Academic Interest on Presidential Term Limits

Comparative constitutional amendment is developing into an eye-catching discipline in comparative constitutional law. This article reviews Richard Albert’s book 'Constitutional Amendments: Making, Breaking, and Changing Constitutions' that comprehensively and comparatively covers almost every aspect of the constitutional amendment. This book, focusing on formal constitutional amendment, starts with why and how constitutional amendment rules matter, moves to what elements matter in amendment procedures, and then finally presents some considerations for the design of democratic amendment rules. This article reviews the chapters of the book one by one and, at the same time, discusses Albert’s original arguments and concepts from a normative perspective. Firstly, I examine and challenge the “dismemberment,” which the author conceptualizes and terms as distinguishable from the “amendment.” I add my view to the author’s take on amendment culture, which he explains as an important informal factor of amendment difficulty. I also argue and present a positive assessment of unamendability and courts’ involvement thereon, on which the author looks unfavorably. Nonetheless, various issues and comprehensive cases across regions and time unfolded in this book give us incomparably useful insights on how to design constitutional amendment rules for each jurisdiction. Moreover, it provides valuable agendas and thinkable examples for us to contemplate what ‘constitutionalism’ covers in a time when constitutional amendments are employed as a political tool on all sides. In this respect, this article also introduces a specially designed amendment clause of the South Korean Constitution, which disincentivizes the term limits amendment. Finally, this article tries to get closer to the problems which constitutional amendments (and constitutionalism) recently encounter by adding a normative perspective to Albert’s theoretically, doctrinally, historically, empirically, and comparatively thought-provoking book.

Africa is home to most of the nascent countries in the world. It is also home to seven of the ten longest serving presidents, all of them have been in power for at least 20 years. Constitutional two-term limits for presidents were introduced to foster democratic de- velopment. However, this change has not been permanent. Ten African leaders have successfully derogated the law to stay in of ce. We rely on recent literature to explain the advantages and constraints of such limits. Two-term limits are indeed helpful, but not a central policy for the democratic development of Sub-Saharan countries.

Bu çalışmada, seçime dayalı demokrasi ve seçime dayalı otokrasi rejimlerinde devlet başkanlığı makamında görev süresini ve/veya dönem sınırını uzatmaya yönelik muhtelif siyasi manipülasyonları incelemeyi amaçlıyoruz. Anayasada düzenlenen görev süresi sınırından kaçınmak isteyen devlet başkanlarının bu tercihlerini anayasal kuralı değiştirme, yeni bir anayasa hazırla(t)ma, yüksek yargı kararları ile dönem sınırını esnetme ya da kaldırma gibi kurumsal yöntemlere başvurarak elde etmeye çalıştıkları görülmektedir.

In this study, we aim to examine various political manipulations aimed at extending the duration of rotation in office and term limits in the office of president in electoral democracies and electoral autocracies. It is observed that the heads of state, who want to avoid the term limit set in the constitution, try to achieve staying in power by resorting to institutional methods such as changing the constitutional rule, designing a new constitution, stretching or removing the term limit with high judicial decisions.

Proposed changes to presidential term limits are almost always highly contested, and have attracted international and regional attention from many external actors including governmental organizations (IGOs), and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs). A central question that faces these external actors is the extent to which it is legitimate to take a position in presidential term limit debates. When they have engaged the question, external actors have increasingly focused on the relationship between stability, conflict prevention, constitutionalism and democracy. This chapter considers the policy concerning presidential term limits of three major IGOs, the UN, the AU and the OAS, each of which has had considerable involvement in countries where term limit changes have been linked to conflict. It further discusses the way in which IDEA, an IGO with a softer mandate, has responded to the debate on term limits, as well as the output of a number of other international actors like the Venice Commission, ECOWAS, DRI, the Carter Center and the West African Civil Society Forum (WACSOF). This review of international actors’ responses to the question of presidential term limits suggests an increasing international consensus that, in countries with a history of authoritarianism and weak democratic institutions, presidential term limits can play an important role in strengthening democratic processes and reducing the likelihood of conflict. Importantly, justifications for raising concerns about the removal of term limits are gradually moving from the safer space of demanding that constitutionally established processes be used to more outspoken condemnation of proposals to remove or weaken term limits based on a recognition of the dangers of prolonged incumbency and its links to democratic backsliding.

Bu kitap içerisinde kamusal makamlarda seçilmişlerin ve atanmışların ne kadar süre ile görevde kalmaları ve tekrar seçilebilme / atanabilme hakkına sahip olup olmamaları konusu incelenmektedir. En başta devlet ya da hükümet başkanlarının ne kadar süre ile ve kaç dönem görev yapabilecekleri hususu önem taşır. Bu konu literatürde yaygın olarak “dönem sınırlaması” olarak bilinir. Daha geniş bir perspektiften bakıldığında görev süresi sınırlaması siyasi parti başkanlarının, milletvekillerinin, belediye başkanlarının, yüksek mahkemelerin başkan ve üyelerinin vs. görev sürelerinin anayasal kurallar ile düzenlenmesini kapsar.

Günümüzde görev süresinin sınırlandırılması uygulaması demokrasinin temel unsurlarından biri olan “sınırlı devlet" anlayışının gereği olarak giderek artan bir şekilde kabul görmekte, sivil toplum ve kamuoyu desteği artmakta ve dünya genelinde  yaygınlaşmaktadır.  Özellikle 1990’lı yılların başlarından itibaren dünyada demokratikleşme trendinde geriye doğru bir eğilim olması bu talebi artırmıştır. Dünyada siyasi rejimler haritasında renkler değişmiştir. Liberal demokrasilerin anayasal hukuk devleti ilkelerinden (kuvvetler ayrılığı, bağımsızlık, şeffaflık, hesap verme sorumluluğu vs.) uzaklaşması neticesinde dünyanın bir çok bölgesinde seçime dayalı patolojik demokrasi eğilimleri hız kazanmıştır. Demokrasilerin ilk aşamada “anokrasi”ye (ılımlı otokrasi) ve daha sonra da seçime dayalı katı bir otoriterleşme  (otokratik demokrasi) sürecine doğru evrilmesi görev süresi sınırlamasını demokrasinin ana gündem maddelerinden biri haline getirmiştir.

Proposed changes to presidential term limits are almost always highly contested, and have attracted international and regional attention from many external actors including governmental organizations (IGOs), and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs). A central question that faces these external actors is the extent to which it is legitimate to take a position in presidential term limit debates. When they have engaged the question, external actors have increasingly focused on the relationship between stability, conflict prevention, constitutionalism and democracy. This chapter considers the policy concerning presidential term limits of three major IGOs, the UN, the AU and the OAS, each of which has had considerable involvement in countries where term limit changes have been linked to conflict. It further discusses the way in which IDEA, an IGO with a softer mandate, has responded to the debate on term limits, as well as the output of a number of other international act...