THW amend the constitution to allow the presidents to re-run for office

 [Proposition]

Democratic nations such as Korea, Philippines, Mexico and 10 other nations, have limited presidents to re-run for office. Such system does not guarantee democratic principles and should amend its constitutions to get rid of the limitations.

Majority of nations, such as the United States, allow presidents to run for office more than once. We also support such approach, but in addition we will propose that there should be no limits on the number of terms for presidency.This not only guarantee principle justification, but also provide tangible benefits to democratic nations.

We want to clarify that we do not want a dictative presidents to take the position multiple times. We believe that the context of this debate should a mature democratic nations, where citizens are given enough information to make rational choices. In such context, allowing unlimited terms for presidents simply means that qualified and chosen presidents will remain in power, not dictators.

Furthermore, presidents do not have the power to create a new constitution that is favorable for the president. That is the citizens power.

Constructive Case 1: Limits on presidential candidates “Harm the right of citizens to choose their representatives”

#1. What should be the standard for presidential candidacy?

• In democratic nations, the most important qualification for a representative should be the support of the people. Individual's’ educational, financial, and political backgrounds can be one of the criteria people may take into consideration, but the priority should be the citizens will. For instance, most democratic nations require individuals to prove that certain number of the citizens support this person.

• Why? This is because modern democracy is primarily about representatives reflecting the will of the general public. To satisfy this principle, candidates in democracies must be individuals who have been approved by the citizens and citizens only.

 

#2. Why do we believe that the limits on presidential term harm this core value of democracy?

• Such system ignores the most important qualification for a candidacy- the support of the citizens. If majority of the citizens show the willingness to be represented by the the current president again, not allowing that person to be the candidate is clearly harming the principle of representation. True democratic elections should not be a process where citizens are asked to choose a representatives amongst the candidates decided by the government since it narrows down the options for citizens.

 

Constructive Case 2:  Limits on presidential candidates “Limit the quality of government policies”

#1. What kind of policies should be promoted by the presidents and how?

• On a broad level, government’s policies should focus on ensuring the the maximum benefits for citizens. It is also the role of the government to care for those who are in need of assistance.

• The real issue we need to consider is how should such goals be carried out? We believe that the ideal approach for governmental policies, is to make a ‘long-term stable plan’. This is primarily because the developing a nation is not an easy one. It simply takes long time for a government to finish a task. But more importantly, it requires enough time for society to fully accept and adapt to this new policies. For instance, enough time is required for society to fully utilize an educational policies.

 

#2. Why is it hard to achieve long-term policies under current system?

• In societies where the presidents change after every elections, existing policies are unlikely to be continued. When new presidents take the positions, they want to establish an unique legacy of their own. If they simply follow the existing policies, it does not leave any significant impact to their political reputations. This is especially highlighted when opposing party wins the presidency. Despite the fact that existing policies require more time, due to the clash of political interest, it is not likely to get continues support by the new president. Such problem either leads to policies based on short term, or wasting government resources by neglecting existing long term plans.

 

Constructive Case 3:  Abolishing limits on presidential candidates “Ensure positive political outcomes”

 

#1. Solving the problem of Lame Duck

• The problem of a limited terms for presidency is that the president lose the enough power over the members of administrations and the ability to balance political parties. When the president have enough time before the end of his or her term, administrations function well under the control over the president. This also applies to political parties as well. It is more likely for the parties to cooperate with the president’s plan. We are not trying to argue that government members and politicians to obey the orders of presidents. As a matter of fact, we want balance of power and productive criticisms too.

• The problem of lame duck issue is that president’s decisions are simply ignored when it seems to be controversial. This is also due to the collision of political interest. Politicians avoid being involved in president’s stance on sensitive issues, since it may impact their political status when the next president’s stance is different. This push the politicians and other branches of power to not even provide healthy and productive discussion to the issue.

 

#2. Motivating the presidents to continue their duty

• De-motivation to engage in controversial issue is not only a problem of politicians. Presidents also lose the incentive to actively engage in their works at the end of their term. This is mainly due to the reason that they do not want any negative impact in the process of dealing with sensitive, yet important issue. Especially when there isn’t any clear political reward, such as being re-elected, most presidents simply focus on finishing the term and tossing issue to the successor.

• When presidents have guarantee that their efforts to engage in social issues at any point, would be rewarded as being re-elected, it will incentivise them to be active until the very end of their term, which is failing to be re-elected.

