Should Caricom leaders have term limits?

The issue has been raised in St Vincent, Guyana and St Kitts - and in Antigua the opposition Labour Party included limits in its manifesto for this year's election.

In Guyana, the president is limited to two terms, likewise in Haiti.

In the Dominican Republic, where there is a history of dictatorships, Congress moved in 1994 to bar sitting presidents from seeking new terms, but lifted the ban in 2002, allowing them to run for four more years.

Last month, Congress voted to outlaw consecutive presidential terms but to allow unlimited non-consecutive re-election.

Under the new constitution for the Cayman Islands, the Premier, as the head of government will be called, will not be able to serve for more than two straight terms.

And President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela recently won a referendum allowing him to run for the presidency for life.

Commenting on the situation in Guyana, Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines declared that it was a matter for “the people to decide”.

He also feels that term limitations deprive Caribbean people of quality leaders, who he said are already scarce in the region.

“There is already a shortage of quality leadership. Why impose artificial limits?” he asked during the recent Caricom summit in Guyana.

On the other hand, Sir Probyn Inniss, a former governor general of St Kitts and Nevis, strongly favours term limits for heads of government.

In an interview with BBC Caribbean, he stated: “After they’ve done two successive terms they tend to be out of control: are more concerned about their legacy; their place in history; and much less concerned about the wishes of the people, (their) party itself, and succession…”

Listen to interview

So what do you think?

Should Caribbean leaders be restricted to term limits?

If so, for how long?

If, not, then why not?

Listen to Ken Richard's report on term limits debate

Editor's note: BBC Caribbean forums are moderated

I do not agree with term limits, it restricts the wishes of the people. Whether there are term limits or not, if a leader wants to abuse his/her powers it can be done. Once that person has the support in parliament and among the people the constitution can and will be changed to facilitate this process. Currently we have seen many leaders around the world are doing so; some succeed, others have difficulty, while others failed. What needs to happen especially in the Caribbean region is that there must be a system of checks and balances which must be respected at all times. In my humble opinion there is no system of checks and balances in the region. Leaders who swore to be the servants of the people are behaving as the masters of the people, and therefore lead to a state of what I term, Elected Dictatorship. The people of the region have to speak out more and let their political leaders know that they will no longer submit to such types of behaviour. The Power lies in the people. People, take your right seriously and get more involved in the governance of your respective countries.
Curtis
St. Kitts and Nevis

Caribbean politicians should be limited only by the number of terms to which the people elect them under fair, democratic conditions. Imposed term limits will introduce a degree of instability which the Caribbean can hardly afford. We know that in our Caribbean culture some leaders want to erase all semblance of past leadership in order to leave their own legacy. Are we going to put dollar-limits on the amount of money spent for all of the sub-changes that are bound to accompany the introduction of term limits? As far as I know, even when a government begins to feel it "owns the country" after a period of about ten years, the people by then would have observed that government over enough of a time period to feel CERTAIN that, that government has run out of ideas, has become complacent, and it is time for that government to be replaced. If we think that we are unstable in any sense now, replace our leaders before the majority of people are ready for them to go and we will see that it will be just as chaotic, or worse than when the people want them to go and they won't.
Loughlin Tatem
Basseterre, St.Kitts

I do not support the concept of term limits for my country Barbados. From 1994 to 2008 we had a brilliant prime minister called Owen Arthur. In 1999 he conferred the worst ever political defeat to David Thompson who is now our current prime minister. Since coming to office, David Thompson has been a miserable failure as prime minister and as such, the electorate will decide in a few years whether to continue with his administration or return the Barbados Labour Party administration.
When you have good leadership, do not play with it. Leadership matters most!
Shawn Griffith
Bridgetown, Barbados

Any job with absolute security could lead to abuses. Referendums (yearly) can serve to keep leaders on their toes.
Hari
Trinidad

