ISSUE #2: Term Limits (or, if you can't beat 'em, block 'em)

Term limits are an attractive argument at first blush, but not so easy to implement in parliamentary democracies.

In presidential systems like the USA, its easy. You just say "you cant stand for election more than twice." No, problem, because people run for President in the USA. Its an election where the entire country votes for 1 person or the other.

In parliamentary democracies, (i.e. prime minister systems) it doesn't work that way. Ralph and Arnhim don't run for prime minister – they run in their respective constituencies. so, Ralph is elected only by the people of north central windward, and Arnhim is elected only by the people of East Kingstown. Then, the party with the most seats selects the Prime Minister from among those who won seats. The people don't elect the Prime Minister, the party does.

Why does this matter? Lets work it through. How exactly would you effectively stop someone from being Prime Minister for more than X-number of terms? That person is not running for the post of Prime Minister. You can't do it by limiting the number of times a person runs in his constituency, because the number of years you are a representative and the number of years that you are a prime minister are not the same (Ralph, Arnhim and Sir James all held their seats for longer than they were PMs)

Interestingly, the USA does not limit the number of years you can hold your seat, which is why Ed Kennedy could be representative for Massachusetts for 40-something years. You can be elected Senator till you roll over and die. Robert Byrd has been representing West Virginia for over 50 years straight! 25 Senators have represented their state for over 33 years! (See the full list here).

OK, so you can't limit PM terms by limiting times you can run (as in the USA) because you are not running for Prime Minister. How about if you limit the number of times a party can make you its leader? that would cause other Constitutional issues, as a violation of the people's right to assemble/freedom of speech, etc. Do you want the Constitution interfering with the internal decision-making of a political party? Also, it would simply be cosmetic. The party would symbolically name someone else while the "real power" resided elsewhere.

OK... so how about just saying "no person shall be prime minister for more than X-number of years"? again, you have a problem: Lets say, for example, that the constitution said that no one could be PM for more than 10 years. Then lets apply that to our history: Suppose that was in place during the NDP's 17 years in office. After Sir James served 10, he would step down as PM, but not as Rep. for the Northern Grenadines!... he would not be the PM in name, but who do you think would be calling the shots in cabinet, where he would still be a member? Or if Ralph stepped down as PM but kept his seat in North Central; who would be the real PM? Sir Louis? please... Ralph would still be in the cabinet room, and he would still be the unquestioned decision-maker for the government. In fact, he could still be minister of finance, national security, grenadines affairs, airports and sea ports, etc. How would this change anything?

Constitutionally, a prime minister is accountable to the legislature (parliament) and his ruling party. When his party loses, he loses. He/She is selected by his party, not by the people. In a presidential system, the president is accountable directly to the people. He/She can be in power, even when his party is in the minority in the congress (as happens many times in USA).

I don't think you can effectively impose term limits on a prime ministerial parliamentary democracy. I am not aware of any prime minister system that has term limits (that doesn't mean that they don't exist). I know, for e.g., that England, India, Japan, Turkey, Australia and Canada have PMs, but no term limits (see a partial list of term limit countries HERE. Notice that all the term limit countries have Presidents, not Prime Ministers). We would have to completely revamp our entire system of governance to have effective term limits.

That's the Constitutional point. Here is the practical one: in the Caribbean, the electorate is usually tired of you by the 3rd term, at the latest. Our history shows that we have an almost automatic 3-term limit. Here are the longest serving PMs for the English-speaking Caribbean, since independence:

Antigua – 12 years (Vere Bird)
Bahamas – 19 years (Sir Lynden Pindling)
Barbados – 13 years (Owen Arthur)
Belize – 9 years (Said Musa)
Dominica – 14 years (Eugina Charles)
Grenada – 11 years (Eric Gairy)
Guyana (presidential) – 10 years (and counting) (Baharat Jagdeo)
Jamaica – 14 years (PJ Patterson)
St. Kitts – 14 years (and counting) (Denzil Douglas)
St. Lucia – 14 years (Sir John Compton)
SVG – 16 years (Sir James Mitchel)
Trinidad – 20 years (Eric Williams)

Only 3 countries in the history of the independent Caribbean have more than 15 years (3 5-year terms): TnT, Bahamas and SVG. Dominica came close with Eugina Charles. Sir James barely cleared 15 years, and did so without the majority of the votes cast! That's it. Most PMs serve 2 terms, and a few exceptional ones go for 3. But we dont have any history at all of PMs serving forever. We vote them out.

Seems to be working thus far...