BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their leaders on their own.

Term limits are grossly undemocratic. If a leader is popular and desired by the people to continue to lead them, then it should be their choice to re-elect him. The instituting of term limits assumes voters cannot act intelligently without proper guidance. This is an insult to the intelligence of voters. The electorate will see whether a leader is doing a good job and will vote accordingly. Preventing a potentially popular candidate from standing for re-election simply removes the right to make important political decisions from the electorate. The reason some countries have overpowered presidents and executives is not due to a lack of term limits, but because of a system designed to suppress opposition. Term limits are not a concern when considering why countries have corrupt and authoritarian leaders.[1] In such countries or where the leader is very popular the leader will be able to overturn the term limits anyway rendering them redundant. This occurred in Venezuela in 2009 when Chavez the Venezuelan President won a referendum to end term limits.[2] The people, if they have the freedom to choose who should lead them, should have the freedom to choose incumbents, and to do so indefinitely if that is what the popular will demands. [1] Meredith, Martin. 2003. Mugabe: Power and Plunder in Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2] Voice of America, 2009. “Chavez Celebrates End to Venezuela Term Limits”, 16th February, 2009, Available: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-02-16-voa6-68768067.html
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.    improve this
A strong, consistent executive may be desirable in many cases.

Continuity and experience in leadership has real value. Experienced hands can be best for navigating the often-treacherous waters of politics, and such experience is especially necessary in the executive. Furthermore, the prospect of future tenure gives incumbent leaders the leverage to get things done. When there are no term limits, lame duck leaders are generally eliminated. The status quo undermines the ability of last-term leaders to act effectively, since members of the other branches of government, and the public, know they are on the way out and thus lack the same ability to enact policy.[1] Eliminating term limits allows leaders to make the most of every term they serve to enact policy. It also allows leaders to focus on long-term projects that might take more than the time allotted to them by their term limits. When considering the ascension of new leaders, it is necessary to consider that they will always take some time acclimating themselves to their new office, time that is thus not put to efficient use in governing. Constant changing of leadership brought about by term limits serves only to exacerbate this problem. In other words, leadership is like anything else—one gets better with experience.  Additionally, lobbyists and powerful legislators will more easily exploit amateurish newcomers to leadership. Naiveté on the part of new leaders who are unused to the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Continuity in leadership is especially important in times of crisis. For example, the United States needed the continuity and strength of Franklin Roosevelt during Great Depression, and later during World War II. Americans were willing to break with the tradition of presidents serving only two terms of office for the sake of that leadership.[2] Clearly, it is better to have a tried and tested leader in times of struggle than a potentially disastrous, untested newcomer. [1] Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/200708271340511xeneerg0.287472.html [2] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.   improve this
The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits.

With term limits, a leader will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of leaders in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. Furthermore, lame duck leaders can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former heads of state and government find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement.[1] Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behaviour, as leaders look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people.  [1] Wynne, Michael. 2004. “Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy”. University of Wolongong. Available: http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/health/political_influence.html   improve this
The executive branch of government, having no countervailing voices to the leader s’ within it, must be checked by limiting tenancy in office.

Leaders may have a single view and be the sole centre of power in the executive branch, but that does not mean the leader’s remaining in office will somehow shift power away from the other branches. The separation of powers is constitutionally protected in most countries, and leaders’ powers will be circumscribed by these whether term-limited or not. In the example of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while Blair was centralizing power in Number 10 Brown at the Treasury always had an independent voice and enough power to prevent the prime minister getting his way on domestic policy.
The longer a single leader remains in power, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage.

People are not stupid. They will not vote for someone who is using the powers of the executive to enrich himself. Rather, leaders will only be able to stay in power so long as they do what the people want. If leaders are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on the leader, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states, in such cases as with Chavez the executive will have enough power simply to override the imposed term limits.[1] [1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/28/if_hugo_goes?page=0,0   improve this
Term limits check the power of incumbency as an election-winning tool and allow new and energetic leaders and ideas to flourish.