Gonsalves makes a statement that there is a shortage of good leaders in the Caribbean. What is the logical basis of this remark? Then a smart Alec compares the power of a political leader to that of a journalist by asking the journalist "how long have you been a journalist?" and when the journalist answers "24 years" the argument is made that if the journalist can be in a job for that long why not a Prime Minister. Are these the best arguments for removing term limits?!
All societies have people who want to serve the best interests of their societies. We in the Caribbean are too much into charisma and in some cases the pigmentation (or lack of same) of our potential leaders. We need to clearly define the qualities and characteristics of our potential leaders and yes...two terms for a total of 10 years is more than enough considering the power we vest in their hands. The people can decide if they want the new person to continue the policies of the last ten years if they really liked the outgoing person. That does not mean they have to have the outgoing person in power for another period.
Lennox Fraser
Toronto, Canada

They should definitely have a limit - recommended two terms, but this should not be imposed on the political leader alone but on the party of which he/she is a member. Our leaders have become laws onto themselves. Lets look at Trinidad for example where the PM has found baseless reasons for delaying the local government elections and to even to flout the law, with reference to the injunction with the smelter. Our leaders no longer listen to the people. The Law Association has indicated that they have no confidence in the AG of Trinidad but the PM refuses to accept his resignation. This I believe would be corrected if there was a limit to two terms in office.
Denise
D'Abadie, Trinidad

I strongly believe that the terms of service should be limited for PM's and Presidents to serve. But in order to do that, our Westminster system of governance should be changed to something like the French or American. There should also be certain criteria to be met before one can run for office. While you need certain credentials to be employed to do simple jobs, one with nothing at all can run for a political party and become a minister without any knowledge or expertise in the ministry he/she holds. The countries with ceremonial presidents should be voted by the people, and he would choose his cabinet from among the candidates who win the election from all the parties. We will have more effective governance in that way. He should serve for not more than two terms.
I think, in this way, no man will think he is indispensable.
Clayton Florent
Baie Mahault, Guadeloupe

I think that there should discussion on this, as the people need to fully understand the advantages and disadvantages of both.
Sid Clarke
Little Rock, AR USA

Scenario: Interviewer (journalist) and the Prime Minister.

Interviewer: Mr. Prime Minister, don't you think you have been Prime Minister long enough? Don't you think it is time for you to step down after serving in the position for 14 years?

Prime Minister: How long have you been working as a Journalist?

Interviewer: About 24 years.

Prime Minister: Don't you think you have been a journalist long enough? Don't you think it is time for you to step down after serving in the position for 24 years?

I rest my case.
Charles Jong
Basseterre, St. Kitts

I tend to agree with the writer who suggested two five year terms. I find that politicians, especially the heads of state tend to become more and more dictatorial after serving for a long time. In the same vein, I still believe that true democracy is preserved when the power to elect or not to elect remain with the people.
ES Smith
Virgin Islands

If they are restricted, they will remain popular depending on their development record. They should accept two terms so they can relax and enjoy the development they have facilitated. During the second term, they should be grooming their successor so that they can step down honourably.
Pauline Ngunjiri
Charlestown, St.Kitts and Nevis

I disagree. The problem is not term limits, it is our democratic system because democracy, by the nature of its design, degenerates into representative democracy. From that point onwards, all the adult individuals in the land who are NOT representatives, no longer live in the democracy in any valid political terms. Their only choice is who will "represent" them. As democracy degenerates, it is discovered by the ruling majority of representatives that they have to form committees amongst themselves, simply to function and to get anything done. Very soon, the chairmen of these committees start meeting amongst themselves behind closed doors, later to return to inform the other members of the majority of representatives what they have decided and what their majority will now have to vote for in the full chamber. Democracy degenerates further into "cabinet government", where each committee chairman is a member of the cabinet. Now, even the (majority of the) representatives are parked outside the place where the REAL political decisions are made. Their only purpose is to ratify decisions which they had no part in making. They are now "represented" in cabinet.
In the end, as all past political history shows, the cabinet chooses ONE man to speak and even to act for them all. Now, only he makes the final decisions. At this point, that same one man holds in his hands the politically poisoned root of the democratic idea. He, as a single man, holds in his hands UN-limited rule. Unlimited rule is the death of limited government. That is true whether the rule is by the one, by the few (the cabinet), or by the many, the majority of the "representatives".
Patrick Charles
Roseau, Dominica

