For some time I thought that the Twenty-Second Amendment to the US Constitution was probably the best way to ensure that political leaders do not overstay their welcome, and, just as importantly, wear out their effectiveness. This amendment bars US presidents from holding office for more than two four-year terms.
Perhaps I had forgotten the travails of US President George W. Bush's predecessors in their second term, but his own current predicament shows that the constitutional limit has its own problems. For one thing, it makes the president a lame duck sometime in his second term. Does anyone remember that after his re-election Bush promised to reform the pension system ("Social Security")? Now he is clearly hamstrung not only by the Democratic opposition, but also, and perhaps more so, by the succession struggles within his own party.
However, the fate of Bush's friend, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, shows that lame-duck status can occur even without a constitutional term limit -- indeed, without a written constitution at all. Blair made the fatal mistake of setting his own limit to his tenure of office by saying that he would not contest a fourth election as leader of the Labour Party. But, even without such a vow, he would find it difficult after nine years in office to combine a program of reform with a sense of what can be achieved given the mood of his party and of the country.
Indeed, reforms announced by Blair increasingly sound like empty promises, because the apparently inevitable has happened: the prime minister has lost touch with the public. What used to be his charisma is now the permanent re-enactment of the all-too-familiar.
Of course, it is always very hard for leaders to relinquish power. Some have done so, more or less voluntarily, only to re-emerge suddenly from oblivion. Can it be the same President Oscar Arias who (barely) won the recent presidential election in Costa Rica and now returns to power after 20 years?
And was not former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi's candidate for the presidency of the Italian Senate, Giulio Andreotti, a junior member of one of Italy's first post-1945 governments? Did Portugal's Cavaco Silva, the successful prime minister of the 1990s, have to reappear as president this year?
Who can forget former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher's tears when her "friends" told her that her time was up? When prime minister Harold Wilson suddenly resigned in 1976 and left No. 10 Downing Street to the late James Callaghan, people became suspicious: Had he been forced out by some secret service plot concerning South Africa?
It appears that there is no way for political leaders to leave the scene gracefully. Even if there is an "orderly transition" -- a term much used about Blair and British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown at the moment -- it is accompanied by sorrow, or at least by pain.
Political office, it seems, is more addictive than heroin. Abandoning the habit involves not only the inconvenience of losing perks and a certain lifestyle, but also the loss of power. Power may be increasingly illusory in a globalized world, but it is an illusion that is shared by others, and the longer one inhabits it, the more one's circle consists of others who share the belief.
The addiction to political office is always worrisome, because democracies turn into autocracies when leaders cease to recognize the limits of their power. Disconnection is the beginning, followed by the belief that one is the only person who knows what is right and good.
When Blair says that the most important liberty is security from terrorist attacks, he has forgotten the first principles of his party and his country. Overstaying one's welcome may be the professional disease of political leaders, but it is above all incompatible with democracy as a framework for bringing about change without violence.
The question, then, is whether there is any way to ensure that political leaders leave in time. While the US Constitution shows the limits of institutional safeguards, the role of political parties is clearly significant when it comes to limiting terms in power. Like Thatcher, Blair now hears from his party that he should go, and replies that "the people" still want him. Yet the party might have a better sense of what is viable not just today, but also tomorrow -- at the next election, for example.
In the end, there is no foolproof method to guarantee that political leaders leave without tears. What matters is that mechanisms are in place that do make them leave, probably rather too late, and certainly with some pain and unhappiness, but in time for the constitution of liberty to remain intact.
Ralf Dahrendorf, a former European commissioner from Germany, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former rector of the London School of Economics, and a former warden of St. Antony's College, Oxford.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with