UNLIMITED PRESIDENTIAL TERMS, OR LIFE PRESIDENCY, IS THE MOST DANGEROUS THREAT TO AFRICA’S DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM EVER! (by David G Mushabe; Esq) Historians point to GEORGE WASHINGTONs decision not to seek a third term as evidence that the founders saw a two-term limit as a bulwark against a monarchy, although his Farewell Address suggests that he was not seeking re-election because of his age. THOMAS JEFFERSON also contributed to the convention of a two-term limit when he wrote in 1807, if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life. Jefferson’s immediate successors, JAMES MADISON and JAMES MONROE, adhered to the two-term principle as well. In a new political atmosphere several years later, ANDREW JACKSON continued the precedent. Prior to FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, few Presidents attempted to serve for more than two terms. ULYSSES S. GRANT sought a third term in 1880 after serving from 1869 to 1877, but narrowly lost his partys nomination to JAMES GARFIELD. GROVER CLEVELAND tried to serve a third term (and second consecutive term) in 1896, but did not have enough support in the wake of the Panic of 1893. Cleveland lost support to the Silverites led by WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN, and declined to head the Gold Democrat ticket, though he did endorse the Gold Democrats. THEODORE ROOSEVELT succeeded to the presidency upon WILLIAM MCKINLEYS assassination and was himself elected in 1904 to a full term, serving from 1901 to 1909. He sought to be elected to a (non-consecutive) term in 1912 but lost to WOODROW WILSON. Wilson himself tried to get a third term in 1920, by deadlocking the convention. Wilson deliberately blocked the nomination of his Secretary of the Treasury and son-in-law, William Gibbs McAdoo. However, Wilson was too unpopular even within his own party at the time, and JAMES M. COX was nominated. In 1940, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT became the only president to be elected to a third term; supporters cited the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, Roosevelt won a fourth term but suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died in office the following year. Thus, FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT was the only President to have served more than two terms. Near the end of the 1944 campaign, Republican nominee THOMAS E. DEWEY, the governor of New York, announced support of an amendment that would limit future presidents to two terms. According to Dewey, Four terms, or sixteen years, is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed. Apart from ALGERIA, COMOROS and UGANDA the rest of Africa is on a road to democracy and have taken steps to entrench that democracy by instituting and respecting Presidential Term Limits. While the rest of Africa subscribes to Two Five year term limits, GHANA has Two four-year term limits; EGYPT has Two four-year terms, starting from the 2012 presidential election; ETHIOPIA and LIBERIA have Two six-year term limit; SEYCHELLES has Three five-year term limit; Republic of the Congo (DRC),Rwanda and Senegal have Two seven-year term limits. For purposes of mutual understanding, we must listen to both arguments: those who are for ‘NO-TERM LIMITS’ and those who are for ‘TERM LIMITS’. ARGUMENT NO.1: IS “TERM LIMIT” IS UNDEMOCRATIC? Proponents of “No term Limits” argue that the “Two-term limit” is undemocratic, and that if Ugandans want to vote for a President again after two terms, and a President is willing to serve, why should their wishes automatically be denied? Apart from simply allowing new aspirants who want more power for themselves by undermining the Presidency, and wish to ensure regular turnover at the top there is no other logic to such a limit. The effect of this scheming denies Ugandans the chance to vote for a candidate they might want to support. At most Presidential term limits, indeed, limits voter choice. On the other hand those who support ‘term limits’ counter by arguing that THE PRESIDENT HAS NO COMPARABLE COUNTERBALANCE OF POWER. Whereas Members of Parliament don’t have term limits because their voices are balanced by opposition on the floor of parliament; the President has no comparable counterbalance. This is because the role of the individual in such ‘head of executive’ functions is of such dominant importance that pure democracy - unlimited terms - must be tempered by the fear of ‘elective dictatorship’ - a strong President using the undoubted advantages of incumbency to win election after election. The 22nd Amendment to the American Constitution, which had influenced the Uganda Constituency Assembly, was based on the rejection of monarchy tendencies and cronyism with a single purpose of stopping this potential temptation. Unfortunately, the same people reneged on their commitment when they repealed the same law before it was tested. ARGUMENT NO.2: IS A STRONG EXECUTIVE IMPORTANT FOR UGANDA? The supporters of ‘no term limits’ assert that Philosophically, a strong executive is desirable as a motor for change and an efficient response to changing times. They further argue that Presidential Term Limits create imbalances in favour of the legislature and weaken the executive. In retrospect, the framers of the 1962 and 1966 constitutions did not omit presidential term limits accidentally, but rather recognized the fact that the prospect of future tenure gives the Presidency leverage to get things done, instead of worrying about his tenure. They maintain that the Founding Fathers must have considered, debated and rejected the limitation. Absent such leverage Presidents suffer the lame duck effect, in which a President is less and less able to force his legislative agenda. To that extent, the limit effectively denies the choice voters have made of coming to practical fruition. The opponents of ‘no term limits’ believe that the power of potential continuity in power tends to entrench patronage - a nepotistic consideration. Term limits need not be mentioned in the Constitution if all leaders had a conscience and were not of depraved hearts. Because of this fundamental human deficiency -man does not know when to stop- constitutional controls are necessary. Therefore, term limit becomes a necessary political brake against excessive abuse of power. The President’s strength, it is further argued that, it is dependent upon many things - personal popularity, his relationship