I do not support term limits on elected leaders as this will take away from what democracy should be like. Yes, the people should make that choice whether to elect persons for more than two terms or even three.
I would go further and say that a system similar to that of Venezuela where all elected persons can be recalled by way of a referendum should be part of our system as well. This is giving the electorate the power to control their elected officials. Maybe it is time for us to study the Venezuelan system and stop criticising their president because even though he now can be elected as many times the same way our leaders can, there is always the possibility of a referendum half way through his term.
This is another way, and not implementing term limits,
Lincoln
St. Kitts and Nevis

I do not think terms limits should be imposed on leaders in a country where democracy is alive and well. I think the people have a right to decide, and no law should stipulate 2 terms in office or whatever. Anyone, who is in office can abuse power in one term, two terms, three terms or whatsoever, it’s all to do with that individual. There should be checks and balances within the system to hold leaders responsible for their action or inaction. We have intelligent people and we also have the opposition parties who can articulate and press their supporters for change of government of course through the democratic process…the ballot. Therefore, in my opinion to say limit the leaders to two terms in office and the electorate wants to continue with that leadership is counteractive to democracy. However, like all living beings we age day by day, so I believe successor(s) must be identified to carry on the work of the people and that there will be smooth transition from one person to the other, but I think the people must still decide if they want the named successor...it’s only democracy at its best.
Miranda
Saddlers, St. Kitts

While I agree that a change of leadership may be wise where there is a presidential system, this is not the case for parliamentary style system which most of the Caribbean still have. The prime minister is elected among his party members, and reflect who they believe is most suitable to run the country. It is then the people’s democratic right to vote for that person if they believe that he is the best person to run the country. Like Morgan said, it is not democratic to bar anyone from running, and the responsibility largely rest on the party members to select who they believe is most suited to represent them or two change that person if need arise. The problem lies in the powers placed in the prime minister. Where the system allows for autocracy to creep into supposedly democracy, then it has failed. This debate is more of a constitutional one.
I also agree with Sir (Probyn)Inniss’ statement to some extent. However, we cannot sacrifice good leaders, with good vision and excellent leadership qualities simple to force out a few bad eggs.
Westford Joseph
Kingstown, St.Vincent and the Grenadines

I do not subscribe to term limits in any democracy. If democracy is based on the principle of "rule of the people by the people" it would appear that the people should decide when they have had enough of their leaders and vote them out democratically. What I think needs to happen is: Caribbean systems of government need to be strengthened, such that it becomes difficult for any political party to become autocratic. (Perhaps a system of recall would be effective here.) However, in instances where a government is functioning effectively and to the benefit of the country, why limit it? If it becomes corrupt, the choice belongs to the people to end it. Further, many will recall what happened after Bill Clinton left the White House. What did we get? George Bush with his friends’ war and recession. And why? Because Clinton was limited to two terms. Think of small Caribbean countries facing a similar dilemma with a crisis of good leaders because persons are limited to two terms.
Gavin Emmanuel
Thibou's Estate, Antigua and Barbuda

Absolutely! Maximum term limit for a leader should be two terms which works out to 10 years in most of the Caribbean!
Lennox Lampkin
Kingstown, St. Vincent & the Grenadines

Definitely, there ought to be either a one or two term limit legally imposed, not only on the leaders of the government but on all elected (MP's,local gov't)offices of government.
However, I think the term of office ought to be seven years,as 5 year term have shown to be insufficient to see programme & policies matured.
There ought to be a fixed date for election too.
Presently we have a situation in Trinidad & Tobago where due local gov't elections have been postponed for the past 4 years at the behest of the Prime Minister and the ruling party!
J A Mayro
Trinidad and Tobago

On the first question; yes, Caribbean leaders should stick to term limits depends on how good of a leader he is and what the people who lives there feels. On the second question; if he is a leader who is for the people and takes care of business then sure he should be allowed to go over his time limit, if the people want him to. As a Guyanese I totally agree with Mr Gonsalves.
Fazelah Ali
Queens New York, USA

