Such an assumption is speculative and will put Indonesian democracy at risk. The longer the presidential term of office, the higher the possibility for development to face danger.

The rationale is the following. First, extending the term of office would lead to a greater concentration of power in one person. This is even more pertinent under a presidential system of government, which already places the center of power in the hands of the president as a person. The presidential system is less flexible in dealing with dynamic political developments than the parliamentary system, as the latter enables the prime minister to dissolve the parliament and organize an election on brink of a nonconfidence vote.

When challenged, a president may abuse power and slip to authoritarianism with a pretext for maintaining stability. Checks and balances between branches of power are fragile in the presidential system because a president may exercise authority to appoint judges or to influence an agenda in the parliament. This explains why the term of office under the presidential system is stricter compared to the parliamentary system.

In the parliamentary system, there are relatively no restrictions in the terms of office for a prime minister or head of government. In Germany, chancellor Helmut Kohl was in power for 16 years before being replaced by Angela Merkel, who has now served for 14 years and can complete her term in 2021.

In Asia, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has been in power since 2004, making him the second-longest-serving leader after his father Lee Kuan Yew, who ruled for over 30 years and remained highly influential even after retiring. Having no term limit allows someone like Shinzo Abe, the prime minister of Japan, to run for office and regain power despite his resignation in 2007.

Second, studies on the correlation between the political system of government and the success of development are still very limited. Most studies on presidential term limits are associated with democratic consolidation rather than the success or failure of a country’s economic development.

The key indicator of democratic consolidation is the exercise of democratic principles such as the rule of law, the independent justice system, free and fair elections and also a civil society that tolerates pluralism and highly respects human rights values. Unfortunately, democratic consolidation is never linear; a democracy may fall to authoritarianism when antidemocratic forces rise.

Third, the experience of most of the Sub-Saharan African countries shows that changing the presidential term limit has led to a lower level of freedom according to Freedom House. Angola, the Central African Republic, the Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Rwanda, Cameroon, Nigeria and Malawi fall under this category. In their early days of independence in the 1970s, the countries were led by authoritarian heads of government, who could reign for decades by silencing the opposition.

By the 1990s some of these countries banished authoritarianism and promoted a competitive and democratic political system by, among others, limiting the president’s term of office to two periods. Leaders in other countries, however, tried to contravene their terms of office in a bid to cling to power through a referendum or parliamentary changes.

Other scholars such as Gideon Maltz categorized the change of terms of office to two groups: “the hard contravene”, in which the government simply eliminates constitutional provisions on term limits, and “the soft contravene”, through which the government stays in power in excess of the tenure that the constitution initially mandates but without entirely eliminating term-limit provisions.

The second model can materialize through a judicial ruling or constitutional amendments, e.g. making their first term not count. The Sub-Saharan African countries are mostly categorized in hard contravention and end up joining the ranks of authoritarian regimes.

As Dennis Tull and Claudia Simons found in their work published in 2017, countries that successfully contravene the presidential term limits experience a decline in freedom.

Indonesia’s current presidential term was a result of a national consensus. It was a response to the failure of the previous authoritarian leadership model. The nation agreed that allowing power to accumulate over a long period of time was prone to abuse and a return to authoritarianism.

We learned that the success of economic development could not justify authoritarianism because corruption, collusion and nepotism grew along with centralized and unchecked power. In order to end poverty or combat inequality, working through democratic institutions, political parties and civil society groups would be more appropriate than handing power to an individual president.

To make sure the presidency positively correlates with economic development, an efficient, inclusive and transparent system is needed. This applies not only to the executive branch but also the legislature.

Changing the term of office won’t be effective when the executive and legislative powers ignore the principles of democracy. Political parties should promote social justice rather than the politics of transactions that would only satisfy the elite.

The values of social justice should serve as the lighthouse that will help the nation avoid rocks and reefs that could sink our boat. People’s welfare could not happen without fresh ideas and transformation of attitudes, as our history has told us.

_________________

Associate professor in international relations and senior policy adviser for the Foundation of International Human Rights Standards.

Popular

Stocks sink, oil surges on reports of Middle East attacks

Israel launches strike against Iran: US media

North Sulawesi volcano eruption forces evacuations, airport closure