How could a lack of term limits lead to a “dictatorship?” The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhy do countries have term limits on Presidents and Prime Ministers?Can the current President of the United States block the transfer of their office to the next elected president?
What to do when moving next to a bird sanctuary with a loosely-domesticated cat?
How to notate time signature switching consistently every measure
A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky
Is this app Icon Browser Safe/Legit?
Button changing it's text & action. Good or terrible?
What is the most effective way of iterating a std::vector and why?
Looking for Correct Greek Translation for Heraclitus
How to save as into a customized destination on macOS?
Delete all lines which don't have n characters before delimiter
Who coined the term "madman theory"?
Interpreting the 2019 New York Reproductive Health Act?
Which Sci-Fi work first showed weapon of galactic-scale mass destruction?
Falsification in Math vs Science
Why is the maximum length of OpenWrt’s root password 8 characters?
Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit
How to check whether the reindex working or not in Magento?
How come people say “Would of”?
Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?
One word riddle: Vowel in the middle
"as much details as you can remember"
What does ひと匙 mean in this manga and has it been used colloquially?
Why can Shazam fly?
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
Feature engineering suggestion required
How could a lack of term limits lead to a “dictatorship?”
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhy do countries have term limits on Presidents and Prime Ministers?Can the current President of the United States block the transfer of their office to the next elected president?
I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.
The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.
I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.
One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.
I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.
presidential-term
New contributor
add a comment |
I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.
The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.
I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.
One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.
I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.
presidential-term
New contributor
add a comment |
I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.
The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.
I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.
One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.
I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.
presidential-term
New contributor
I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.
The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.
I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.
One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.
I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.
presidential-term
presidential-term
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
Redwolf ProgramsRedwolf Programs
37128
37128
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.
This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.
Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.
This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.
If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.
There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.
Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.
As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.
6
And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).
– jwenting
2 days ago
4
@jwenting In what role was McCain replaced by his daughter?
– Deolater
yesterday
1
It's also useful to remember that often people don't vote, or don't vote according to their sincere preference. They might also vote under an electoral system that does not elect the most preferred candidate. And certainly there are people who are simply afraid of change: Kekkonen was the president of Finland for 25 years and I have heard people explicitly state that since they'd lived their whole lives or most of their lives under his presidency they could not imagine electing another president. (He eventually stepped down due to illness and a two successive term limit was later imposed)
– user10186512
yesterday
1
(It's also crucial to note the effect Kekkonen's long presidency had had: He won his fourth re-election with a massive 86% of the vote compared to 8% for the runner-up, essentially without campaigning, up from about 66% in the previous two elections, and only barely over 50% in his first. This is, in my opinion, an example of incumbent bias.)
– user10186512
yesterday
add a comment |
Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".
There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to criticise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.
We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.
The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)
The drafters of the amendment to the constitution felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.
Which definition ofmonarchy
is used here?
– user28434
yesterday
1
A system of government in which the head of state is permanent and inherited.
– James K
yesterday
1
But not allmonarchies
arehereditary
(a lot of them are/were elective), orpermanent
(like in modernMalaysia
). I think you should specifypermanence
andinheritance
directly, without relying on definition ofmonarchy
.
– user28434
yesterday
add a comment |
The most precarious time for any state is usually the period of succession - the transfer of power from one leader to another. When most people are convinced (whether pleased or resigned) that someone is the rightful, or at least inevitable, ruler, much potential civil strife and uncertainty is simply not realized.
In a healthy democratic state, where new leaders are periodically elected, the fealty of the people is arguably to the state itself, the country and institutions, rather than to a particular leader. Thus a relatively orderly transfer of power can happen - because fealty is to the state and not to a charismatic individual. It's not a new government - just a new guy administering the same government. In a hereditary monarchy, as an alternative example, the fealty of the people is owed to a family, and succession is smoothed by a clear line of succession. There's no period of doubt; "The King is dead, long live the King."
Problems arise in cases where people who all agreed to treat the former government as legitimate may suddenly cease to agree. This is one of the reasons that new empires throughout history often fell apart as soon as the founder died: The whole reason that the country was bound together was that conqueror, not some institution beyond and above that conqueror.
