World View: Term Limits For Prime Ministers – Unlikely And Maybe Unnecessary


Sir Ronald Sanders


A DEBATE has now started in parts of the Caribbean about whether there should be term limits for Prime Ministers. The debate arises from the view that longevity in office leads to abuse and to the suppression of challengers both within political parties specifically, and the political system more generally.

Partly responsible for this is that, increasingly, election campaigns highlight the party leader as if he/she is running for office independently of the political party. But, while the appeal of a leader of a political party could be a deciding factor in whether a party wins an election or not, that leader’s election alone does not deliver government or the Prime Ministership. The party’s representatives must win the majority of electoral areas or constituencies in order for the party’s leader to become Prime Minister and to form a government.

Further, if in the course of its governing a country, the ruling party, within its own system, chooses a new leader who is a member of parliament, that new leader becomes the Prime Minister. Even if the incumbent holder of the office wanted to remain Prime Minister, he/she could not do so once the majority of elected parliamentary representatives withdraw their support in favour of someone else.

Also, if the majority of members of parliament, from the governing and opposition parties, express, by a vote, a lack of confidence in the Prime Minister, he/she could not remain in office. There would be two options: either to resign as Prime Minister and hand over to an elected representative favoured by the majority in parliament, or to dissolve the parliament and call general elections. Either way, that specific term of office as Prime Minister would end.

A third way in which Prime Ministers could be removed from office is by the will of the people at general elections. If the majority of the electorate do not support the political party in office and choose another party, the term of the incumbent Prime Minister ends automatically, and the leader of the newly elected party becomes the new Prime Minister.

Given these various ways in which the holder of the office of Prime Minister can be removed, is there really any need to impose term limits? The terms of office of people, who have served as Prime Ministers in the Caribbean - and in the United Kingdom - where the system originated, have been terminated by one of the means described above. Outside the Caribbean, very few Prime Ministers have been allowed to serve beyond three terms. In the most notable cases in the UK, Conservative Party leader, Margaret Thatcher, was forced to resign three years into her third term, and Labour Party leader, Tony Blair, was eased out two years into his third term.

Only strong and popular leaders of Caribbean political parties have managed to retain conclusive leadership of their parties for more than two terms. This is spectacularly so in the case of Prime Minister Keith Mitchell of Grenada who served three terms from 1995 to 2008 and came back to be elected in 2013 for two more terms. He is currently a year into his fifth term. Dr Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines is another example of how the office of Prime Minister can be retained as a result of political party control. He is currently serving his 18th year continuously in office, and his fourth term as Prime Minister, as a result of his party winning four consecutive general elections since 2001.

Two things should be noted here. First, in the case of Guyana which is a Republic with an executive President, a parliamentary amendment to the Constitution in 2000, limited the holder of the office of President to two terms. Also, in Guyana, the President is elected directly by the people from a slate of candidates put up by political parties. This is the most direct form of election of a head of government. As explained above, there is no direct election of the Prime Minister in Caribbean countries

Second, there is no valid comparison between the way in which a person becomes Prime Minister in a Caribbean country and the manner in which the President of the United States (U.S.) is chosen. Contrary to popular belief, the President of the U.S. is not directly elected by the people; rather, the electorate cast ballots for members of the U.S. Electoral College (proportionate representatives of each state), who, in turn, cast direct votes for candidates for the Presidency. That is how, for instance, Donald Trump was elected President even though his opponent, Hilary Clinton, polled more votes nationally than he did.

The 22nd amendment of the U.S. constitution specifically limits a person serving as President to two elected four-year terms. The utility of this limitation is being questioned now by President Donald Trump as it was, in the past, by other holders of the office, including Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. In 1986, Reagan famously said in a Washington Post interview: “I have come to the conclusion that the 22nd Amendment was a mistake. Shouldn’t the people have the right to vote for someone as many times as they want to vote for him? They send senators up there for 30 or 40 years, congressmen the same”.

Given all this, it is difficult to see how a prohibition could be placed on the number of terms a person could serve as Prime Minister unless the parliaments of Caribbean countries amended their constitutions to state explicitly that “no person shall serve in the office of Prime Minister for more than two consecutive terms”. That is most unlikely to happen, and in any event, it appears unnecessary, given the constitutional ways in which a Prime Minister may now be removed from office. Term limits have been set by the electorate, simply by voting out unpopular parties and their leaders.

The best safeguards against abuse of office by Prime Ministers are the will of the people at general election, and the good sense of the holders of the office who should resolve to remain legitimately in it only for as long as it’s clear that the people want them.

The writer is Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda to the United States and the Organization of American States. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London and at Massey College in the University of Toronto. The views expressed are entirely his own. Responses and previous commentaries: www.sirronaldsanders.com


sealice 2 years ago

i got an even easier way to get rid of prime ministers in general that aren't doing what they were elected to do.....


sheeprunner12 2 years ago

This writer is not as politically savvy as one may have thought .......... the "One Leader" principle in the Caribbean region is very real & powerful when special interests control the party machinery (bosses) and are also the financial backers of the party ......... This influences WHO is selected as party candidates and to Cabinet ......... Those successful MPs and Cabinet members are then "controlled" by the Leader and the party bosses in order to get the perks of the State .......... Those Cabinet members are forced to vote for the Leader and his bosses or be cut from the "inner circle" ...... The Gussie Mae Cabinets neutralize the back benchers, who then are "punished" if they speak up against the Leader ( e.g.The FNM Four) ............ A weak Opposition and a weak back bench keeps the One Leader and his party bosses who control the Cabinet in power ad finitum.

That is the present strategy used by the black Caribbean leaders to maintain power in a bastardized Westminster system. .......... Trump is doing a similar thing in the USA.


khurtwilliams 2 years ago

As we can see in real-time from https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...">what is happening in Turkey, a parliamentary system is inclined to authoritarianism and abuse. When a political party gets a supermajority in the country's parliament, the leader of that party or the prime minister can use these extra powers to pass the laws in favour of his own political gains and in the case of Turkey, even change the system by which leaders are elected.


khurtwilliams 2 years ago

India witnessed the 21-month-long draconian rule in 1975 and 1976 when the then prime minister Indra Gandhi unilaterally declared a state of emergency in the country and suspended the citizens' basic civil rights.

The ruling Indian National Congress had the supermajority in parliament with 73 per cent (352 out of 518) of members belonging to Gandhi's party. With the help of her party's supermajority in parliament, she took the most authoritarian decisions in the history of Indian democracy to safeguard her own political and personal interests.



khurtwilliams 2 years ago

Ok, just one more link.

https://www.economist.com/briefing/20...">How Viktor Orban hollowed out Hungary’s democracy

In the place of such strife, he and his colleagues in Fidesz, the governing party, have over the past nine years sought to align the executive, legislative and judicial powers of the state. Those branches now buttress each other and Fidesz—sometimes unobtrusively, sometimes blatantly. Mr Orban refers to the result of these efforts as the “system of national co-operation”. He used to speak more openly of an “illiberal democracy”.


sheeprunner12 1 year, 12 months ago

Can Minnis suspend the Constitution .......... without a Referendum???


Sign in to comment