Term limit evasions are at the root of a host of governance dysfunctions in Africa and are linked to higher levels of autocracy, corruption, conflict, and propensity for coups. Leaders of 14 African countries have held onto power for more than two terms after evading term limits. This continues a pattern of term limit evasion observed since 2015, reversing an evolving trend of term limit adherence between 2000-2015. Analysis of constitutional modifications in Africa from 2002-23 reveals that there were 24 attempts to amend constitutions to extend political power. Of these, 19 were successful. This amounts to one attempt a year over the last two decades of African Union (AU) existence, with an approximate success rate of 78%.
Modifications of constitutions generally manifest in two ways. The first alters the duration of term limits by increasing or decreasing the number of years. For example, in the April 2023 electoral modification in Gabon, the presidential term in office was shortened from seven to five years, but it was extended in Guinea (2020). This constitutional change often precedes invocation of the principle of non-retroactivity of the new law to allow incumbents to contest for office. In so doing, they reset the clock of their stay in office and circumvent the spirit of their constitutions to extend their stay.
The second form is the complete removal of term or age limits to allow incumbents to perpetually contest elections. In most cases, this allows them to stay in office continuously with the support of compromised electoral institutions, heavy-handed security apparatus and an unbalanced political landscape. Many have argued that, even if contested, things such as referendum-facilitated modifications raise questions rather than condemnations. These modifications are mostly orchestrated to serve the interests of the incumbent, thus hardly undergoing fair, free and transparent referenda. Neither do they uphold national interests as the prime objective, instead they go against the spirit of constitutionalism and amount to manipulations or coups frowned upon by the AU.
Article 23 (5) of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance refers to ‘any amendment or revision of the constitution or legal instruments’ infringing on democratic change of government principles. According to Article 23, this constitutes an ‘illegal means of accessing or maintaining power’ and, therefore, ‘an unconstitutional change of government and shall draw appropriate sanctions by the Union. However, not much has been achieved by the African Union to reverse the growing culture of extension of terms in office by African leaders. It is very sad that African heads of State are most often seen as the culprits. As already stated, since 2015, leaders of 13 African countries have engineered changes to term limits. This widespread refusal to play by the rules has contributed to a democratic decline in the continent. For democracy to regain its footing, term limits need to be treated as a fundamental political norm. The arguments made by lingering incumbents, that citizens are demanding another term, that a longer tenure will ensure security and stability, or that changes to the rules are the result of legal and inclusive processes, are often a thin disguise for growing authoritarianism. The community of democratic nations must use the tools at their disposal to vigorously defend this crucial safeguard.
Professor Simon Kitt of the Africa Centre for Strategic Studies states that a head of State’s second decade in power is rarely better than the first, and countries with leaders in their third, fourth or fifth decade in power are almost universally authoritarian. Kitt decries the fact that a cult of personality that develops around long-serving leaders stifles political competition and drives potential successors out of politics. Competent public servants are similarly forced out of government, or grow frustrated and choose to leave and they are replaced by sycophantic allies of the leader.
The risk of violence grows as citizens reach the conclusion that change and progress will not come through the ballot box. Resentment toward the ruling elite, often a single political party or members of the incumbent’s ethnic group, grows, as does the likelihood of retribution when a leadership change finally occurs. This is detrimental to democratic consolidation.
The contrast with a system featuring regular, institutionalised rotations of power could not be more stark. Open competition for top positions encourages political participation and the development of new parties and leaders, while proving that no office holder is irreplaceable. Change at the helm of government and throughout its institutions shows that a diverse array of citizens can competently serve the public and refresh the vitality of the State. Repeated transfers of power demonstrate that change through elections is possible, discouraging coups and other unconstitutional efforts to seize power and promoting peace and stability.
As former US diplomat Gideon Maltz points out, leadership rotation is also a brake on corruption, because “businesses tend to invest much less in buying influence in countries with party alternation,” and can rein in abuses by incumbents, since “only a leader facing effective term limits has any chance of attaching sufficient costs to future prosecution to be deterred from committing crimes while president.
“For these reasons, the architects of constitutions have frequently included term limits, which are broadly popular among citizens. In Africa, for instance, surveys by Afrobarometer, a pan-African research institution, consistently find that approximately three-quarters of Africans support two-term limits. But leaders’ intent on staying in office longer show little regard for public opinion.
For example, in an on-the-record meeting in the fall of 2019, President Condé said polling in Africa “can’t be trusted” and they typically use one of several tools to change the rules.
From this, one can safely argue that the extension of their term limits by several African leaders has eroded and continues to erode democratic gains. Term limits are therefore a necessary bulwark against abuse of power, especially when electoral systems are weak. African leaders who manipulate constitutions to extend their stay in power are not only a threat to the political stability of their state but also a serious threat to the consolidation of democracy at large.
