Term Limits and Rule of Law
Rule of law means that there is an objective set of laws that applies to everyone. Nobody is above the law. The alternative is rule by power. Those who have political power determine the rules and enforce them on the masses. Without rule of law, rules are subject to change, depending on the preferences of the politically powerful. Without rule of law, the rules constraining the masses do not apply to the powerful.
One criticism sometimes leveled against term limits is that it takes time to learn how to do the job and that by term-limiting people out of office, citizens lose the benefit of the institutional knowledge the officeholders have accumulated. This argument has several shortcomings.
The most significant problem with that argument is that the institutional knowledge officeholders acquire includes ways to use their power to evade the legal constraints designed to prevent the abuse of that power. The longer an individual holds political power, the more experience that individual gains. The inside knowledge that officeholders acquire enables them to discover ways to work around the constraints that come with rule of law.
What those elected officials need to know to do their jobs is a part of rule of law. Legal institutions specify the powers and obligations of elected officeholders, and rule of law means that those who hold elected office abide by those institutional constraints. The law gives officeholders well-defined instructions on their exercise of power from day one.
The longer someone is in office, the more able that person is to find ways to evade the constraints embodied in rule of law, to expand and abuse their powers. The institutional knowledge people gain while in office includes, among other things, ways to avoid the institutional constraints that are designed to limit the abuse of political power.
A related argument in support of term limits is that the electoral process gives an advantage to incumbents. Elections are not held on a level playing field, so incumbents have an overwhelming advantage. With term limits, those who have political power know they cannot keep it forever, so they have less of an incentive to expand the powers attached to the offices they temporarily hold. Doing so temporarily increases their power, but permanently gives more power to those who replace them.
Another advantage of term limits is that they break the relationship between lobbyists and legislators. Over time, legislators are visited by the same lobbyists, creating a personal relationship between them. Term limits break those relationships, so lobbyists must develop new relationships when new legislators take office. That takes time, which lessens the influence of special interests.
When opponents of term limits talk about the benefits of retaining institutional knowledge, they never consider repealing the term limits on the American presidency. Term limits have worked well when applied to the President of the United States. Do those who oppose term limits think that being a Senator, Representative, city commissioner, or school board member requires more experience and more institutional knowledge to get up to speed than being the president?
The longer people hold political power, the more adept they become at undermining rule of law. We should not want officeholders to become too skilled at exercising political power. To maintain rule of law, people who hold political power should be replaced on a regular basis. Among the many arguments that support term limits, their role in preserving rule of law is the most important.
The post Term Limits and Rule of Law appeared first on The Beacon.
