There has been a flood of commentaries on Narendra Modi, on how the last general elections have reduced him in stature, power, authority and ideas. Alongside is the fact that in September 2025 he will complete 75 years and the legitimate question whether he will apply his own “retire at 75” rule to himself.
As far as third terms are concerned, it is important to remember that no leader who has been elected for a third term of five years anywhere in the world has done well.
Whether it is the odd British prime minister in the 18th century, or more recently like Tony Blair, or closer home like Jawaharlal Nehru or Indira Gandhi, or first the Marxists and then Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal and Shivraj Chauhan in MP, the third term has been terrible for them and those they governed.
The exception was Modi who abandoned his third term as Chief Minister to become Prime Minister. But now he, too, has run into the old third term problem. It’s early days yet but the signs are not very propitious.
One crude way out of this problem is not to get elected a third time, either by stepping down after two terms or by doing what Xi Jingping and Vladimir Putin have done — declare yourself head of state and government for life. But this is not an option in India.
And both Messrs Putin and Xi have run into difficulties. Even they aren’t denying that.
Two terms only, please
That’s why I have been writing on and off for the last two decades that we need a constitutional amendment that limits any prime minister or chief minister — but not his or her party — to just two terms. The unlimited terms system doesn’t seem to work either to the advantage of prime ministers, their parties or, by corollary, the country.
The Europeans also don’t have any restriction on how long the head of government can serve. That is why Angela Merkel went on and on. But her chancellorship became increasingly prone to trouble after the first two terms. She was forced into absurd political arrangements that eventually diminished German power. Indeed, people snigger when you mention Germany now.
But the Japanese prime minister can continue indefinitely. In practice, few complete their four-year terms.
The Russians used to limit the terms for their presidents but the loophole was that it was for two consecutive terms. President Putin thus became prime minister Putin, and then again president Putin after one term as prime minister.
The Americans didn’t have any limit till 1947 when they limited the terms of the president to two terms, consecutive or otherwise. Just before this happened Franklin Roosevelt had been elected President four times. But he died before he could complete his fourth term.
The Koreans allow only one term of five years for their president. There is thus a vibrant and constant leadership churn in parties. Not to labour the point, countries that limit the terms of the heads of government and/or state generally avoid embarrassing political stalemates. It’s not the best solution but it’s better than unlimited terms.
Note that there is no limitation on the parties. All they need to do, as in many countries, is to find a new leader. They always manage to do that.
There is, of course, the French model or exception where the head of state and head of government need not be from the same party. This is the case right now and it’s happened only once before at the end of the 1990s. But they have a very clear division of responsibilities. The French president has a two consecutive term limit since 2008.
How to do it
Assuming, with good reason, that a fixed term is desirable, how can we do this in India? One option would be to have a fixed term for both the legislature and the office of PM/CM of four, six, or seven years. After all, what’s the sanctity of 60 months? It’s just a random number. It could well be 55, 63, 67 or anything else.
One major advantage of longer terms would be that it would reduce the frequency of general elections. This is something we badly need to do. Another advantage is that a PM and a CM can stop worrying about re-election in their second terms. This is what happens in the US, for example. We should probably opt for a single seven-year term. That is a long enough time for any leader and his/her party. Beyond that every leader outstays his or her effectiveness. It is, after all, a high stress job and no one can perform consistently well.