Answer

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enacted in 1951, limits the President to two elected terms, aiming to prevent concentration of power and promote democratic rotation of leadership. In contrast, the Indian Constitution places no such restrictions on the tenure of the Prime Minister, allowing them to hold office as long as they enjoy the confidence of the Lok Sabha. This distinction reflects fundamental differences between presidential and parliamentary forms of government.

U.S. Two-Term Limit vs. India’s Absence of Term Limits

• Legal Restriction in U.S.: The 22nd Amendment bars any individual from being elected President more than twice, capping maximum elected tenure to eight years.
  For example: Franklin D. Roosevelt served four terms (1933–1945), prompting the 22nd Amendment’s ratification in 1951 to avoid extended individual rule.
• Indian Framework Lacks Cap: The Indian Constitution does not impose any limit on the number of terms a Prime Minister can serve, provided they retain majority support.
  For example: Jawaharlal Nehru served as India’s Prime Minister from 1947 until his death in 1964, across three full terms and a fourth ongoing.
• Structural System Difference: The U.S. follows a Presidential system with fixed terms, while India’s Parliamentary system is based on majority confidence, not term caps.
• Eligibility Divergence: In the U.S., a twice-elected President is ineligible for both Presidency and Vice Presidency under constitutional law, restricting political mobility.
  For example: Donald Trump cannot legally contest again after 2029 despite proposing theoretical loopholes like being Vice President under J.D. Vance.
• Constitutional Flexibility in India: The absence of term limits in India reflects Parliamentary flexibility, prioritizing voter choice and legislative support over constitutional tenure constraints.

Negative Democratic Implications of No Term Limits 

• Power Centralization Risk: Long tenures can lead to concentration of power in one individual, diminishing internal party democracy and institutional autonomy.
  For example: Indira Gandhi’s prolonged rule saw increased centralization, leading to the declaration of Emergency (1975–77) and suspension of civil liberties.
• Weakened Opposition Space: An entrenched leader may systematically erode opposition strength, manipulating state resources and media to tilt electoral advantages.
  For example: During Nehru’s and Indira’s era, the Congress party’s dominance restricted opposition visibility and growth for years.
• Reduced Policy Innovation: A leader without term limits may recycle old policies, avoiding bold reforms due to status quo bias or electoral risk aversion.
• Rise of Personality Cults: Absence of term caps may promote leader-worship, undermining collective leadership and democratic accountability within political parties.
• Decline in Institutional Checks: Over time, prolonged leadership may weaken oversight bodies like Election Commission or CBI through indirect control or executive overreach.

Positive Democratic Implications of No Term Limits

• People’s Mandate Prevails: Absence of term limits ensures voters’ choice is paramount, allowing re-election of a leader as long as public confidence continues.
• Policy Continuity Ensured: Long tenures allow for long-term policy planning and execution, especially for complex economic or infrastructure reforms.
• Stable Governance Climate: A seasoned leader brings predictability and stability, attracting investment and building international credibility over time.
• Encourages Political Maturity: Leaders in longer office terms often develop deeper governance expertise and diplomatic finesse, improving national decision-making.
  For example: Nehru’s extended leadership helped shape India’s non-alignment policy and establish key institutions like IITs and AIIMS.
• Avoids Unnecessary Transition: Frequent leadership change may cause administrative disruptions, while longer tenures provide bureaucratic and policy consistency.
  For example: Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s near full term from 1999 to 2004 ensured continuity in telecom reforms, boosting India’s digital economy foundation.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To uphold democratic integrity and prevent personality cults, we must initiate informed debates on institutional safeguards like term limits. A future-ready democracy demands robust checks and balances that promote leadership renewal, strengthen parliamentary accountability, and deepen public trust in governance.

DOWNLOAD PDF