Term limits on leaders unbalances power in favour of non-limited legislators and the judiciary.  When one branch is in constant flux and another retains the ability to maintain a degree of continuity, the power balance is naturally unequal. An executive who can continuously seek re-election is better equalized with the other branches. Fear that a leader somehow will be able to override the checks instituted by the constitution and laws of a state are entirely unfounded. A third-term president in the United States, for example, is no more innately powerful than a second-term one. [1] He can no more change the constitution, or take power from the other branches of government than he could previously. In cases where leaders have wrested power from the other branches and become dictators, as in Zimbabwe, the cause of the problem is not a lack of term limits, but rather a lack of adequate separation of powers in government. Term limits do not stop tyranny, as a would-be dictator can easily enough remove term limits by fiat. The solution to dictatorship is the establishment of robust democratic institutions and a genuine separation of powers. Furthermore, a strong leader may be necessary to counter the potential tyranny of a dominant legislature as much as the reverse. Removing term limits ensures balance among the power centres of government.  [1] Koenig, Robert. 1995. The Chief Executive. Florence: Wadsworth Publishing.