International Business Development Consultant
The Case for Term Limits in Government
Given the current discussions going on both here in Israel as well as in the United States regarding term limits, their existence, application and meaning, it is probably worth looking at both places and seeing how we differ, whether we differ, and how best to move forward.
In the US, the issue of term limits for the President is unequivocally controlled by the 22nd amendment to the Constitution which states: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
One would think that this is very clear in its language. Indeed, just last week, during President Trump’s Asia visit, when he was asked about his interest in a possible third term, he said clearly that while he might like that the Constitution does not permit it. Taken at face value, that should end the discussion.
However, we know that Trump’s respect for the Constitution is at a pretty low level when it conflicts with something he sets his mind to achieve. Witness his battle against birthright citizenship, which is clearly defined in the 14th Amendment, where it is written: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Nevertheless, in spite of the clarity of the language, government attorneys have used the argument that this amendment was written at the time to clarify the reality of the day and was not meant to apply many years in the future in a situation where people might travel to the US solely to have their children there so that they will be considered US citizens.
Therefore, it is not surprising that former disgraced presidential advisor Steve Bannon said in a televised interview last month that “there is a plan to make it possible for Trump to run for a third term and it will be shared at the proper time.” One does not have to be a genius to figure out what he has in mind, given the logic that was applied to the effort to reinterpret the intent of the 14th Amendment.
Government lawyers will probably make the case that the 22nd amendment was a reaction to Franklin Roosevelt’s having been elected four times in the 1930s and 40s. However, they will posit that it only applies to consecutive terms, which was the situation in Roosevelt’s case, and not if there is a break in terms of service, as there was with Trump. Given the President’s seeming control of the US Supreme Court, there is every likelihood that they might support it. That possibility, coupled with everyone knowing that often when Trump says he is not interested in something, it actually means he is interested, sets up a scenario that could conceivably enable him to defy the Constitution in this case.
In Israel, however, we are dealing with a different situation. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been in office, cumulatively, for over 18 years. After so many years in office and now in his 77th year of life, one would think he would be ready to leave the position when this Knesset term ends in 2026 and let younger people take over. Of course, everyone who has ever held such a position knows how difficult it is to give it up, how he/she believes that only they can lead, and that nobody will be as good as they are. Yet, heaven forbid, if an act of nature were to cut short the life of any country’s leader, there is no doubt that others would surface to take their place.
There is, of course, no legislation here that deals with the issue of term limits. To be sure, Netanyahu has always been against the concept. When it was raised legislatively by Gideon Sa’ar the last time in 2021, Netanyahu voiced his strong objections, and the bill did not move forward. Given his current political strength, it is unlikely that such legislation would pass while he is Prime Minister.
Surprisingly, even the Israel Democracy Institute, which one would think would be in favor of the idea, has noted that the idea of term limits is not compatible with Israel’s system of government. Nevertheless, democracies that place no limit on the length of time one person can serve as the head of the government run the risk of having that power used in an autocratic way.
Prolonged stays in power, whether in a corporation or a government, concentrate authority in a way that can lead to corruption, reduced empathy, and a decline in institutional effectiveness. This risk is so significant that many democratic systems have adopted term limits to ensure regular leadership transitions.
The economist Milton Friedman said: “The power to do good is also the power to do harm; those who control the power today may not tomorrow; and, more important, what one man regards as good, another may regard as harm.”
To ensure that people in leadership positions do not misuse their power, well-functioning democracies pass laws controlling how long people can stay in power so that the electorate is as protected as possible from the wanton misuse of the power that often comes with longevity in office.
Given all of this, one could make a strong case for term limits as a major obstacle to the emergence of autocrats, even if they see themselves as benevolent despots rather than ruthless dictators. In an age when democracies worldwide seem at risk, any extra protection that the governed can place on the governing body would seem to be worthy of consideration.
Both Israel and the US will be dealing with the issue of succession in the relatively near future with few functioning guard rails, if any, to keep the process in line. For the sake of both our democracies, let us hope that the right choices will be made.