spot_img
27.7 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

Coming to terms with term limits

- Advertisement -

SHORTLY after causing a tempest by proposing that the 2019 mid-term elections be postponed, House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez outdid himself over the weekend by suggesting that term limits specified in the Constitution be removed as a way to end political dynasties.

Taken together, the proposals suggest the Speaker would favor presidents-for-life in the mold of the late Duvaliers of Haiti, or dictators such as Kim Jong-un of North Korea. Those of a more suspicious bent might take his remarks as a bid to keep President Rodrigo Duterte—and his allies in Congress, of course—in power indefinitely.

In proposing the end of term limits, Alvarez offers two arguments.

First, he says that the term limits set by the 1987 Constitution have encouraged political dynasties.

- Advertisement -

“Political dynasties exist because of the imposed term limits to elected public officials [as the 1987 Constitution provides]. Back then, there was no term limit, political dynasties, and that there was only one politician in a family,” Alvarez said.

Second, he says, there is a benefit from having experienced politicians who have grown into their jobs.

“We should give value to the fact that the longer a politician is serving, the more he understands his job, gets more competent,” Alvarez said.

Of course, Alvarez’s notion that political dynasties began to appear only after the 1987 Constitution was ratified is absurd. Political dynasties emerged soon after the Revolution, when the first Republic of the Philippines was established.

In “Political Dynasties in the Philippines: Persistent Patterns, Perennial Problems,” Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem and Eduardo C. Tadem of the University of the Philippines trace dynasties to the perpetuation of the oligarchy during the American colonial regime (1898-1946), the perpetuation of political dynasties after independence (1946), and political dynasties during the martial law period (1972-1986).

They trace the resiliency of political dynasties to 1) the formidable political and socioeconomic foundations which established political dynasties; 2) the failure to effectively implement constitutional provisions to address its adverse effects; and 3) the weakness of potential countervailing forces against political dynasties.

They say nothing of term limits.

The case of Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier of Haiti is instructive on how term limits make no difference to political dynasties. Duvalier ruled as president-for-life until his death in 1971, when he was replaced by his son, Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, who served in the same position until he was deposed in 1986.

There is some merit to what Alvarez says about the benefit of having experienced politicians who are unhampered by term limits. But these benefits are outweighed by the increased likelihood of corruption that increases the longer a politician is in office.

With term limits, incumbents are less able to use the state’s institutions to manipulate elections or erode the power of rival branches of government and political adversaries.

Term limits also put more pressure on leaders to deliver results and leave office with a positive legacy.

Finally, if political transitions are normal, regular, and predictable events, rival parties have little incentive to upset the system through coups or other extra-constitutional means. Even the Speaker might see this as a good thing.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles