Monday, 12 March 2018

JUST A THOUGHT - ON NATIONS' RESTRICTION ON THE LENGTH OF TENURE OF THEIR LEADERS. PART 2.






However, considered in the light of the absence of any restrictions on the number of times Senators and House of Representative members can run for office.  

And be elected to serve in those capacities, none of these reasons for limiting the Presidential tenure to 8 years make any logical sense. 

Which is probably why it remains an anomaly not only in the western hemisphere, but around the world. 

Compare the American model with that or Germany or Britain. Where the Chancellor and the Prime Minister can serve 3, 4 or more terms, if their parties are re-elected and support them continuing to lead them?




If the American model seems to be redundant in its responsiveness to meeting the changing conditions, circumstances and challenges. Which confront the leadership and governing of countries in the 21st Century, it is probably because it is redundant.

So, how did China came to have  a similar model of government, as far as the two presidential tenure limit is concerned.  When the two countries have very dissimilar systems of government, in most, if not all other respects? 

Was the restriction on the Chinese model also intended to be a safeguard against the President becoming corrupted by power, or becoming a dictator? 




Might it, as might have also been the case with the restriction of the American model, been intended to give other members of the ruling elite the opportunity to also become President?

So, what does a country and a nation, a people, need most? 

If they cannot have both a good leader and an arbitrarily imposed presidential tenure of office.  

Which might they opt for: having a good leader for as long as he/she is proving to be so, or having the arbitrary two term limitation?  

Can nation building takes place during a period of 8 or even 10 years? 

To be continued!






No comments: