Reform is an oft-repeated word in our politics these days, and a commonly suggested reform idea is term-limits — restricting the number of terms someone can hold an elected office. The key argument for term-limits is that they help competitive politics. Incumbency always tilts the playing field against the opposition, and term-limits help level the field. Term-limits also allow newer, fresher faces to enter the political contest. In the current Bangladeshi context, term?limits can be used to bar the leadership that brought us the 1/10 impasse. Rather than forcibly exiling leaders or holding kangaroo courts, might it not be better to have term-limits that stop discredited leaders to hold the nation to hostage?

Are term-limits really a good idea? I am going to sound a contrarian note. I am going to argue that they can create as much harm as good, and in the context of Bangladesh, term?limits will probably be detrimental to the evolution of our democracy.

Let’s begin with a basic question: why do people enter politics?

Some people enter politics because of idealism. This is usually the case in much of the western world where people can usually earn a lot more money in the private sector than in public service. This used to be the case in Bangladesh too — our founding fathers were in politics for a public calling, not for personal gain. Voluntary activism is also a form of politics, those of us who spend so much time in these pages do so out of a public conscience, and this is also the case for the guys who led Kansat or Shonir Akhra uprisings — so even today, personal profit is not the motivation for everyone.

If most politicians are in hustings because of public passion (and not private profit) then are term-limits a good idea? While term-limits can increase competition, do they also not stifle genuinely popular voices? Why should a popular and effective incumbent be denied office artificially? Aren’t term-limits fundamentally anti-democratic?

Perhaps the most well known example of the term-limit is that put on the American president. The US constitution stipulates that no person can be elected to presidency for more than two consecutive terms. How have term-limits played out in the US? President Clinton probably would have won a 3rd term. Given Bush administration’s records, did America really gain from term-limits? Franklin D Roosevelt won a 3rd (and a 4th) term in the 1940s, before the term-limit was introduced, and led the Allies to victory in World War II. What if term-limits resulted in a pacifist/isolationist administration in the early 1940s?

But not everyone enters politics out of idealistic reasons. One doesn’t have to believe everything in the media to know that many Bangladeshi politicians, of both sides, joined politics to make money. If this is the case, then wouldn’t term-limits encourage corruption? If one spends a lot of money to enter the parliament, and has only one term to recoup the money, would they be less corrupt or more corrupt? If one never had to face re-election, would they be less likely to abuse their office, or more likely? If the idea is to use term-limits to bar discredited and corrupt leaders, I am afraid term-limits will achieve exactly the opposite.

Another argument for term-limits is that by removing the need for re-election, they encourage incumbents to take hard policy decisions. Perhaps Mrs Zia would have tackled the corrupt elements in her party if she didn’t need to rely on them for re-election?

Term-limits may allow incumbents to make hard policy decisions, but in reality they tend to make for lame duck administrations. This has been the case for every 2nd term US president from Eisenhower to Clinton. Similarly, in Britain, after Tony Blair announced that he wouldn’t seek re-election, his last years in office became one of speculations about when he might leave. In Bangladesh, lame duck prime ministers are likely to significantly increase maladministration. In fact, one might argue that this was precisely what happened under the last argument — the Prime Minister was seen as ‘near-retirement’, her son was viewed as ‘heir apparent’, she became a lame duck, he the de facto and extra-constitutional centre of power, and we all know how that ended.

It’s not at all clear that term-limits will make for better politics automatically. In principle, it can have both good and bad results. But in the context of Bangladesh, it’s more likely to make for worse politics, not better.

What do you think?