 

---



 [Opposition]

 

The main keywords that are often used in discussion for democracy is choice and freedom. Whereas we respect and value these terms, we believe that these should not be accepted in our society as an absolute principle. We are mainly going to prove why limiting terms for presidency is justifiable, but moreover  we will prove that limiting terms actually ensure fair and healthy democracy.

 

Constructive Case 1: Limits on presidential candidates “Ensure equal opportunities in a democratic society”

#1. What are the values we prioritize in democracy?

-       In a representative democracy where citizens are choosing the representatives, we must ensure that all individuals are given equal opportunities for political positions. The proposition team would understand this opportunity to run for office as ‘people having unlimited opportunities’. However, being provided with equal opportunity is what’s important. We believe that unlimited terms for presidents severely harm this principle.

 

#2. Why do we believe that abolishing term limits invade the right of other candidates?

• We believe that the competition between current presidents and new candidates are more likely to result in victory of the incumbent. This is mainly due to the fact such competition itself is unfair competition to begin with. There are several reasons why.

• Firstly, incumbents usually have more political reputations among the general population. The facts that he or she is the president have provided much more opportunities to that person. For one thing, exposure to general population is significantly higher than the new candidate. Considering the fact that most of the political campaigns are focused on increasing the awareness of the candidates, rather than specific policies of candidates, incumbents have significant advantage over their competitors.

• Second, it’s not just the fame the incumbents have advantage over, but the opportunity to prove and appeal their talent. Presidents have had much more opportunity to prove their ability as an appropriate representative. They were the ones that had the power and to actually execute policies due to their position as a president. In contrast, compared to the incumbents, competitors did not have enough means and opportunities to show their abilities as a leader. This means that citizens are unable to fully compare the potentials and abilities of both candidates. In such case, how is it a fair and equal chance for both the citizens and the candidates?

 

Constructive Case 2: The accused problem of limiting presidential terms are flawed

We believe that the most of the accused problems of limited presidential terms are not something that can be solved by implementing unlimited terms. As a matter of fact, many of those problems are not really a problem to begin with.

#1. The claim that presidents lack time to execute long term policies

• We believe that presidents in most democratic nations actually have enough time to execute their policies. In case of South Korea, presidents are given 5 full years to implement and execute policies for the society. As a matter of fact, they actually had more than 5 years.

• Before the candidate officially announces that he or she is going to run for office, they prepare a set of goals and policies they wish to promote. Unless such political promises are urgently made without any consideration, each candidate has enough time to seek for advises of professionals and plan out specific details. On top of this, they have 5 years simply to carry out that “planned” policies.

#2. The problems of lame duck

• We agree that the problems of lame duck do exist. However, we don’t think this is a problem of limited presidency. As a matter of fact, it shouldn’t be a problem to begin with.

• We would argue that the reason why lame duck phenomenon happens in the first place is due to the lack of ability of the presidents. If the president is actually capable of providing a reasonable and beneficial policy, there is no reason for the politicians to deny this policy. In fact, if politicians decided to not cooperate in such case, they would not be able to avoid criticism from the rational public to cast the vote.

• Even if it happens in all presidents, we would still argue that it would continue to exist even under the government teams model (IF THEY DEFINE IT AS AMERICAN PRESIDENCY MODEL). It would be simply delaying the lame duck issue until the second term.

 

Constructive Case 3: Limits on presidential terms “Ensure positive political outcomes”

#1. Allows presidents to make better and necessary decisions

• When presidents are given the chance to run for office without limitations, this hinders their ability to make bold decisions that are necessary. Why? Since they are always under the influence of campaign mode, it encourages them to make policies based on popularity. They fear the public’s criticisms, if they were to deal with sensitive issues.

• For instance, Barak Obama could not initiate the immigration reform during his first term of presidency. He was concerned with the idea of losing votes through pushing a controversial policy. As a matter of fact, only when he was confirmed the positions of his last term, he then promoted such controversial policies.

• Term limits encourage presidents to make bold decisions without being swayed. This is actually much more democratic, since this is the way to keep the political promise he made to his supporters.

#2. The two-term limit support the multiple party system in democratic nations

• We believe that limiting presidential terms also aid the existing party system in democratic societies. In case where the president is able to run for office multiple times, the party in which the president is from, tend to be unwilling to support a new candidate. For instance, Democratic parties are less likely to support another candidate if the current president is already from the Democratic Party.

• This hinders the ability to provide diverse pool of candidates in our society. Such political stagnation only reduces the opportunity of individuals opportunity to participate in politics but also to be fully represented.