The problem with having the same president for too long is that it becomes unclear to more and more people whether fealty is owed to the president himself, or to the government as an institution. And if there is sufficient disagreement among the populace regarding where fealty is owed, to a person, a party, or the institutions of government, it will make succession much more perilous for the country. Observe Venezuela under and after Hugo Chavez, who served "for life", and who tore up and reshaped the institutions of his country.
That is, of course, setting aside the additional problem of an individual who is in power too long being able to gather enough military, police, and bureaucratic influence to seize dictatorial prerogative, overruling an election result he doesn't like - or faking the results.
New contributor
Welcome to Politics.SE, please try to support your answer with references where possible.
– JJJ
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40377%2fhow-could-a-lack-of-term-limits-lead-to-a-dictatorship%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.
This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.
Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.
This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.
If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.
There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.
Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.
As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.
6
And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).
– jwenting
2 days ago
4
@jwenting In what role was McCain replaced by his daughter?
– Deolater
yesterday
1
It's also useful to remember that often people don't vote, or don't vote according to their sincere preference. They might also vote under an electoral system that does not elect the most preferred candidate. And certainly there are people who are simply afraid of change: Kekkonen was the president of Finland for 25 years and I have heard people explicitly state that since they'd lived their whole lives or most of their lives under his presidency they could not imagine electing another president. (He eventually stepped down due to illness and a two successive term limit was later imposed)
– user10186512
yesterday
1
(It's also crucial to note the effect Kekkonen's long presidency had had: He won his fourth re-election with a massive 86% of the vote compared to 8% for the runner-up, essentially without campaigning, up from about 66% in the previous two elections, and only barely over 50% in his first. This is, in my opinion, an example of incumbent bias.)
– user10186512
yesterday
add a comment |
As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.
This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.
Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.
This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.
If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.
There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.
Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.
As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.
6
And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).
– jwenting
2 days ago
4
@jwenting In what role was McCain replaced by his daughter?
– Deolater
yesterday
1
It's also useful to remember that often people don't vote, or don't vote according to their sincere preference. They might also vote under an electoral system that does not elect the most preferred candidate. And certainly there are people who are simply afraid of change: Kekkonen was the president of Finland for 25 years and I have heard people explicitly state that since they'd lived their whole lives or most of their lives under his presidency they could not imagine electing another president. (He eventually stepped down due to illness and a two successive term limit was later imposed)
– user10186512
yesterday
1
(It's also crucial to note the effect Kekkonen's long presidency had had: He won his fourth re-election with a massive 86% of the vote compared to 8% for the runner-up, essentially without campaigning, up from about 66% in the previous two elections, and only barely over 50% in his first. This is, in my opinion, an example of incumbent bias.)
– user10186512
yesterday
add a comment |
As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.
This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.
Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.
This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.
If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.
There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.
Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.
As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.
As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.
This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.
Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.
This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.
If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.
There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.
Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.
As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
22.7k35496
22.7k35496
6
And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).
– jwenting
2 days ago
4
@jwenting In what role was McCain replaced by his daughter?
– Deolater
yesterday
1
It's also useful to remember that often people don't vote, or don't vote according to their sincere preference. They might also vote under an electoral system that does not elect the most preferred candidate. And certainly there are people who are simply afraid of change: Kekkonen was the president of Finland for 25 years and I have heard people explicitly state that since they'd lived their whole lives or most of their lives under his presidency they could not imagine electing another president. (He eventually stepped down due to illness and a two successive term limit was later imposed)
– user10186512
yesterday
1
(It's also crucial to note the effect Kekkonen's long presidency had had: He won his fourth re-election with a massive 86% of the vote compared to 8% for the runner-up, essentially without campaigning, up from about 66% in the previous two elections, and only barely over 50% in his first. This is, in my opinion, an example of incumbent bias.)
– user10186512
yesterday
add a comment |
6
And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).
– jwenting
2 days ago
4
@jwenting In what role was McCain replaced by his daughter?
