DDO Beginners tournament: Term limits are good for democracy

I will present a case of mine own, and in doing so will rebut those of Pro. As there has been a lack of definitions, I will assume that all words will be defined under a standard definition.Firstly, democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in how their country is run. Democracy does not prohibit, nor does it cater solely to, what is “good” or “right.” This means that even if Hugo Chavez is a “bad” guy, as long as he is popular enough to win the majority of votes, he retains his power. Term Limits limit DemocracyBy creating term limits, governments force country leaders to step down and not serve again for a stipulated amount of time, sometimes up to a lifetime, after serving for (usually) eight years. Notice that in this case, should the people wish to reelect the incumbent, as is their right via democracy, they would clash with the law. This would force either the law to be re-written, or force the people to choose a secondary candidate.Let us look at the case of Chavez. Notice that in whatever he has done, the people of Venezuela has implicitly agreed to it by not voting him out. However, should they disagree with what he is doing, they have the polls with which to kick him out. This is democracy in its most unregulated form. Although a Head of State (Hereafter HoS) should, ideally, reflect the will of the people, this is rarely, if ever, done. For one, the will of the people is not coherent in that it is generally very contradictory. Consider the case of the liberal-conservative divide in the U.S. Imposing term limits on a HoS does not limit in any way their ability to exercise their own will over that of the will of the people. Let us suppose a case where a two term limit is imposed on the elected. Notice that whatever the incumbent wishes to do against the will of the people could be done in the second term, where he need not fear any retaliation from the voters simply because he will not be running again!So clearly from this case alone we can see that term limits do limit democracy because the people are as such unable to elect their primary candidate. In addition to that, term limits can also be bad for the country.Term limits do not prevent negative developementI will parody the Pro case for positive impact here (Not mockery, but I want to show a stark contrast between the two sides of this “coin”): Term limits do not stop the negative development of policies which are pleasing to the people. Policies are not dependent on people but ideas. Even in the case that an exceptionally bad president is doing “wonders” for the country is faced with a term limit, the following government can be elected to follow the same general policies. The fact of term limits makes clearer that policies are not supposed to be those of this or that politician, but those that work for the common “good” and are “recognized” as such by the people, regardless of the individual promoting them.I have added several quotation marks and bolded a few words. Notice that now the whole meaning has changed.From this we can see that “good” and “bad” are really subjective terms based on the ideology of the voters. For example, in the current U.S. fiscal cliff to-be, the Republicans consider it “good” to be fiscally conservative, which the Democrats consider “bad.” On the other hand, Democrats want to increase spending, which is viewed as “good” to them but “bad” to the Republicans. If Pro wishes to object that we can only know what is “good” or “bad” by seeing effects, then by that time, if term limits are implemented, voters are unable to “punish” the emeritus incumbent. On to another point of view. Let us suppose that indeed governments are supposed to reflect an ideology. This brings problems too. Note that there are multiple conflicting ideologies. Now even were we to consider that in a hypothetical country there was only one ideology, that still does not make term limits “better” or “worse.” Notice that if there was indeed such a situation, anything done by the incumbent that seems contrary to the ideology would cause the incumbent to be voted out (I am assuming democracy remains). In this case, an incumbent remains solely a mouthpiece of the will of the ideology and as such has no need to change. There is indeed no bad to be derived from keeping the same mouthpiece. Now that I’ve shown such, I must show that there is good to be obtained from not having term limits. I’ve already given one instance in the case directly under the header about term limits. By not having term limits, a good HoS with no ideology can benefit a country, fiscally and socially, simply by occupying office (with voters consent) and as such, disallowing competitors with looser morals and less beneficial policies, from gaining office. This thus is “good” for democracy.From this we can see that term limits have basically no impact on the way a country is run, or on democracy as a whole. Back to you.