This House opposes term limits for elected Heads of State

Most of his arguments are in favour of allowing new people into power to bring about new ideas and new changes, but RocketEngineer has failed to demonstrate that term limits are necessary to safeguard these transitions. This will be painfully obvious by the end of this entry. Rebuttal I: “There is possibly a better way to achieve the same good. ” Indeed, but if there is one thing that voters like, it is feeling comfortable. People don’t like to take a risk and the masses are unlikely to vote for a leader or party who they feel are too radical. There is a very particular reason why Tony Blair needed to change Clause IV (as mentioned by my opponent): it was too radical for the Labour Party to be seen as electable [1]. So, we see that voters like to feel comfortable and don’t like taking risks, hence projects to make parties more ‘electable’ such as Modern Compassionate Conservatism and the New Labour Project. If people want to go for a more comfortable option, which by your own admission delivers the same result, why not let the people get the warm fuzzy feeling of comfort? Rebuttal II: “[Attaining leadership experience] is best accomplished by noticing what isn’t working with the previous monarch…” Wow, where do I even start with that one? Monarchs don’t actually take any decisions in a constitutional monarchy (I presume this refers to the UK, otherwise you’re just mixing up monarchs with leaders), and they essentially rubber-stamp legislation, so the monarch is irrelevant. Putting this… oddity…. aside, the point still doesn’t stand up. Not every new leader is a resounding success and many countries quickly realise they have made a terrible mistake. The current French President, François Hollande, is a classic example. People are now thinking that they should have elected Sarkozy for a second presidential term as they regard the Hollande administration as disastrous. [2] Point? People standing at the sidelines saying “pah, I could do better” are not always right. Rebuttal III: “New politicians will be more open to trying new things through their own naivety. ” Naivety is generally regarded as a poor trait for a leader – it implies recklessness, not thinking through ones decisions, and many other negative traits. Naivety is a risk and – as previously discussed – people do not like risks. The risk outweighs the potential freak benefits achieved on off-chance. Rebuttal IV: “How exactly do we know that they would be able to continue to make the right decisions throughout their years? ” Because this is a DEMOCRACY. Citizens are not stupid ants who live under the ground constantly re-electing a poor choice despite having no consciousness of major political issues. People will, believe it or not, change their mind about re-electing someone if their leader goes senile or starts making ridiculous decisions. If people start pledge to make decisions which would not generally be deemed as ‘right’, they simply won’t be elected – they will not lead a tyranny ad infinitum simply because of the lack of any constitutional block on re-election. Rebuttal V: “Keeping a good president in office disallows the chances for a better one to come along. ” You’ve just said it yourself: this hypothetical President is a good one. Therefore, his Presidency is GOOD. It is not hurting the country, the President isn’t doing anyone any harm, and presumably they are leading their nation forward. So who are you to decree that the people shouldn’t be allowed to elect someone who they like and are comfortable with because someone better COULD come along? Bearing in mind how irregular it is to have a President whose opponents aren’t calling for their impeachment, the chances that they would be succeeded by a President of similar statute are minute. Rebuttal VI: “There is no need to go through the political process of booting prime ministers and electing new ones so often with a term limit. ” This point is both generally flawed and factually incorrect. You refer specifically to Prime Ministers, I presume to British PMs – but no British PM since 1980 has served for fewer than three years, and only one did that. So we don’t elect new PMs ‘so often’ [3] and our system is not unstable. Then, I turn the point entirely. Having an unpopular PM booted out of office, as opposed to being forced to retire, allows them to have their electoral comeuppance, which in term gives a better mandate to an incoming candidate, as they are replacing someone as opposed to simply taking their place (a subtle but effective distinction). Rebuttal VII: “We can’t trust the President for too long of a term. ” History seems to disagree with you. Let’s look at FDR, the only US President to have served beyond two terms. He is controversial, perhaps, with his opponents; but did he go mad with power and start making crazy decisions? No, and no sane person levels such accusations against him. Equally, the UK has survived for over 200 years without a term limit and nobody has abused their position as you described. So scaremonger all you like, but in the two principal case studies we’ve seen are not on your side. Rebuttal VIII: “How can someone truly know the needs of their citizens if they haven’t themselves been living it? ” This assumes that all leaders do a George W Bush and quietly return to their home jurisdictions after they finish being leaders. But do most leaders do this? No. Bill Clinton almost immediately turned his attention to advancing his wife’s political ambitions, Tony Blair jetted off to the Middle East to become an envoy for the Quartet [4]. It’s a lovely idea that every politician ends their political career by returning home to normality, but it simply doesn’t happen for many politicians. The point, however, is moot anyway because term limits do not serve to allow people to serve until their death – so every politician will eventually stop, and then they may well return home. So my opponent’s argument is completely invalid, as it is utterly unaffected by the repealing of term limits. I don’t have any room for any more substantives, but I think that I have completely proven my point. I will focus my final speech primarily on summing up my arguments as a whole, but as a general guide, here is what Pro has shown you: we don’t need term limits. The UK has coped without them for 200 years without anyone going crazy or mad with power. Countries often regret electing a risky proposition, so forcing people to gamble on new candidates is reckless and irresponsible. And this is why term limits are actually harmful to democracy – they prevent good candidates from being allowed to lead their country forward. I look forward to seeing what Con has to say in response. [1] . http://www.independent.co.uk... [2] . http://gulfnews.com... [3] . https://www.gov.uk... [4] . http://www.tonyblairoffice.org...