– Deolater
yesterday
1
It's also useful to remember that often people don't vote, or don't vote according to their sincere preference. They might also vote under an electoral system that does not elect the most preferred candidate. And certainly there are people who are simply afraid of change: Kekkonen was the president of Finland for 25 years and I have heard people explicitly state that since they'd lived their whole lives or most of their lives under his presidency they could not imagine electing another president. (He eventually stepped down due to illness and a two successive term limit was later imposed)
– user10186512
yesterday
1
(It's also crucial to note the effect Kekkonen's long presidency had had: He won his fourth re-election with a massive 86% of the vote compared to 8% for the runner-up, essentially without campaigning, up from about 66% in the previous two elections, and only barely over 50% in his first. This is, in my opinion, an example of incumbent bias.)
– user10186512
yesterday
6
6
And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).
– jwenting
2 days ago
And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).
– jwenting
2 days ago
4
4
@jwenting In what role was McCain replaced by his daughter?
– Deolater
yesterday
@jwenting In what role was McCain replaced by his daughter?
– Deolater
yesterday
1
1
It's also useful to remember that often people don't vote, or don't vote according to their sincere preference. They might also vote under an electoral system that does not elect the most preferred candidate. And certainly there are people who are simply afraid of change: Kekkonen was the president of Finland for 25 years and I have heard people explicitly state that since they'd lived their whole lives or most of their lives under his presidency they could not imagine electing another president. (He eventually stepped down due to illness and a two successive term limit was later imposed)
– user10186512
yesterday
It's also useful to remember that often people don't vote, or don't vote according to their sincere preference. They might also vote under an electoral system that does not elect the most preferred candidate. And certainly there are people who are simply afraid of change: Kekkonen was the president of Finland for 25 years and I have heard people explicitly state that since they'd lived their whole lives or most of their lives under his presidency they could not imagine electing another president. (He eventually stepped down due to illness and a two successive term limit was later imposed)
– user10186512
yesterday
1
1
(It's also crucial to note the effect Kekkonen's long presidency had had: He won his fourth re-election with a massive 86% of the vote compared to 8% for the runner-up, essentially without campaigning, up from about 66% in the previous two elections, and only barely over 50% in his first. This is, in my opinion, an example of incumbent bias.)
– user10186512
yesterday
(It's also crucial to note the effect Kekkonen's long presidency had had: He won his fourth re-election with a massive 86% of the vote compared to 8% for the runner-up, essentially without campaigning, up from about 66% in the previous two elections, and only barely over 50% in his first. This is, in my opinion, an example of incumbent bias.)
– user10186512
yesterday
add a comment |
Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".
There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to criticise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.
We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.
The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)
The drafters of the amendment to the constitution felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.
Which definition ofmonarchy
is used here?
– user28434
yesterday
1
A system of government in which the head of state is permanent and inherited.
– James K
yesterday
1
But not allmonarchies
arehereditary
(a lot of them are/were elective), orpermanent
(like in modernMalaysia
). I think you should specifypermanence
andinheritance
directly, without relying on definition ofmonarchy
.
– user28434
yesterday
add a comment |
Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".
There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to criticise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.
We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.
The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)
The drafters of the amendment to the constitution felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.
Which definition ofmonarchy
is used here?
– user28434
yesterday
1
A system of government in which the head of state is permanent and inherited.
– James K
yesterday
1
But not allmonarchies
arehereditary
(a lot of them are/were elective), orpermanent
(like in modernMalaysia
). I think you should specifypermanence
andinheritance
directly, without relying on definition ofmonarchy
.
– user28434
yesterday
add a comment |
Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".
There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to criticise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.
We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.
The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)
The drafters of the amendment to the constitution felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.
Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".
There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to criticise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.
We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.
The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)
The drafters of the amendment to the constitution felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.
edited 2 days ago
Brythan
70.4k8147238
70.4k8147238
answered 2 days ago
James KJames K
36.6k8107156
36.6k8107156
Which definition ofmonarchy
is used here?
– user28434
yesterday
1
A system of government in which the head of state is permanent and inherited.
– James K
yesterday
1
But not allmonarchies
arehereditary
(a lot of them are/were elective), orpermanent
(like in modernMalaysia
). I think you should specifypermanence
andinheritance
directly, without relying on definition ofmonarchy
.
