2.4 - Executive Term Limits
Executive term limits restrict how long a chief executive can stay in office, and countries take very different approaches. Some impose strict limits, others allow indefinite tenure, and each choice comes with real trade-offs for stability and effective policy.
How the Course Countries Handle Term Limits
Mexico uses a strict single-term limit, one six-year term with no reelection ever. Nigeria uses a two-term limit (two four-year terms). Iran's president is limited to two consecutive four-year terms, so a former president can run again after sitting one out. Russia's limit keeps getting rewritten: before 2020 it was two consecutive terms, which let Putin return after a break, and the 2020 amendments made it two terms total but wiped Putin's earlier terms from the count, so he can stay until 2036. China (since removing them in 2018), Iran's Supreme Leader (life appointment), and the UK's Prime Minister (serves as long as confidence holds) have no term limits at all.
Advantages of Term Limits
Checking executive power: term limits stop leaders from accumulating power indefinitely. Since leaders know their time is limited, they can't build a permanent control apparatus, and the bureaucracy and party know a transition is coming, which forces periodic renewal of leadership legitimacy. Mexico's single sexenio keeps presidents from using the office to perpetuate their own rule, no matter how popular they are, which helped prevent the kind of personalistic dictatorships common elsewhere in Latin America during the twentieth century.
Inhibiting dictators and personality rule: term limits complicate efforts by would-be autocrats to establish permanent control, since opposition knows a repressive leader will eventually leave and the leader can't claim to be permanently necessary. Nigeria's two-term limit forced out even popular presidents like Olusegun Obasanjo (1999 to 2007), who tried to amend the constitution for a third term but was rejected by the National Assembly, showing how term limits can constrain power-seeking executives. By contrast, China's removal of term limits in 2018 let Xi Jinping stay indefinitely, enabling much more personality cult development than his predecessors experienced.
Focus on governing over reelection: leaders who can't be reelected can prioritize policy over politics, making unpopular but necessary decisions without worrying about electoral consequences. Mexican presidents in their final years can pursue controversial reforms without worrying about their own reelection, whereas UK PMs without term limits must always keep the next election in mind, which can constrain some policy choices even mid-term.
Opportunities for new leadership: forced transitions bring in fresh ideas, priorities, and perspectives, preventing stagnation. Mexico's mandatory rotation brings a complete cabinet turnover every six years, and each administration has brought a different emphasis, from Vicente Fox's free-market approach (2000 to 2006) to Felipe Calderón's security focus (2006 to 2012) to Peña Nieto's structural reforms (2012 to 2018) to AMLO's populist nationalism (2018 to 2024).
Disadvantages of Term Limits
Forcing good executives to leave: effective, popular leaders have to go simply because time ran out, even if citizens want them to stay. Some argue UK figures like Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair benefited from having no term limits, letting them implement comprehensive, multi-year programs that term limits would have cut short.
Insufficient time to achieve goals: major reforms often need years to implement and show results, and short terms can cut them off. Mexico's single six-year term pushes presidents to rush reforms, and large infrastructure projects begun in one sexenio often get abandoned or altered by the next administration with different priorities.
Impeding policy continuity: each new leader brings different priorities and often dismantles the previous administration's work regardless of its merit. Peña Nieto's energy reform opening Mexico's oil sector to private investment was partially reversed by AMLO, who prioritized the state oil company Pemex instead, undermining long-term investment planning.
Weakening accountability: when leaders can't run again, voters lose the ability to reward or punish their performance at the ballot box, which removes a key accountability mechanism. Mexican presidents in their final years can effectively ignore public opinion since they can't run again, creating a kind of "lame duck from day one" situation.
Creating a lame duck period: as a known departure date approaches, a leader's authority tends to erode, since subordinates start looking to successors, the legislature cooperates less, and initiatives lose momentum. All Mexican presidents face this in their final year, and Nigerian presidents see similar effects late in their second term as politicians focus on succession.
Preventing experience building: leading a country takes skills built through experience, and by the time executives get good at the job, term limits can force them out. Mexican presidents spend early months learning the role, and by year four or five they're usually most effective, but they have to leave after year six regardless. UK PMs without term limits, like Thatcher (11 years) or Blair (10 years), could apply lessons learned early on to later governance, arguably increasing their effectiveness.
Causing poorly designed policy: knowing time is short, executives sometimes rush implementation without proper design, consultation, or testing. Some of AMLO's signature projects, like the Tren Maya railway and the Dos Bocas (Olmeca) oil refinery, faced criticism for rushed planning, cost overruns, and environmental shortcuts, driven by the desire to finish them within his single six-year term.
Balancing the Trade-offs
Different countries make different choices based on their history and priorities. Mexico chose extreme limits after Porfirio Díaz's decades in power (the ban dates from the 1917 constitution), prioritizing rotation over continuity. Nigeria allows two terms, balancing experience-building against entrenchment, reflecting a desire for stability after years of military rule. Russia manipulates its term limits, showing how weak institutions let leaders get around restrictions. China removed limits entirely, prioritizing stability and Xi's consolidation of power over democratic renewal. The UK has no limits at all, trusting parliamentary accountability to check its executives instead. The right approach really depends on a country's context: a history of authoritarianism might justify stricter limits, while stable democracies might rely more on electoral accountability without needing term restrictions at all.