That world leaders should have term limits

Kush

Hello, Conor. It’s very nice and satisfying to be debating with you on this topic. So, without further ado, let’s get right to it.

Introduction

World leaders, what are they? They are basically the head or the political leader of their own respective countries. They have gotten to that post by winning the support and the trust of their people, in most cases. But, should they have specified and preliminary decided tenures? Absolutely. The PRO side is going to be convincing everyone why, by looking and extensively analyzing every scenario. But, we are not going to be comparing what could have been, because that is just not realistic. We are only going to be talking about what is, the events that have actually occurred.

The first example I will be making is of is the United States of America. In the US, every president has two consecutive 4-year terms at most. And now when we look today, US is one of the most and if not the most powerful country in the world. Of course, there are a lot of reasons for that, but one key factor is their past and present leaders. Each of the 45 presidents has made some important decision that has revolutionized US and sometimes the whole world. George Washington, the first and the most famous president, because of his bravery and leadership the US was able to gain independence. But this wasn’t the only outcome. US started a very important trend, independence, they were the ones that started the idea that countries could be independent from the British. Now, what I want to highlight is that each president has had his own importance. This has been possible because they all had different ideas and ideologies. Abraham Lincoln believed in solving matters discreetly while Franklin Delano Roosevelt believed in strong-arming the opponent and making his presence noted. But, both of them revolutionized US. Would this revolution had been possible if there wasn’t any term limit? No!

Let us look at another example, India. India gained independence in 1947, and their constitution came into effect in 1950. One of the most important laws highlighted was that each Prime Minister (PM) will have unlimited 5-year terms. There were a lot of leaders who were power-thirsty. The citizens of India were quick to realize their mistake and fix it. This wouldn’t have had been possible if there hadn’t been any fixed tenure.

The very important feature of democracy is leaders change and that is a good thing. This is because it brings different ideologies to the front stage, it allows the citizens to grasp and understand different point of views.

The key factors of tenures are:

· Assurance to citizens of rectifying their mistakes

· Guarantee that no leader has unlimited power at his disposal

· No leader can take their place for granted

· Assurance that the leader realizes his job, servitude

· Bringing up of different ideologies

· Getting a look at different point of views

· Making the nation successful

I have only given two examples of how countries who have tenures have become successful. One is a world power and another is a world’s largest democracy. There are about 80% of the countries who have limited tenures and almost all of them have made a name for themselves and are a force to be reckoned with. Of course, there are countries who have unlimited leadership and have made a name for themselves and are a force to be reckoned with. So, what is the difference between having tenures and not having them? The difference is that the citizens of the countries who have tenures are happy, happy because they have political liberty, happy because they know that they make a difference in making their country better.

So now, the question I would like to the CON is that why are term limits unnecessary?