Voters will choose the leader they think will do the best job, if this is the incumbent then that is democracy. Election machines and lobby groups may be able to help an incumbent somewhat, but at the end of the day the leader must be able to convince the people that he has done a good job and is still suitable to lead. As to the issue of countries like Zimbabwe, if the people want to keep electing a revolutionary hero, that is their choice. The overruling of election results, as occurred in the most recent Zimbabwean election, however, is not democratic and thus unacceptable for a mature state. Mugabe’s ability to flaunt the will of the people was not due to a lack of term limits, however, but on an inadequate separation of powers inherent in the system.[1]Adding term limits to that system, and indeed any system, will do little to redress imbalances between branches of government. The case of Vladimir Putin is similarly instructive, despite stepping down after his second term, he thereafter took the office of Prime Minister and maintained effective power. Term limits are no barrier to those determined and popular enough to hang on to power. [1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.   improve this
Freeing the executive from re-election concerns can help focus attention on the public interest

A leader who is term-limited suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term leader will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Furthermore, as to lobby-group support, a leader on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favour groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for leaders, paid for often at the expense of the public.   improve this
An Afghanistan dominated by warlords.

In a country as rugged as Afghanistan there is always going to have to be a lot of decentralisation and at the moment this means warlords having a lot of power in individual areas. However this is better than the alternative of a centralising Taliban which would still have many factions and elements but these would be much more extreme than today’s warlords. It is also difficult to see how this impacts on the success of NATO in Afghanistan. They can be bad but can also bring benefits as they have an incentive to deliver stability and reconstruction to their local areas.[1] [1] Milhopadhyay, Dipali, ‘Warlords as Bureaucrats: The Afghan Experience’, Carnegie Papers, Number 101, August 2009
NATO has brought peace and security

“NATO’s primary objective in Afghanistan is to enable the Afghan authorities to provide effective security across the country and ensure that the country can never again be a safe haven for terrorists.”[1] The invasion of Afghanistan was initially about destroying al-Qaeda and with the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 in Pakistan this objective has been met. There are still efforts to destroy al Qaeda but these have mostly moved out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan and other countries such as Yemen. NATO has also brought Afghanistan to the point where the Afghani’s can look after themselves and exercise their own security. On 18th June Afghanistan took over the lead from NATO on security nationwide having previously been taking control district by district. Handing over security also itself improves security with Afghanis in Kandahar saying “Now that the foreigners are gone, the security situation in the city and in the districts is much better”.[2] [1] ‘NATO and Afghanistan’, nato.int [2] Loyn, David, ‘Afghans take nationwide security lead from NATO’, BBC News, 18 June 2013
Negotiations to ensure lasting peace

NATO is also ensuring that peace and security remain in Afghanistan as they draw down by opening up negotiations with the Taliban. Peace can only be assured by bringing together the sides so that almost everyone accepts the status quo and does not want to destroy that status quo through force. United States officials say “We have long said this conflict won't be won on the battlefield” with the deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, adding “The United States will be supporting a process that is fundamentally Afghan-led” meaning that NATO is no longer key to the process.[1] NATO handing over control to the Afghans and eventually withdrawing entirely will make peace more likely to succeed as the Taliban “considerers it its religious and national duty to gain independence from the occupation” with this goal it wants “to support a political and peaceful solution”.[2] Lasting peace is then only possible when NATO leaves. [1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013 [2] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013
Democracy has been brought to Afghanistan

