"How many times can one be prime minister?"
Omar Siddiquee, New York
I found the post-editorial “How many times can one be prime minister?” by Syed Badrul Ahsan to be lacking in giving a thorough review of the idea of term limits. While Mr. Ahsan had every right to hold and support the position he expresses, he also had an obligation to serve his reader with the rationale for supporting term limitations so that we could consider both perspectives. Mr. Ahsan brought up comparisons with the UK, Malaysia, Spain and Turkey, but he left out investigating why limitations on the number of terms served by a leader exists at all, and goes on practised in the United States. Were those reasons expressed, I am sure even he knows many of the readers would feel that Bangladesh would be an ideal candidate for such limitations. So what are the arguable benefits of having a limit to the number of terms a prime minister can serve? First of all, it creates the sense throughout the established parties that they need to keep an eye on their direction and ideals independently from their now-temporary chairpersons. Knowing that a leader is only a leader for so long forces the party to consider where the party should be headed after that leader is gone. Where the party may have been a disappointment to the people throughout the tenure of one leader, such limits give people a definite horizon from where they can route a new message. Thus term limit forces political parties to assume a more fluid and dynamic position, and it forces them to seek out new characters and minds to replace established leaders. The example of England and Margaret Thacher was used by Mr. Ahsan to suggest such a change can naturally occur even without term limits. Well, this isn't England. This is Bangladesh, where leaders feel no shame in using coercion and bribery to maintain their power. That problem brings us to the second argued rationale for term limits. Term limits effectively disable the ability of party leaders to use their position at the top to maintain their hold by exerting their power and influence. We all know the feelings of despair at seeing our political leaders bow their heads to the royalty that is their chairperson, and neglect the demands of their voters. Yes, royalty is the only correct term to describe both the families of Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina. They came to power based on the leaders they were related to, and they intend to leave power with their children. Term limits would change that though. Knowing the leader in power will inevitably be replaced gives us reason to believe a time will come when one of the two parties will see being answerable to the people as a legitimate alternative to their current practices of servility to the established royalty. Without such limits, within the party infrastructure, to any single professional member of that party, the influence of the people pales in strength when compared to the influence of the party chairperson and her devout lackeys. Periodically, dethroning them forces the parties and their memberships to consider being answerable to us. What we are left with are parties responsible to their supporters amongst the people, and not the established leadership.
|
|
