Journal Abstract

Over 80 percent of countries with presidential and semi-presidential systems have executive term limits. These term limits arguably curb authoritarian tendencies and thwart autocratic entrenchment. Uninhibited power for an unlimited period enables the executive to use state apparatuses to suppress political opposition and manipulate institutions to entrench their authority. Meanwhile, despite the Prime Minister leading the executive branch, in only one Westminster style government does a PM face term limits. In recent years, there have been discussions and efforts to impose term limits on PMs. This paper examines the arguments for term limits using five case studies – Hungary, Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh and India. The paper contends that in all these instances, the logic underpinning presidential term limits – preventing monopolization of power and ensuring democratic accountability – is also pertinent for the PMs.