Never outstay your welcome. The recent announcement by German Chancellor Angela Merkel that she will give up chairing the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party has done little to quash talk about her future. Many wonder if we are witnessing the end of an era. For four terms now, Angela Merkel has ruled the Federal Republic of Germany. She has a good chance of beating the record set by former chancellors Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl, who were in office for 16 and 14 years respectively. But would that be wise? Should Angela Merkel resign? Should Germany consider introducing term limits?
She’s not the only European politician with staying power. Following the recent Russian elections, Vladimir Putin is now the longest-serving Russian leader since Joseph Stalin; Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been in power for 15 years (though, like Putin, he has flipped back-and-forth between the offices of Prime Minister and President), and Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has lead his country for 11 years (and is on course to win another term in office in elections in April).
Have they overstayed their welcome? Should politicians have strict term limits in office? Or, like Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States, should popular leaders be allowed to run and run as long as the people support them?
What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in from Klaus arguing in favour of two-term limits (and, he adds somewhat controversially, there should be an age limit for all politicians of 67 years).
To get a reaction, we put Klaus’ comment to the German journalist Stefan Mauer, who writes for XING Klartext. What would he say in the context of German politics?
I can’t agree without reservations. It’s basically a good thing that political parties can nominate anyone for Chancellor during an election, which is also a fundamental principle of democracy. Nevertheless, we should make sure that the Bundestag does not get too old. A middle ground would be quota rules, which some parties have already established internally. When it comes to term limits, I’m more on the side of Klaus, as term limits would certainly not hurt. But I would not only implement term limits on the chancellorship but also for normal members of parliament, then we would have more momentum and younger people would have the opportunity to get into the Bundestag. The question of setting age limits would also be solved. Then you would no longer have these political careers, by which some politicians have done nothing else in their lives and block their safe places on the list from new people.
We also had a comment from Sarah, who argues that Angela Merkel deserves to continue as chancellor because she’s the best candidate. is it really undemocratic if somebody continues in office for as long as they are popular (assuming, of course, that elections are genuinely free and fair)?
How long is too long for a political leader to run a country? Should good politicians be allowed to run without term limits? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
43 comments Post a commentcomment
A politician holding a state function has the possibility of influencing the opinion of voters and in this way can become irremovable. That was the case in the communist countries, what ultimately led to their downfall.
Two terms, then break one term and can run again in the election.
Its not about the time, but what you do with it and how do you understand your role as a leader. A leader should lead others to become leaders. If she does not understand that, then we have a problem.
Until the ‘voters’ get rid of them, or are you being ageist ?
You mean : want like China president
2 terms. If decided to run for the 2nd term should accept that by the end of this term the highest law council of the state (names differ per country) will run an in-depth search on his decision making during the term, no matter what.
One term only in all political seats. No career politicians jumping from seat to seat at local or national level.
Maximum 3 terms for the leader to run the office if he is working for the people and for the goodness of the country but this should not be for the dictatorial leaders. More than 3 terms the leader becomes king and how you would dare to reject the king’s will…..
Do you not mean “serve” their country?
8 or 12 years are enough. Over 12 years being a President or a Minister could be evil for the political system. Most politicians usually develop a strange behaviour being a public representative after a long period of time ruling a country or region. To sump up, they could be like dictators.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely [Acton]
Merkel and Grokos 4 ever…:) (at least 1000 years)
My local representative was first elected to City Council in 1990. He’s been in office for 28 years. He’s not particularly popular or effective and he’s not particularly unpopular or ineffective. He’s just… there. And there are many more on council like him that don’t really do much of anything. The biggest thing they have going for them is simply that they’re incumbents and incumbents are very difficult to unseat.
In my experience, the problem with such politicians is that they tend to be very risk averse and unwilling to try anything that genuinely challenges the status quo. I think term limits could do a great deal to shift mindsets from “I don’t want to do anything too upsetting and risk alienating votes” to “Well, I only have a couple more years left, what do I have to lose? Maybe I will take a stand on issue X.”
How long is too long for a political leader to run a country?
A leader who is the leader in a democratic society should continue unfettered because he or she is repeatedly voted back to run that country by the citizen if they are happy with their choice. It is the political party who decides on who is leader. Not always the best practice. Take, May, foisted on the British with no vote by her party. Votes should be every four years not five. Five is too long without returning for a further mandate. And there should be a way for the population to demand a no confidence vote in any party elected after a two to three year period. That makes sure no failing leader or party can remain in control whilst continuing to destroy a country on their whim.
How Germany could have re-elected Merkel is truly an enigma. Who could have placed one vote there. The rigging of her into other parties with a so called coalition should be banned. And a re-vote over and over until there is an outright winner. Changing the leader and the party doctrine to suit the will of the people so that they can have a leader they want to follow avidly is a must in such situations. Clearly she has no right to be German leader under any circumstances.
Any leader who does not adhere to the promises made in their manifesto should be closed down with a clear referendum. They lied to fool the people into office. And as a result should be denied the right to run as leader of a party again.
