• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    161 year ago

    Term limits should really be a default position if one is to defend their democracy

    Term limits are inherently undemocratic, and insistence by Westerners that everyone has to have them is pure American exceptionalism.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Not really, the difference between two people of the same ideology to fulfill your democratic needs whom one can find in a population of a few million can be very small.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        10
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Doesn’t change the fact that banning people from running for election is inherently undemocratic. In practice they’re mostly used by the West to prevent political change domestically, and to justify overthrowing democratically elected leaders overseas

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          121 year ago

          Doesn’t change the fact that banning people from running for election is inherently undemocratic.

          Something being democratic is not the only criterion, because you wouldn’t want your neighbors to vote in favor of collectively owning you as a slave, even if your vote against gets counted.

          It’s just one safety measure - if a politician still would win an election after 8 years (life changes entirely in only 1 year), for example, that’s likely for wrong reasons. Like using administrative resource, pro-government mass media, crooked elites etc.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

      That is an L take. Having a term limit helps increase the difficulty of making political dynasties. It doesn’t make it impossible, but it sure is gonna make it harder for a certain person or group to solidify their power base.