lordraphael wrote:fightinfrenchman wrote:Show hidden quotes
How is that a "no brainer"? There are often good presidents who people would love to have serve more than 2 terms but can't.
its a no brainer for very obvious reasons. Power corrupts so a president who might have been a good one at start can turn into a really bad one. And obviously the longer a president is in charge the higher the chances of a coup. Its one of the easiest and most valuable defensive mechanism a democracy has and shouldnt be touched.
I disagree with you on a few things here, rapha.
First, parliamentary systems with a decent seperation of power are generally less vulnerable to corruption because decision-making is highly dependant on a consensus, especially with strong oppositions. In those systems, let's take Germany as an example again, the chancellor can't just do as he/she pleases. Most western European constitutions, especially of those nations involved in WW2, have a high degree of fightable democracy anchored within, same with impeachment rules, they're actually made to be enforced here.
Second, the longer power is concentrated in one person, the more likely it is indeeed to attract corruption, yes. But you seem to forget that it's only one aspect of longer terms and if we're talking about parliamentary democracies there is, as I mentioned in my first point, a much smaller entrance for obvious corruption than in presidential systems where power isn't split that much and accountability is also limited.
The most obvious reason in favor of unlimited terms in parliamentary systems is to be able to guarantee stability if needed. Why get a new chancellor/president if the majority of citizens is satisfied with the current one? Not every election is a turnover election, this year is the best example for that.
If we're talking US or France (both two terms max) it's very much justified bc of the sheer power the president holds within the system.