Here is a question I would like answered, who elected those who head the EU? I know I had no say whatsoever. I also know I have no way to rid my country of these fakers without separating from my fellow European tribesmen. As in Brexit. Yet I love Europeans and Europe. But, I never again want to be under the thumb of such a dictatorship as they have presently got themselves caught up in.
No, because who is to decide what a good politician is, it’s very easy to abuse something like this.
2 terms should be enough. This is really a good democratic example to copy from the U.S.
What precisely do we mean by “good politician”. Is one considered a good politician if they are loved by their people? Like a percentage index? How do we know they’ve made the right calls? Usually good economical management shows itself in the long run.
I guess we have to respect the majority’s voice even if we disagree with them..I also think that people should be somehow be “educated” from young age to be “good citizens” and bright enough to see when someone is trying to manipulate them
It depends, if your last name is Putin or Erdoğan x) otherwise two turns are just enough
When African leaders are “President for life” they are critisized by European politicians and the press, when the same is happening in Europe it is called democratic. No it is not democratic for Merkel to remain Chancellor for so long whether she is elected or not is not even the point. A country is not composed of one person. There are other people who have something to offer and as long as she sticks to that chair they cannot advance. Germany cannot advance! Germany is stuck in Merkels policies. But to those that like it so everything is A OK.
NO !
One cannot put in the same basket Erdoğan, Putin and Merkel. If a country is genuinely democratic no fixed term allows the citizens to decide if they still want to profit from the experience of a political leader who has proven his/her usefulness. If a country is not democratic (Turkey, Russia) the whole procedure is anyway a circus. And elections are not a sufficient indicator for democracy (Hitler was elected). If fundamental rights are not respected (free press etc) they cannot claim democratic procedures and at any rate this discussion is pointless since they are not impressed by popular will
8 years max and out, including direct family members.
Politicians should be evaluated on their merits and accomplishment, not term. During campaigns every politician creates promises. Their worth for the next term should be evaluated on how many promises they keep and on how many other improvement they achieve minus the negative policies in absolute terms (capital loss of failed project or overpriced projects given to private sector). Obviously, this means that the leader should be allowed at least two terms, to allow foo comparison. If the leader holds back in the first term then he wont be re-elected. If he can’t keep up his/her work rhythm in second term, they should not be allow to re-run for election for a third term.
As long as she is elected in honoust democratic elections?
when the argument becomes “who shoud replace him/her anyway” than its most likely too long
10+ years.
8/10 years is already very long
A single political
Leader doesn’t run a country. They work with other elected members of their cabinet and with other parties in coalition or with the opposition with a large team of senior civil servants and advisors. If a single political leader runs a country it’s a dictatorship
Such a arrogance !!!!
When you are Putin 10 years. When you are Merkel 18
Obviously, when you run your country’s society into the ground, it’s been too long.
What kind of a question is that in a democracy? When the voters say it’s too long, it’s too long!
She did well. But I think it should be limited to two terms.
There’s more poverty, more housing problems, more inequality, and quite probably more violent crime.
How well did she do?
People usually react to the image created by the media — yet quite often there’s large discrepancy between image and reality.
Bódis the crime rate is at an all time low, the only reason the murder rate looks high on paper is because of the 100 murders of the nurse ( a German), and the murders of the German pilot which weren’t counted until last year. Unemployment is down, the country has a surplus, and there is a shortage of skilled workers due to the large numbers of high tech companies.
Yes there is the horrid welfare system that needs to be overhauled, and there are other challenges such as an aging population and high rents.
I hope that the party becomes more Christian in the best sense of the word, and not more conservative.
Two terms is enough. A country dependent on a single leader for direction cannot inspire much confidence in its long-term political stability.
Its a democracy.No one is dependend.She is surrounded by her ministers, cabinet, advisors and coalition members.It is not a dictatorship.
As long as the government (or leader) remains democratic and people are overwhelmingly approving and reelecting it.
Power corrupts
Absolute power
Corrupts absolutely
When a country is runned to long from the same people that country is starting to ” evolve” slower than it should
Absolutely, power corrupts (the mind) no matter how respected or esteemed the politician is. On that basis, the max term in office should be 2 terms (8 years) like in the UK.
Also, it allows other candidates (not necessarily younger) to compete for the highest office of the country.
Finally, every so-called democratic country needs a system of checks and balances, so that in the event of a tyrant (like Trump, Putin?), the nightmare will not last a generation.
It should be something similar to the US, a max of 2 terms (8 years). No matter how esteemed or respected the office holder is, the old adage that power corrupts (the mind) always seem to spring up. I would rather take this risk than to have an office holder gone power crazy or stubborn and unable to listen to reason(s). Further, it allows other candidates (not necessarily younger) to compete for the highest office of the country, which helps to promote a healthy democracy.
It is also, very importantly, a question of checks and balances in the political system of the country.