Is Anwar’s Two-Term Limit for PMs a Good Idea?
Is Anwar’s Two-Term Limit for PMs a Good Idea?
On January 5, in his New Year address, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim announced a number of very promising reforms, some of which his party had campaigned on at the 2022 election – and which, presumably because of the drubbing Anwar’s administration is getting in the polls, the shakiness of his unity government, and the accusations that he’s betrayed the reformasi movement, are intended to win back many of the people who’ve accused his government of being too slow on change and too friendly to the corrupt and the old guard. The separation of the offices of the Attorney-General and the Public Prosecutor is clearly a good idea. Tabling the Ombudsman Bill and the Freedom of Information Bill in parliament this month is welcome.
The more interesting policy recommendation is to introduce a constitutional term limit for prime ministers of two full terms, or ten years. “Everybody has their limits. The chief secretary to the government cannot stay for decades. This applies to everyone, including the prime minister,” Anwar said on January 5.
His Pakatan Harapan alliance included a term-limit reform in its 2022 manifesto and has campaigned on it since at least the 2018 election. A parliamentary bill was drafted by the alliance in 2019. Whenever he has spoken on the issue, Anwar can’t help but take a swipe at former premier and éminence grise Mahathir Mohamad, who had stayed in power for 22 years between 1981 and 2003, and then another 22 months after 2018. Ironically, Mahathir supported the term-limits idea when it was debated in 2018.
At first glance, this appears a sensible idea. Term limits could constrain executive power, prevent the concentration of power in a single individual, and ensure a regular circulation of politicians within a political party, so that one generation or faction doesn’t remain at the helm for too long. What’s not to like? But consider it for a little longer.
The idea has a smattering of being a low-cost, populist appeal. It wouldn’t require any financial commitment and, permitting a two-thirds vote in parliament, would be easily implementable. It’s ostentatiously self-deprecating, since it would allow Anwar to say that he’s willing to bind his own hands.
The knee-jerk appeal has allowed for some sloppy thinking. One Malaysian professor was quoted in a local news article claiming that the reform would put Malaysia in line with “mature democracies.” Yet term limits in parliamentary systems are almost unheard of. The U.K. doesn’t have them, nor do Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or Japan. I believe that only Bhutan, Eswatini, and Thailand have term limits for prime ministers, none of which could be called a “mature democracy”. (Thailand’s limit was introduced in the military junta-written 2017 constitution.)
Term limits make sense in presidential systems, where the executive has far more unchecked power than prime ministers in parliamentary systems, and where the electorate votes specifically for an individual rather than a political party. That a prime minister is also an MP, must command the confidence of parliament, and can be removed by a vote of no confidence, is meant to be the check.
If the person is capable and their party continues to be re-elected fairly, it wouldn’t be a terrible thing for a foreign minister or a finance minister to remain in office for a decade or two. Equally, if elected in fair and free elections, why shouldn’t an MP hold the same seat for decades? Indeed, it would be rather undemocratic if MPs had term limits (thereby denying constituents the right to vote for a local representative that they respect and prefer), just as it would be wrong to constitutionally limit one political party from controlling a constituency seat for more than a set period of time.
Most advanced democracies have states, provinces, or cities that have been governed by the same party for many decades. I believe I’m right in saying that the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) has ruled the state of Kelantan since 1990, yet unless we are to assume the entire Malaysian political process is rigged and unfair, then the PAS’ control of that state reflects the will of the people of Kelantan, for better or for worse.
Why should a prime minister be an exception? Granted, a PM has more power than any other elected politician, not least the ability to dismiss or reshuffle ministers. Yet much of this power is a fiction. More importantly, term limits aren’t really the cure for the disease they purport to be. They don’t really prevent a dictator-like figure from circumventing the rules. One unintended consequence might be to embolden dynasticism, with a term-limited leader stepping down but still leading through a child or spouse.
Mahathir might have been in power for 22 years, but this was because his Barisan Nasional alliance consistently won elections. The problem wasn’t that Barisan Nasional didn’t rotate its premiers during that period; it was that Barisan Nasional maintained power for six decades by gerrymandering, patronage and repression. Had Malaysia had term limits for prime ministers during that period, there would still have been a problem with one-party dominance. Furthermore, except for Mahathir, only one other Malaysian prime minister has served for more than ten years: Tunku Abdul Rahman, from 1957 to 1970. The three PMs before Anwar didn’t last two years in office. As things are going, Anwar probably won’t get a second term. And given how Malaysian politics has fractured since 2008, it’s probable that no coalition will again be able to control power for an extended period in any case.
David Hutt/The Diplomat