I see no benefit to term limits for a leader as long as there are free and fair elections. Political parties have a mechanism for choosing their leaders and are free to replace them as they see fit. Term limits risk wasting most of a five year period due to "lame-duck" status, where decisions are delayed, awaiting the leader to exit the scene, and people spend a good part of their time positioning for the leadership. A more meaningful reform would be to have a fixed date parliament. Additionally when new leaders come to power they should build on the previous governments' work instead of having to start from scratch.
Colville Ferdinand
Augusta, Georgia, USA

I support a maximum of 2 terms for a prime minister. Every prime minister has his own perspective and adds a particular value to the development of the country. Overall the blend of benefits from prime ministers over the years provides more holistic development for the country, especially in terms of infrastructure, agriculture, tourism, health and education.
Nicholas Rolle
Dominica

I am annoyed when people object to term limits on the assumption that our small size will prohibit us from finding persons to replace leaders. If those in leadership positions put in place succession plans and begin grooming other persons we would not have to make this a consideration. Taking this route may also provide opportunities to the many qualified persons we have who migrate to other countries taking away their skills and expertise from the region. Secondly, there are a number of potential leaders out there but these persons are reluctant to enter political races due to the nature of politics in the region. When we begin to discuss and debate issues, and place before the electorate plans instead of 'melee' these persons may step up to the plate.
Andrea Williams
Trinidad

I think Mr. Gonsalves has his answer. Terms limits are essential to the proper running of any country. Democracy demands it.
Devon
St.Eustatius, Netherlands Antilles

No! History has shown that imposing term limits has not stopped any president or head of state who has dictatorial desires or ambitions! They have all shown their true colours by rubbishing the constitution to maintain and consolidate their rule. So I ask myself, “What exactly does imposing term limits serve? What is its purpose? What are the objectives of term limits? What does it aim to solve?” If you believe that this will stop potential dictatorship or abuse of power, then you have no idea what has been happening in the real world.
I conclude by stating here that if a people so desire to keep re-electing the devil to lead them – then is that not their democratic right? In fact I will argue that term limit in itself is an assault on and not an aid to the democratic process.
Gerald J La Touche JP (Magistrate UK)

I have respected Prime Minister Gonsalves for his candour and his bold statements; however, his statement about the lack of quality leadership in the Caribbean is absolute rubbish. If quality leaders held the various positions as leaders in the Caribbean then we would not be "dilly dallying" so much with the regional integration process. There are good leaders around; we only need to look harder. I strongly believe in limiting the terms of office for leaders to eight years- two terms for the sake of the possible abuse of power. I have herd it said that "good leaders do not make followers but make more leaders". Just a little something for the leaders to take note of.
Abiose Thomas
Georgetown, Guyana

It is not a democratic process if anyone is barred but I agree that the Caribbean leaders are autocratic. It is up to the party to get rid of them after two terms. The junior politicians are generally spineless, so this is unlikely to be done.
JC Morgan
USA

Term limits are extremely essential in the caribbean right now. Governments should only have two terms.
Considering that Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves is trying to obtain a third term. Vincentians must be out of their minds. After two terms, move on give somebody else a chance. There are many innovative people waiting in line to serve St. Vincent.
Rose
USA

Two terms is enough for democratically elected leaders in the Caribbean. Right now there are two leaders that need to be thrown out of office; they are a disgrace to the people they serve and the region.
Y Paris
USA

Term limits is a brilliant idea because it forces the political infrastructure to think long term. One of the biggest problems in politics is that power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. If term limits are in place the political leaders will be forced to groom replacements to take over after their 10 yrs reign. Contrary to Prime Minister Raplph Gonsalves's view, I believe the problem is that it's difficult to see the forest (for) the trees. While they are in power of course they can't see, the people with excellent leadership qualities because all they are concentrating on is staying in power. Take the US into consideration, almost all the 2 term presidents did a worse job in the second term than in the first. Term limits will allows us to have fresh ideas coming to the political landscape all the time.
Daison Marks
Marigot, French St Martin

As one who would have seen the political systems in the Caribbean go through their various changes, I support two(2) terms. I lived in both Guyana and St.Vincent for the most of my life and saw the misuse of "POWER". I served my last ten years as Chief Electoral Officer of St Vincent and the Grenadines, and think that there should be a fixed Election Day and not Snap Elections, and two five-year terms. Remember,"POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY".
Ormond V Robertson
Snellville, USA