Limit president's term of office

Among the subjects being discussed by the ad hoc committee of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) is amending the 1945 Constitution, including in regard to the president's term of office. From newspapers and other media I have become aware that there is a growing movement for a president's term to be limited to a maximum of two five-year terms. It is indeed a better idea than what is currently stipulated in our Constitution.

But if we really want to reform our political system and promote better democracy, I suggest that the president's term be limited to one six-year term, which is now practiced in the Philippines. Here are my reasons:

1. Regardless of how good a country's democracy is, in normal political conditions the president in power will be in a better position compared to other candidates. As a head of state, of course he or she has almost unlimited sources of information concerning the political map in the country. An incumbent president would be one step ahead of the competition. Britain's Margaret Thatcher (1979 to 1990), Ronald Reagan (1981 to 1989) and Bill Clinton (1993 to 2001) are among examples of leaders who were reelected.

2. A president holds the most prestigious and historical position in the country. Therefore, giving more people the opportunity to rise to the presidency will promote competitiveness in developing human resources. If in the past 30 years we had allowed someone to hold the presidency for only two five-year terms, we would have had three people as president in the most extreme case. Under a system of one six-year term, there would have been six presidents during the period.

3. Science and technology are changing rapidly and continuously. Thus it is only normal if we have a new president relatively more frequently.

M. SULHAN ASKANDAR

Jakarta