– user28434
yesterday
add a comment |
Which definition ofmonarchy
is used here?
– user28434
yesterday
1
A system of government in which the head of state is permanent and inherited.
– James K
yesterday
1
But not allmonarchies
arehereditary
(a lot of them are/were elective), orpermanent
(like in modernMalaysia
). I think you should specifypermanence
andinheritance
directly, without relying on definition ofmonarchy
.
– user28434
yesterday
Which definition of
monarchy
is used here?– user28434
yesterday
Which definition of
monarchy
is used here?– user28434
yesterday
1
1
A system of government in which the head of state is permanent and inherited.
– James K
yesterday
A system of government in which the head of state is permanent and inherited.
– James K
yesterday
1
1
But not all
monarchies
are hereditary
(a lot of them are/were elective), or permanent
(like in modern Malaysia
). I think you should specify permanence
and inheritance
directly, without relying on definition of monarchy
.– user28434
yesterday
But not all
monarchies
are hereditary
(a lot of them are/were elective), or permanent
(like in modern Malaysia
). I think you should specify permanence
and inheritance
directly, without relying on definition of monarchy
.– user28434
yesterday
add a comment |
The most precarious time for any state is usually the period of succession - the transfer of power from one leader to another. When most people are convinced (whether pleased or resigned) that someone is the rightful, or at least inevitable, ruler, much potential civil strife and uncertainty is simply not realized.
In a healthy democratic state, where new leaders are periodically elected, the fealty of the people is arguably to the state itself, the country and institutions, rather than to a particular leader. Thus a relatively orderly transfer of power can happen - because fealty is to the state and not to a charismatic individual. It's not a new government - just a new guy administering the same government. In a hereditary monarchy, as an alternative example, the fealty of the people is owed to a family, and succession is smoothed by a clear line of succession. There's no period of doubt; "The King is dead, long live the King."
Problems arise in cases where people who all agreed to treat the former government as legitimate may suddenly cease to agree. This is one of the reasons that new empires throughout history often fell apart as soon as the founder died: The whole reason that the country was bound together was that conqueror, not some institution beyond and above that conqueror.
The problem with having the same president for too long is that it becomes unclear to more and more people whether fealty is owed to the president himself, or to the government as an institution. And if there is sufficient disagreement among the populace regarding where fealty is owed, to a person, a party, or the institutions of government, it will make succession much more perilous for the country. Observe Venezuela under and after Hugo Chavez, who served "for life", and who tore up and reshaped the institutions of his country.
That is, of course, setting aside the additional problem of an individual who is in power too long being able to gather enough military, police, and bureaucratic influence to seize dictatorial prerogative, overruling an election result he doesn't like - or faking the results.
New contributor
Welcome to Politics.SE, please try to support your answer with references where possible.
– JJJ
yesterday
add a comment |
The most precarious time for any state is usually the period of succession - the transfer of power from one leader to another. When most people are convinced (whether pleased or resigned) that someone is the rightful, or at least inevitable, ruler, much potential civil strife and uncertainty is simply not realized.
In a healthy democratic state, where new leaders are periodically elected, the fealty of the people is arguably to the state itself, the country and institutions, rather than to a particular leader. Thus a relatively orderly transfer of power can happen - because fealty is to the state and not to a charismatic individual. It's not a new government - just a new guy administering the same government. In a hereditary monarchy, as an alternative example, the fealty of the people is owed to a family, and succession is smoothed by a clear line of succession. There's no period of doubt; "The King is dead, long live the King."
Problems arise in cases where people who all agreed to treat the former government as legitimate may suddenly cease to agree. This is one of the reasons that new empires throughout history often fell apart as soon as the founder died: The whole reason that the country was bound together was that conqueror, not some institution beyond and above that conqueror.
The problem with having the same president for too long is that it becomes unclear to more and more people whether fealty is owed to the president himself, or to the government as an institution. And if there is sufficient disagreement among the populace regarding where fealty is owed, to a person, a party, or the institutions of government, it will make succession much more perilous for the country. Observe Venezuela under and after Hugo Chavez, who served "for life", and who tore up and reshaped the institutions of his country.