Some of the biggest benefits of the NATO occupation have been through the increase in democracy and human rights. While these were not specific aims of the NATO mission they were among the goals set out by the United Nations.[1] There have been two Presidential elections, one in 2004 the other in 2009, and two parliamentary elections, 2005 and 2010 none have been perfect but it is a clear advance from no elections at all. The most notable human rights increase has been in women’s rights. Under the Taliban Afghanistan strictly limited the activities of women but today 27.3% of the representatives in the Parliament are women (better than in the UK or US) and the first female governor is in office. The literacy rate is still low but they now make up 36.6% of those in primary school up from almost nothing.[2] There have been similar gains in other human rights such as a reduction in the use of corporal punishments such as amputating hands for theft. [1] Annex III Request to the United Nations by the participants at the UN talks on Afghanistan, S/2001/1154, UNDemocracy.com [2] Haidari, M. Ashraf, ‘Afghan women as a measure of progress’, The AfPak Channel Foreign Policy, 18 March 2013
Investment in Afghanistan; rebuilding the economy

The ‘rehabilitation’ of Afghanistan’s infrastructure has not been an immense success due to the continuing bombing campaign which inevitably damages infrastructure but there have been big economic benefits from the NATO presence. There have been more than 4,000 schools built and 175,000 teachers trained, although more is needed this is an immense boost to education in Afghanistan.[1]  Another benefit of increased stability is a renewal of outside investment, from China in particular. China has been investing billions, Several mining firms have made a $4.4 billion investment in one project; an immense undeveloped copper reserve in Aynak.[2] In total there is more than $20 billion being invested in infrastructure by Afghanistan’s Asian neighbours, as these investments are looking for profit they are clearly believed to be sustainable, by comparison the United States has only funded $1.6billion since 2006.[3] [1] ‘Afghanistan’, USAID, February 2013 [2] Downs, Erica S., ‘China Buys into Afghanistan’, Brookings, 21 February 2013 [3] Barfield, Thomas, ‘Two Diverging Roads in Afghanistan’, YaleGlobal, 11 January 2013
Afghanistan is still a dangerous place

Peace talks or no peace talks, NATO military leadership of Afghan would all appear to make no difference. Only hours after the Taliban said it would hold peace talks and the United States handed over control of military operations to the Afghan National Army four US soldiers were killed in a mortar attack at Bagram Airbase one of the centres of NATO operations.[1] Clearly then NATO has not brought peace and security to Afghanistan. The effect of handovers to the Afghans have already been seen; August to October of last year saw a 28% spike in killings from the same period the year before at a time when NATO was handing over control implying that the Afghan army is not yet ready to protect civilians.[2] [1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013 [2] Borger, Julian, ‘Can Afghan troops hold off the Taliban after Nato withdraws?’, The Guardian, 1 January 2013
The Taliban will likely take over when the NATO forces leave

Even if they are willing to negotiate a peaceful US exit this does not mean the Taliban will not wish to use force when the United States has left. In their statement on peace talks they highlighted “the establishment of an independent Islamic system and true security which is the want and aspiration of the nation.”[1] They also style themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan clearly showing their political goal is regaining power in Afghanistan which would mean overthrowing the democratically elected government. Some Afghan experts such as Gilles Dorronsoro believe that this is what will happen “After 2014, the level of US support for the Afghan regime will be limited and, after a new phase in the civil war, a Taliban victory will likely follow” though this would have the advantage of bringing stability as the Taliban did before the US invasion it would represent a complete failure for the US.[2] [1] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013 [2] AFP, ‘Afghan govt will collapse and Taliban will rule again, Afghan expert says’, news.com.au, 27 September 2012
NATO has failed to solve Afghanistan’s economic problems

While some progress has been made on the economic and development front in Afghanistan it is difficult to consider it a success. There are still 20% of households who are chronically food insecure and another 18% in need of assistance in some of the year with the result that nearly 40% of children under three are malnourished.[1] Afghanistan is immensely dependent on aid for its economic progress with foreign aid to the country representing 100% of GDP in 2011 which makes the country vulnerable to a change in priorities. Clearly the withdrawal will represent such a change; when NATO goes aid, and spending as a result of the military occupation, will drop at the very least constraining growth and likely taking the Afghan economy with it.[2] Already the International Labour Organisation has been warning that this will mean increasing child labour in the country as lower profit margins force families to use their children to boost incomes.[3] [1] UNDP Afghanistan, ‘Eradicated Extreme Poverty and Hunger’, United Nations Development Programme, 21 July 2011 [2] ‘The hand that feeds’, The Economist, 14 July 2012 [3] Ferris-Rotman, Amie, ‘Afghan child labor fears grow as aid dries up’, Reuters, 7 February 2012
An Afghanistan dominated by warlords.

