We don’t need to impose special term limit restrictions for prime ministers because we already have a way to remove a leader when we’re well and truly tired of him.
In the spirit of strengthening and reforming democracy, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim recently stated that he supports the proposal to enact a term limit for the post of prime minister.
While most politicians have jumped on the bandwagon, the missing link in this discourse – whether a term limit is feasible in a Westminster system – has not been sufficiently addressed.
The first thing to acknowledge is that term limits are an option that some countries choose to impose on certain political offices, not a fundamental requirement of democracy.
The United States, for example, imposes term limits on the presidency because it passed a constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two terms – not because democracy inherently requires such a restriction. Notably, the US has not placed term limits on Congress, state legislatures, or most state governorships.
In a Westminster system, the position of prime minister does not have a fixed term to begin with. Election dates are not rigidly set – Canada’s last election was in 2021, but that does not guarantee the next one will be in 2025.
Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau leads a minority government, meaning an election can take place earlier if his government falls. In fact, on Jan 6 this year, Trudeau announced his resignation as leader of the Liberal Party and as prime minister. He also requested that Governor General Mary Simon prorogue Parliament until March 2025.
This highlights that the length of a prime minister’s tenure is not predictable – just because elections are held at most every four years does not mean they always happen at four-year intervals. Elections can occur earlier if necessary.
In parliamentary systems following the Westminster model, the prime minister is not elected directly. Instead, the head of state invites the leader of the party with the most seats to form a government, provided they can maintain the confidence of the legislature.
As long as that party retains the most seats and the leader remains in place, they continue as prime minister.
To impose a term limit on the prime ministership, one of two additional measures would have to be taken:
(a) impose a term limit on how long a person can lead a political party, or
(b) impose an external restriction on a governing party’s leader, limiting their tenure regardless of the party’s wishes – while opposition leaders would face no such restriction.
There is no reason to do this.
If a party wants to keep its leader and voters continue to elect that party, why should they be forced to change? When the party or the electorate tires of a leader, change will come soon enough. That’s democracy.
We already have a mechanism to determine how long a person serves as prime minister. It’s called elections.
We don’t need arbitrary term limits when we already have the power to remove a leader when necessary.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of Twentytwo13.