That is, of course, setting aside the additional problem of an individual who is in power too long being able to gather enough military, police, and bureaucratic influence to seize dictatorial prerogative, overruling an election result he doesn't like - or faking the results.
New contributor
Welcome to Politics.SE, please try to support your answer with references where possible.
– JJJ
yesterday
add a comment |
The most precarious time for any state is usually the period of succession - the transfer of power from one leader to another. When most people are convinced (whether pleased or resigned) that someone is the rightful, or at least inevitable, ruler, much potential civil strife and uncertainty is simply not realized.
In a healthy democratic state, where new leaders are periodically elected, the fealty of the people is arguably to the state itself, the country and institutions, rather than to a particular leader. Thus a relatively orderly transfer of power can happen - because fealty is to the state and not to a charismatic individual. It's not a new government - just a new guy administering the same government. In a hereditary monarchy, as an alternative example, the fealty of the people is owed to a family, and succession is smoothed by a clear line of succession. There's no period of doubt; "The King is dead, long live the King."
Problems arise in cases where people who all agreed to treat the former government as legitimate may suddenly cease to agree. This is one of the reasons that new empires throughout history often fell apart as soon as the founder died: The whole reason that the country was bound together was that conqueror, not some institution beyond and above that conqueror.
The problem with having the same president for too long is that it becomes unclear to more and more people whether fealty is owed to the president himself, or to the government as an institution. And if there is sufficient disagreement among the populace regarding where fealty is owed, to a person, a party, or the institutions of government, it will make succession much more perilous for the country. Observe Venezuela under and after Hugo Chavez, who served "for life", and who tore up and reshaped the institutions of his country.
That is, of course, setting aside the additional problem of an individual who is in power too long being able to gather enough military, police, and bureaucratic influence to seize dictatorial prerogative, overruling an election result he doesn't like - or faking the results.
New contributor
The most precarious time for any state is usually the period of succession - the transfer of power from one leader to another. When most people are convinced (whether pleased or resigned) that someone is the rightful, or at least inevitable, ruler, much potential civil strife and uncertainty is simply not realized.
In a healthy democratic state, where new leaders are periodically elected, the fealty of the people is arguably to the state itself, the country and institutions, rather than to a particular leader. Thus a relatively orderly transfer of power can happen - because fealty is to the state and not to a charismatic individual. It's not a new government - just a new guy administering the same government. In a hereditary monarchy, as an alternative example, the fealty of the people is owed to a family, and succession is smoothed by a clear line of succession. There's no period of doubt; "The King is dead, long live the King."
Problems arise in cases where people who all agreed to treat the former government as legitimate may suddenly cease to agree. This is one of the reasons that new empires throughout history often fell apart as soon as the founder died: The whole reason that the country was bound together was that conqueror, not some institution beyond and above that conqueror.
The problem with having the same president for too long is that it becomes unclear to more and more people whether fealty is owed to the president himself, or to the government as an institution. And if there is sufficient disagreement among the populace regarding where fealty is owed, to a person, a party, or the institutions of government, it will make succession much more perilous for the country. Observe Venezuela under and after Hugo Chavez, who served "for life", and who tore up and reshaped the institutions of his country.
That is, of course, setting aside the additional problem of an individual who is in power too long being able to gather enough military, police, and bureaucratic influence to seize dictatorial prerogative, overruling an election result he doesn't like - or faking the results.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
JedediahJedediah
1311
1311
New contributor
New contributor
Welcome to Politics.SE, please try to support your answer with references where possible.
– JJJ
yesterday
add a comment |
Welcome to Politics.SE, please try to support your answer with references where possible.
– JJJ
yesterday
Welcome to Politics.SE, please try to support your answer with references where possible.
– JJJ
yesterday
Welcome to Politics.SE, please try to support your answer with references where possible.
– JJJ
yesterday
add a comment |
Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40377%2fhow-could-a-lack-of-term-limits-lead-to-a-dictatorship%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
-presidential-term