation of powers inherent in the system.[1]Adding term limits to that system, and indeed any system, will do little to redress imbalances between branches of government. The case of Vladimir Putin is similarly instructive, despite stepping down after his second term, he thereafter took the office of Prime Minister and maintained effective power. Term limits are no barrier to those determined and popular enough to hang on to power.
[1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Freeing the executive from re-election concerns can help focus attention on the public interest
A focus of a leader who is looking toward the next election is on getting votes. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by leaders, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are concerned with being re-elected. A leader has an incentive to put tough decisions off if he can retain power by doing so. When constrained by term limits, leaders must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform.[1] Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places leaders in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behaviour, it is curtailed by term limits, as leaders in their final term will not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again.
Furthermore, leaders who develop strong party structures can influence the choice of their successor, ensuring that they have a legacy. In this way term limits encourage the development of party-based systems, rather than personality based systems of government.
[1] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/debating-the-pros-and-cons-of-term-limits/
COUNTERPOINT
A leader who is term-limited suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term leader will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Furthermore, as to lobby-group support, a leader on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favour groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for leaders, paid for often at the expense of the public.
Points Against
The executive branch of government, having no countervailing voices to the leader s’ within it, must be checked by limiting tenancy in office.
Term limits are a necessary check on executive power to prevent an over mighty executive. Whereas the legislature and judiciary are composed of many competing views, with members of various parties and outlooks represented, the executive of a country speaks with a single voice. In legislatures, party leaders are not the sole sources of power, with factions and alternative nexuses of influence forming throughout that branch of government.[1] Executive power, on the other hand, rests solely in the hands of the leader, usually a president. The leader has full power over the policies of the executive branch of government. Cabinets, which form part of the executive in practice, are usually directly answerable to the leader, and ministers can be dismissed if they are uncooperative or dispute the leader’s policies. Even in parliamentary systems, leaders with a majority and a strong party whip can command the same powers as a strong president, if not more. It is thus necessary to have a check on the highly individual power that is the executive. Term limits are the best such check. Term limits allow leaders to enact their policies over a set time period and then usher them out of office.[2] This is essential, because too much power in the hands of a single individual for too long can upset the balance of power in a country and shift power in favour of the executive, thus damaging the protections to society that checks provide. This is exactly what happened in the United Kingdom under Tony Blair where from the start cabinet government virtually disappeared Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler said “In the eight months I was cabinet secretary when Tony Blair was prime minister, the only decision the cabinet took was about the Millennium Dome,”[3] and power continued to be ever more centralized in response to terrorism.
[1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
[2] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/debating-the-pros-and-cons-of-term-limits/
[3] Press Association. 2007. “Blair cabinet ‘took one decision in eight months’”, guardian.co.uk, 29th May 2007, Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/may/29/tonyblair.labour1
COUNTERPOINT
Leaders may have a single view and be the sole centre of power in the executive branch, but that does not mean the leader’s remaining in office will somehow shift power away from the other branches. The separation of powers is constitutionally protected in most countries, and leaders’ powers will be circumscribed by these whether term-limited or not. In the example of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while Blair was centralizing power in Number 10 Brown at the Treasury always had an independent voice and enough power to prevent the prime minister getting his way on domestic policy.
The longer a single leader remains in power, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage.
Power has a strong tendency to corrupt; it is highly intoxicating. For this reason, it should not be left in the hands of one person for too long. When a leader is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits the executive runs the risk of becoming a personal fief, rather than the office of first servant of the people, as it should be. This is seen particularly in parts of the developing world where leaders use state funds to generate electoral support from key groups and to maintain the loyalty of essential supporters. A current example of this is in Venezuela where Hugo Chavez has been able to monopolize power to the point where it is unclear who his successor would be should he die suddenly.[1] Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to enact self-aggrandizing policies and to retain power indefinitely.[2]Instead, by maintaining term limits, leaders have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.
[1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/28/if_hugo_goes?page=0,0
[2] Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/200708271340511xeneerg0.287472.html
COUNTERPOINT
People are not stupid. They will not vote for someone who is using the powers of the executive to enrich himself. Rather, leaders will only be able to stay in power so long as they do what the people want. If leaders are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on the leader, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states, in such cases as with Chavez the executive will have enough power simply to override the imposed term limits.[1]
[1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/28/if_hugo_goes?page=0,0
Term limits check the power of incumbency as an election-winning tool and allow new and energetic leaders and ideas to flourish.
Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Leaders and politicians generally, almost always win re-election. Such has been the case in the United States, for example, where presidents are almost always re-elected for a second term. Leaders are re-elected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for those who they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. This problem has become particularly serious in developing world in which revolutionary leaders from the original independence movements are still politically active. These leaders often command huge followings and mass loyalty, which they use to maintain power in spite of poor decisions and corruption in many cases. Such has been the case in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe winning presidential elections in spite of mass corruption and mismanagement.[1] Only recently have the people finally voted against him, but it was too late, as his power had become too entrenched to unseat him. The uphill battle that will always exist to unseat incumbents makes term limits necessary. Countries need new ideas and new leaders to enact them. Old leaders using election machines to retain power do their country a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.
[1] Meredith, Martin. 2003. Mugabe: Power and Plunder in Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
COUNTERPOINT
Voters will choose the leader they think will do the best job, if this is the incumbent then that is democracy. Election machines and lobby groups may be able to help an incumbent somewhat, but at the end of the day the leader must be able to convince the people that he has done a good job and is still suitable to lead. As to the issue of countries like Zimbabwe, if the people want to keep electing a revolutionary hero, that is their choice. The overruling of election results, as occurred in the most recent Zimbabwean election, however, is not democratic and thus unacceptable for a mature state. Mugabe’s ability to flaunt the will of the people was not due to a lack of term limits, however, but on an inadequate separation of powers inherent in the system.[1]Adding term limits to that system, and indeed any system, will do little to redress imbalances between branches of government. The case of Vladimir Putin is similarly instructive, despite stepping down after his second term, he thereafter took the office of Prime Minister and maintained effective power. Term limits are no barrier to those determined and popular enough to hang on to power.
[1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Freeing the executive from re-election concerns can help focus attention on the public interest
A focus of a leader who is looking toward the next election is on getting votes. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by leaders, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are concerned with being re-elected. A leader has an incentive to put tough decisions off if he can retain power by doing so. When constrained by term limits, leaders must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform.[1] Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places leaders in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behaviour, it is curtailed by term limits, as leaders in their final term will not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again.
Furthermore, leaders who develop strong party structures can influence the choice of their successor, ensuring that they have a legacy. In this way term limits encourage the development of party-based systems, rather than personality based systems of government.
[1] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/debating-the-pros-and-cons-of-term-limits/
COUNTERPOINT
A leader who is term-limited suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term leader will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Furthermore, as to lobby-group support, a leader on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favour groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for leaders, paid for often at the expense of the public.
Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their leaders on their own.
Term limits are grossly undemocratic. If a leader is popular and desired by the people to continue to lead them, then it should be their choice to re-elect him. The instituting of term limits assumes voters cannot act intelligently without proper guidance. This is an insult to the intelligence of voters. The electorate will see whether a leader is doing a good job and will vote accordingly. Preventing a potentially popular candidate from standing for re-election simply removes the right to make important political decisions from the electorate. The reason some countries have overpowered presidents and executives is not due to a lack of term limits, but because of a system designed to suppress opposition. Term limits are not a concern when considering why countries have corrupt and authoritarian leaders.[1] In such countries or where the leader is very popular the leader will be able to overturn the term limits anyway rendering them redundant. This occurred in Venezuela in 2009 when Chavez the Venezuelan President won a referendum to end term limits.[2] The people, if they have the freedom to choose who should lead them, should have the freedom to choose incumbents, and to do so indefinitely if that is what the popular will demands.
[1] Meredith, Martin. 2003. Mugabe: Power and Plunder in Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[2] Voice of America, 2009. “Chavez Celebrates End to Venezuela Term Limits”, 16th February, 2009, Available: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-02-16-voa6-68768067.html
COUNTERPOINT
Term limits protect democracy. While people may not be able to vote for a leader again who has reached his limit of service, they can still vote for a continuation of his policies by voting for his chosen successor or for his political party’s candidate. Limiting individual leaders to specified terms, however, prevents them from becoming too powerful and damaging the democratic system of checks and balances.
Term limits on leaders unbalances power in favour of non-limited legislators and the judiciary.
When one branch is in constant flux and another retains the ability to maintain a degree of continuity, the power balance is naturally unequal. An executive who can continuously seek re-election is better equalized with the other branches. Fear that a leader somehow will be able to override the checks instituted by the constitution and laws of a state are entirely unfounded. A third-term president in the United States, for example, is no more innately powerful than a second-term one.[1] He can no more change the constitution, or take power from the other branches of government than he could previously. In cases where leaders have wrested power from the other branches and become dictators, as in Zimbabwe, the cause of the problem is not a lack of term limits, but rather a lack of adequate separation of powers in government. Term limits do not stop tyranny, as a would-be dictator can easily enough remove term limits by fiat. The solution to dictatorship is the establishment of robust democratic institutions and a genuine separation of powers. Furthermore, a strong leader may be necessary to counter the potential tyranny of a dominant legislature as much as the reverse. Removing term limits ensures balance among the power centres of government.
