Limit president's term of office

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