NOTE: This first post mostly uses the U.S. federal government as an example, but the discussion does not need to be limited to it.
Someone asked in the discussion about Senator Lott's racism, "Shouldn't there be term limits or something?" I've generally been opposed to term limits, because it seems like an insult to the very foundations of a voting democracy. If the public is incapable of seeing that an elected official has lost touch with the needs of the people, then it has no business electing the official in the first place. I can see some points in favor of term limits, though.
Officials who hold a post for an extended period acquire more power. This can potentially cause three problems.
The first is that the division of powers might be upset. This is mainly a concern for the executive branch of government, where power is under the control of one person. It is more difficult for a single congressional officer to upset this balance even if xe has held that office for many, many years, because xe only holds one of many votes.
The second potential problem is that the longstanding officials could change the position enough so that fewer people are even capable of holding that office. If, for instance, lawyers hold office for too long, then laws might be written in such a way that only lawyers can understand them. This seems to have happened to some extent in America, but I don't know if this kind of thing would be affected by term limits. If we're likely to elect a lawyer this time, we're likely to elect one next time, and so on.
The third does apply to the legislative branch of government. It is that voters might re-elect a congressman specifically because he has more power even if we disagree with him on some minor points. If Colorado is concerned about water rights, then it serves them well to elect an official with experience. We don't want some new rookie going to Washington and losing on key issues to the whims of some Arizona veteran. National term limits could help alleviate this problem, but how big is this particular problem, anyway? A charismatic rookie might often be more effective of passing laws in my favor than a dull veteran. I haven't heard anything in the news about South Carolinians worried that they will lose all their political influence in the next congress, and I don't think they should be worried.
How does this apply to the local governments? State governors and state congresses? Mayors? What about positions that aren't chosen by election? I know members of the peace corps are term limited. District Attorneys, judges, ....
Comments? |