[1] Koenig, Robert. 1995. The Chief Executive. Florence: Wadsworth Publishing.
COUNTERPOINT
The executive, at least in Presidential and Parliamentary systems of government, already has the extra power of being an individual wielding the entire power of the branch of government. There are always competing power groups within legislatures, so it can never run the risk of becoming tyrannical in the same way the executive can. Term limits are an essential check on the huge individual power that the executive bestows on leaders.
A strong, consistent executive may be desirable in many cases.
Continuity and experience in leadership has real value. Experienced hands can be best for navigating the often-treacherous waters of politics, and such experience is especially necessary in the executive. Furthermore, the prospect of future tenure gives incumbent leaders the leverage to get things done. When there are no term limits, lame duck leaders are generally eliminated. The status quo undermines the ability of last-term leaders to act effectively, since members of the other branches of government, and the public, know they are on the way out and thus lack the same ability to enact policy.[1] Eliminating term limits allows leaders to make the most of every term they serve to enact policy. It also allows leaders to focus on long-term projects that might take more than the time allotted to them by their term limits. When considering the ascension of new leaders, it is necessary to consider that they will always take some time acclimating themselves to their new office, time that is thus not put to efficient use in governing. Constant changing of leadership brought about by term limits serves only to exacerbate this problem. In other words, leadership is like anything else—one gets better with experience. Additionally, lobbyists and powerful legislators will more easily exploit amateurish newcomers to leadership. Naiveté on the part of new leaders who are unused to the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Continuity in leadership is especially important in times of crisis. For example, the United States needed the continuity and strength of Franklin Roosevelt during Great Depression, and later during World War II. Americans were willing to break with the tradition of presidents serving only two terms of office for the sake of that leadership.[2] Clearly, it is better to have a tried and tested leader in times of struggle than a potentially disastrous, untested newcomer.
[1] Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/200708271340511xeneerg0.287472.html
[2] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
COUNTERPOINT
While some continuity is desirable in leadership, it is not worth the costs of allowing a single individual to retain so much power for so long. If there are crises to face or long-term legislative agendas to push forward, the leader may still offer insight and support out of office and may back a candidate to succeed him who will continue his policies. The boons of continuity can thus be maintained without the risks of despotism and corruption that too long held office encourages.
The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits.
With term limits, a leader will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of leaders in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. Furthermore, lame duck leaders can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former heads of state and government find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement.[1] Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behaviour, as leaders look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people.
[1] Wynne, Michael. 2004. “Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy”. University of Wolongong. Available: http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/health/political_influence.html
COUNTERPOINT
A leader who has to constantly concern himself with re-election is likely to be far more beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited. While a term-limited leader may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to the ability to do what is right for the nation. Leaders who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a leader who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision.
Furthermore, reducing the incentive to pander to self-interest groups in one’s final term can be achieved through offering good retirement benefits to ex-leaders, including international jobs.[1]
[1] Ginsburg, Tom, James Melton and Zachary Elkins. 2011. “On the Evasion of Executive Term Limits.” William and Mary Law Review. Available: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1683594
Bibliography
Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/debating-the-pros-and-cons-of-term-limits/
Ginsburg, Tom, James Melton and Zachary Elkins. 2011. “On the Evasion of Executive Term Limits.” William and Mary Law Review. Available: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1683594
Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/200708271340511xeneerg0.287472.html
Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Koenig, Robert. 1995. The Chief Executive. Florence: Wadsworth Publishing.
Meredith, Martin. 2003. Mugabe: Power and Plunder in Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Press Association. 2007. “Blair cabinet ‘took one decision in eight months’”, guardian.co.uk, 29th May 2007, Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/may/29/tonyblair.labour1
Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/28/if_hugo_goes?page=0,0
Political Notes. 1951. “The 22nd Amendment”. Time, 5th March 1951, Available: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,805716,00.html
Wynne, Michael. 2004. “Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy”. University of Wolongong. Available: http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/health/political_influence.html
Voice of America, 2009. “Chavez Celebrates End to Venezuela Term Limits”, 16th February, 2009, Available: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-02-16-voa6-68768067.html
Have a good for or against point on this topic? Share it with us!
