There are, of course, various arguments in support of the removal of term limits. One of these is the argument that term limits restrict voter choice, particularly when a popular leader is prohibited from running. Another is that continuity in office provides chief executives with the time for reforms to demonstrate their positive impacts. Many more arguments, however, stand in favour of chief executive term limits. Indeed, observers generally link respect for term limits with high democratic quality, as countries less likely to remove term limits demonstrate stronger adherence to the rule of law. Further, supporters of term limits insist that fresh blood and new ideas should have access to the highest office of the land. More critical observers suggest that the absence of term limits allows for an inordinate concentration of power over time, arguably increasing the opportunities for corruption and opening the way for other restrictions on democracy. Scholars have often linked the elimination of term limits to authoritarian presidents’ pursuit of self-interest through expanding their political power, entrenching their control of office, and amassing personal wealth through increased corruption.
However, the removal of term limits cannot be explained by presidential priorities or actions alone. Presidential popularity, as reflected, for example, in share of the popular vote, may well open the way (through executive control of legislatures and judiciaries) for far-reaching constitutional reforms that undermine democracy—Venezuela being a case in point. However, an important question to ask is: What other conditions underlie the drive to eliminate term limits? After all, leaders do not remove term limits on their own; they usually must obtain the support of Congress, and they need public quiescence, if not public support to accomplish such a change.
The Underlying Conditions
Leaders, in contexts of electoral democracies (albeit usually problematic ones) face conditions in which there is a notable fraying of the rules of the political game. Hence the desire to remove term limits is usually just one aspect of a broader skepticism and disrespect for liberal democratic institutions. This disrespect is usually also manifested in other types of manipulations such as the stacking of judiciaries, the (sometime questionable) use of referenda, and other practices that enhance the power of the presidency.
The underlying conditions at the root of such maneuvers is uncertainty and fear. Most recently this fear and uncertainty arises from growing political polarization. Political polarization involves an increasing distance between positions at the extremes of the political spectrum in contexts where the out-of-power opposition, although possibly disunited and fractured, still has the possibility of obtaining office. Importantly, the differences in positions between the two extremes are profound. Hence, rotation in office is usually regarded with a certain degree of fear and trepidation as it presents the specter of reversal of either entrenched privileges or of recent policy gains. A look back at Latin American history shows how resilient this process has been.
Peronism, the end of term limits, and Political Polarization in Argentina
In the 1940s, a wide swath of Argentine public opinion was profoundly disillusioned with the fraudulent operation of the country’s electoral system—a system that excluded social reformers from political power. It was this context that brought Juan Perón to the presidency by a substantial majority in 1946 (53 percent of the popular vote). In 1949, Perón amended the constitution to allow the president to run for an unlimited number of six-year terms—but this was but one measure of a panoply of manipulations through which he sought to consolidate power. Peron subsequently won by 63 percent in the 1951 election. Peronism in power united a significant proportion of the population in opposition to business and landed elites, who had little interest in improving social conditions, which, by all accounts improved markedly during the period that Perón was in power. The extent of political polarization, already substantial when Perón came to power, increased even more in the decades to come. With the military coup of 1976, Peronists were imprisoned, tortured, and eliminated.
The Struggle over Term Limits is a Power Struggle
