← Back to context

Comment by pqtyw

1 day ago

Or complete stagnation and entrenchment of current political class and their networks. Not that its necessarily not the case anyway but it would be very heard for anyone outside the system to break in.

That's why term limits exist.

Currently, they are only used for some positions like presidency, are usually 2 terms and don't apply to other positions.

IMO:

1) We should get rid of presidents and other single-person positions altogether and replace them with groups of at least 5. Power concentrated in the hands of one individual attracts the worst individuals.

2) Term limits should apply to many more positions.

3) I am undecided whether the limit counter should be shared among all positions (i.e. if 2 terms is the max, you can serve 2 years as president, 2 as senator, or 1 as president and 1 as senator - changing position would not reset it). This would mean there would be no career politicians but also the politicians would be less experienced. The opposite is requiring people to ascend through the ranks (perhaps starting as low as a mayor of a town) but only allowing one term in each position. That way people can judge them on their past performance.

  • Its tricky, though. There might be people who are doing a perfectly good job and kicking them arbitrarily might be suboptimal.

    Then there is room for quite a lot of direct or indirect corruption. e.g. if you know you won't have a job in 4-8 years major corporations and other organizations offering you a cushy job if you do the "right things" might become quite a bit more appealing.

    But yes, having a distinct class of career politicians has some significant downsides as well..

    > The opposite is requiring people to ascend through the ranks (perhaps starting as low as a mayor of a town)

    Might work fine or there might be a lot of gatekeeping if you just want to get on the first step since that will likely be controlled quite tightly by the established parties/cliques.