Under the Taliban up to the US invasion Afghanistan was at least united. Today however there is little central control beyond the NATO forces; the Taliban clearly controls some areas but there are also powerful warlords. Appointments are based on nepotism and tribal affiliations not on merit or education and those who were part of the northern alliance that fought on the US side (Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras) are taking advantage of the opportunity of the overthrow of Pashtun dominance in the country to grab power and resources.[1] Already the conflict has an ethnic dimension as almost all of the Taliban is made up of Pashtuns. The Taliban meanwhile believes that the other ethnicities want a partition of the country through a very decentralised federal state. In almost any peace scenario with NATO gone there is a large chance that one faction will walk out setting off a civil war and fragmentation of the country.[2] [1] Noor, Ahmad, ‘Power Politics of ethnic groups and the future of Afghanistan’, World Security Network, 8 July 2011 [2] Rafiq Arif, ‘The Coming Civil War in Afghanistan’, Foreign Policy, 3 February 2012
NATO has brought peace and security

The conflict clearly is ongoing in Afghanistan; in 2012 there were 245 drone strikes in Afghanistan compared to only 44 in Pakistan and 28 in Yemen.[1] Even if those drones are not being used to attack al Qaeda but instead the Taliban in Afghanistan it is impossible to say that peace and security has been brought to the country. It is also impossible to say that the handover to Afghan forces shows that the NATO mission has been a success; a handover could occur no matter how peaceful or otherwise the country is. In Vietnam the United States declared victory by signing the Paris Peace Accords and handing over to South Vietnam only for the country to be overrun two years later in the spring of 1975.[2] [1] Woods, Chris, and Ross, Alice, K., ‘Revealed: US and Britain launched 1,200 drone strikes in recent wars’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 4 December 2012 [2] The Learning Network, ‘April 30, 1975 | Saigon Falls’, The New York Times, 30 April 2012
Negotiations to ensure lasting peace

Peace talks starting just 18 months before all NATO forces have left is clearly leaving it too late to ensure success. There will be little to persuade the Taliban to compromise as they believe their situation is only going to get better when there is no fear of military defeats. The Taliban has walked away from talks before and could easily do so again. It is notable that a Taliban spokesman says “There is no ceasefire now. They are attacking us and we are attacking them” which makes the chances of breakdown in the talks high.[1] To make matters worse the Afghan government has only been lukewarm about the talks complaining that allowing the Taliban an office in Doha “gave the Taliban an official identity, something we didn't want” and responded by suspending negotiations with the United States on a security agreement that would determine how many US soldiers stay in the country after the NATO mission has ended.[2] [1] ‘US to hold direct peace talks with Taliban’, Al Jazeera, 19 June 2013 [2] Shalizi, Hamid, ‘Afghan government irked over U.S. talks with Taliban’, Reuters, 19 June 2013
Democracy has been brought to Afghanistan

Some elections may be better than no elections but where the west has control there really should have been exemplary elections. The 2009 Presidential elections in particular have been accused of having been riddled with fraud. The election observers from the National Democratic Institute said “polling was marred by widespread fraud” and the opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah pulled out of the run off pointing to there being no measures taken to prevent the fraud recurring.[1] If Afghan elections are so marred by fraud when the US and NATO still have a lot of control over the country how bad will it be when there is no outside check? And if democracy may not survive the transition from NATO control what hope is there for human rights and particularly women’s rights?[2] [1] National Democratic Institute, ‘The 2009 Presidential and Provincial Council Elections in Afghanistan’, 2010 [2] UN News Centre, ‘Georgette Gagnon: Raising the bar on respect for human rights in Afghanistan’, un.org, 28 May 2013