Term Lengths and Limitations

I wish him good luck in the remaining rounds of debate. I will begin by providing a brief summary of Pro's position. After offering some brief remarks I will offer an argument of my own. I reserve the right to add new arguments in the third round of debate. -------- PRO Pro's main contention is that term limits stop the rise of a monarch or dictator. He claims that if term limits are not strictly enforced, an elected official could conceivably serve for the remainder of his/her life. This would give the elected official "enough power to change how the government works. " Finally, when a long-serving executive dies, according to Pro, he will pass along his position to a chosen heir (likely from his own family). REBUTTAL There are several problems with Pro's position. As democratic elections go, without term limits an elected official would only be able to serve by the people's will. Therefore, the only way someone would serve for life is by retaining the good will of the people. Once he oversteps his bounds (for instance, by attempting to "change how government works" or by attepting to install himself as a dictator) he will no longer have the good will of the people and will not be re-elected the following cycle. To simplify my position, an elected official would never have enough power to "change how the government works" because he will always be held accountable by the people. When a long-serving executive dies, it does not follow that a member of his family, or any other hand-picked heir would inevitably succeed him. If this happened to turn out to be the case, it would be because it was the public will (since the heir would have to be elected in his own right). Additionally, this heir would have to operate under the same principle of serving only as long as he retains the good will of the people. ------------- I will offer a few arguments in opposition to term limits below. 1. DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES Term limits place unnecessary restrictions on the public will. Every so often, a competent, popular leader appears. What sense does it make to restrict the will of the people, if that will is to re-elect competent and popular leaders to as many terms as he remains competent and popular? It is inconsistent with democratic principles to enforce such a restriction. Simply put, without term limits an official will not serve beyond his welcome. 2. CORRUPTION Term limits offer politicians more incentive to take full advantage of their positions for the short duration of their election. At some point, as he nears the end of his term, an official is no longer accountable to the people. The people cannot punish him for incompetence, dishonesty, corruption, or any other negative consequences by the only means at their disposal - at the ballot box. Once no longer accountable to the public will, he is free to plunder the benefits of office or lead the nation to decline. ---------- CONCLUSION My opponent bases his argument on what he believes to be the inevitable devolution to monarchy or dictatorship if term limits are not enforced. However, he does not offer any evidence to suggest such a course is the only, or even the most likely, outcome. In the next round of debate I hope he will correct this omission.