Democracy not about term length

DEAR SIR — I do not agree with US President Barack Obama (pictured). What is important about a presidency is not how short a period you stay but what you do with the mandate of being president for the people who gave you the mandate.

The only reason anyone would want to assume power for the shortest time possible would be because they have no vision or plan for the country and its people. The success of the likes of Malaysia and Singapore were not because someone stayed for two days as head of state but because those who assumed power had a vision and a plan to make their countries great. Margaret Thatcher had a vision and a plan for the economic recovery of the UK. She stayed on for a third term to ensure she could realise her vision.

Yes, it also matters how you obtain the mandate. It must be constitutional. Therefore Thatcher, Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel cannot be said to have overstayed their welcomes by holding their positions for more than two or three terms. Their countries’ constitutions allow it and it is the choice of the citizens of their countries that they be in the positions for that long.

The essence of democracy is that the majority rules. Limitation on how long anyone can be president should be the desire of the majority, not constitutional dictation.

The reality is that in the real world, no majority of vigilant, informed and caring citizens has ever allowed anyone to “rule” forever. Most of those dictators in Africa and elsewhere who have occupied positions of authority for ridiculously long periods did so by foul means.

Dr Kenosi Mosalakae Houghton