with his party, which party controls parliament, international events, etc: The potential of a third, Fourth or Fifth term becomes inferior to all such factors as a democratic tool to enhance freedom of choice. Unless, such power is controlled through term limits, the power of potential future office will tend to entrench patronage - a nepotistic consideration which, though inevitable, should not be credited with such importance that such a blank cheque - unlimited term system - should be allowed to encourage it. ARGUMENT NO.3: IS EXPERIENCE ARE VITAL IN TIMES OF CRISIS AND CONTINUITY. In times of national or international crisis, continuity and experience can be vital. Electorates should be allowed to recognize this and vote for an incumbent who is familiar with the situation instead of bringing in a new inexperienced personality. Some go to the extent of even arguing that there is no other president who can handle the great lakes crises like Gen.Yoweri K Museveni has. A constitutional limitation, arguably, automatically denies the possibility of democratically approved continuity. This is particularly worrying given that thousands of jobs in the executive branch of government – President’s office and State House – would change hands every time a new President is elected. The proponents of ‘no term limit’ challenge the opposition to show why the idea of continuity in a crisis is less important than the principle of a two-term limit. Conversely, the proponents of ‘term limits’ advance a notion that A BIPARTISAN AND/OR A GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL UNITY WOULD ENSURE CONTINUITY IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR PARTISAN ALLEGIANCES. It would not matter whether the next President is from NRM or any other party as long as there is a spirit of co-operation among the parties – a spirit of nationalism. Bipartisan briefings for presidential candidates of both parties, irrespective of the incumbent’s allegiance, would ensure continuity. The actual presence of the same individual is far less important than the knowledge and understanding term limits and bipartisanship guarantees. The ‘experienced’ vis-à-vis ‘non-experienced’ President is a false political dichotomy. ARGUMENT NO.4: DO SOME POLICIES REQUIRE LONG TERM LEADERSHIP TO ENSURE THEIR SUCCESS. The advocates of ‘no term limit’ believe that some policies require long term leadership to ensure their success, over a long period of time: for example, Gen. Museveni’s post-1986 social reforms. Some of these policies include, UPE, USE, communication, Security, Health, regular elections, etc… It is argued that If those policies are ones Ugandan voters support, why deny them the chance of continuous Musevenism? The proponents of ‘term limits’ maintain that THE PARTY THE PRESIDENT BELONGS TO CAN CONTINUE WITH THE PROGRESSIVE POLICIES if these are policies voters really support. If they are so weak that only the charisma of a particular President can see them through the legislative process, then perhaps it is right that they fail, after all it is better to build a nation on a democratic system as opposed to perpetual dependence on a personality culture. ARGUMENT NO.5: IF THE TWO TERM RULE IS AIMED AT PREVENTING AN ENTRENCHED SET OR CLIQUE, THEN WHY PERMIT VICE PRESIDENTS TO CONTEST FOR PRESIDENCY? The advocates of ‘no term limit’ ask: If the two term rule is aimed at preventing an entrenched set or clique, then why permit Vice Presidents and other close associates of an incumbent President run? The truth is that a clique or group dominating politics will happen anyway. But as long as these are people that have been voted for - as a successful third, Fourth or Fifth term president would be. It’s not as if suddenly the rules of government change in subsequent terms. Since, presumably, all the previous checks and balances in place, then a President who is in his Third, Fourth or Fifth term is no more innately powerful than before. In reply, the agitators of ‘term limits’ strongly assert that THE LONGER A SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL IS PRESIDENT, THE GREATER THE CHANCE THAT REWARDS ARE FARMED OUT TO HIS SUPPORTERS. Whilst checks and balances remain in place, the longer one person is President (and has the potential to continue to be in place in the future), the greater the chance that a pork-barrel system will result. Elections will most likely be fixed to ensure personal support for him nationally. The longer the tenure, the greater the chance for corruption and cronyism. The rational for term limit, and the bottom line, is that no one man is greater than the office of President - that not even Gen. Yoweri K Museveni , with all the great things he has done for this nation, would remain in power, despite the fact that people wanted or still want him to. There is validity to this argument because for the last twenty seven years, there are people who have become synonymous with NRM, power and economic benefits that come with overstaying in power. The American system has a way of overwholing itself every eight (8) years. Every President comes in with his own people to fill the jobs that are directly and/or ancillary to the office of the president. That means that the maximum one can abuse power and reap ill-gotten gain is eight (8) years before a new group comes into power. This has an effect of redistributing and spreading the national cake, which one cannot say for the twenty seven (27) NRM government that has resorted to washing it laundry in public. CONCLUSION: Considering the fact that African rulers, often control all state power and use it to muzzle the masses, it is rather a fantasy that we should trust our rulers with a blank political cheque, or to exercise self control in their use of power, and to believe that they know when to stop. The proof is in the pudding – none of our past or present rulers have known when to stop. I am convinced that unlimited presidential terms, or life presidency, are the most dangerous threat to Africa’s freedom ever. Ugandans may sometimes do business on a handshake, but more often than not, they believe that good governments, like good personal relationships, can also be assisted by putting it in writing. Let us insert a constitutional “Presidential Term Limit”. FOR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY!!!!
Posted on: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:37:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015