John Howard and Term Limits

Over on the other side of the world something quite interesting has happened. After 11 years in power, John Howard has been summarily booted from office. And, to top off the indignity, it looks as if he has lost his seat as well in the landslide against his government. Why did he suffer such a massive defeat? You could argue it was his policy on Iraq. You could argue it was his policy on the environment. But ultimately, the truth seems to be that after 11 years in power, people were just sick of him.

Now, you could blast the Australian electorate for rejecting someone on such spurious grounds, but that is ultimately pointless. People vote for politicians for a variety of different reasons – some of those reasons may be dumb, but the joy and the problem with democracy is that people will vote for many different and very disparate reasons. It seems that people in Australia just wanted a change.

The more interesting thing to observe is how politicians act. Had he not run for a fifth time, and instead stood down, then Howard might have been remembered as one of Australia’s most successful Prime Ministers. And Howard is not alone in this desire some politicians have to go "on and on." But those who do go on and on tend to end up leaving office under a cloud, if not in total defeat.

Look Thatcher and Blair. Both of them never lost an election – in fact, at the ballot boxes, they were both phenomenally successful. But Thatcher was forced from office by her own party, event though she wanted to go on, because she had lost the confidence of part of her party and because she was no longer seen as a election winner. Blair was forced to announce his timetable for resigning a year before he actually stood down, in the wake of poor local election results and amidst scandal surrounding his key political allies. His regime ended not with a bang, but with a whimper. A lame duck PM, forced from office.

Compare this with the US, where Presidents can only stand for two terms. Bill Clinton never lost a Presidential election, and despite his many flaws and mistakes whilst in office, he is remembered fondly by a lot of America. The term limits means Bush Junior will be saved from the ignominy of not standing/not getting the Republican nomination, or losing the General Election, next year. In the US, Presidents can’t go on and on, meaning few of them are forced from office, utterly compromised and broken.

So what is the solution? Should we introduce term limits? Should Australia?

My answer is no. Frankly, I don’t care if politicians decide to go on and on and end up screwing their political legacy as a result. That is their choice, and if they are naïve enough to think that it will never happen to them they are fools.

But also because, as the Australian election so comprehensively proves, we do have term limits – both here and in Australia.

They are called elections.