One way this is being done is through presidential term limits being abandoned, or extended. This in turn is leading to a reemergence of authoritarian politics, and political violence.
Many leaders from countries such as Rwanda, Togo, Gabon, Uganda, Chad, Cameroon, Djibouti, Republic of Congo, Sudan, Eritrea, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have all fiddled with term limits.
They have done this by abolishing, amending or ignoring them, or by simply not holding elections. Other countries such as Ethiopia, Gambia, Lesotho, and Morocco have never introduced term limits.
Meddling with constitutions to extend terms in office contributes not only to a decline in democratic consolidation but on political instability as well. The uprisings in 2019 against long-term presidents in Algeria and Sudan highlight the dangers of presidents for life. The ouster of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria and Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir raises the question whether Africa is indeed changing its perceptions of strongmen and leaders who have overstayed their welcome. Protests in those countries against the longtime regimes clearly indicated that ordinary citizens have had enough and want real institutional change. But what message does it send to the remaining autocrats and dictators? It should be noted that Africa is home to some of the world’s longest-serving heads of state some for more than three decades. But for how long will they continue clinging to power? A few examples are worth mentioning in this context. Teodoro Obiang Nguema in Equatorial Guinea, Paul Biya in Cameroon, Yoweri Museveni in Uganda, Republic of Congo’s Denis Sassou Nguesso just to mention but a few. This widespread refusal to play by the rules has contributed to a period of global democratic decline. 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.
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. The 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; 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. 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 officeholder 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 refreshes the vitality of the state. Repeated transfers of power demonstrate that change through elections consolidate 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 of Guinea said that polling in Africa “can’t be trusted and he typically used one of several tools to change the rules.”
Frequently, a pliant legislature, filled with lawmakers from the ruling party, passes legislation to change term limits, as was the case in Cameroon. Another common method is a referendum in which citizens vote, often in a tightly controlled process without open public debate, on proposed changes to the constitution, as it happened in Rwanda. In still other instances, the judiciary, populated by judges loyal to the president, hands down rulings that allow the incumbents to extend their tenure, as was the case in Burundi. Occasionally leaders simply issue a decree allowing them to remain in office, though the fact that this is a rarer tactic suggests a preference to maintain at least the appearance of respect for the rule of law. From Guinea, Uganda, Côte d’Ivoire, and Rwanda to Congo-Brazzaville, leaders who place their hold on power above the interests of their citizens are inverting the basic principles of democracy and putting their countries in danger. After years of global democratic decline, now is the time to reinforce the regular leadership rotation that term limits ensure. The community of democratic nations, including civil societies must use the tools at their disposal to vigorously defend this crucial safeguard.
