CDL-AD(2019)007

This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy.

www.venice.coe.int

Strasbourg, 18 March 2019

Opinion No. 908/2017

CDL-AD(2019)007

Or. Engl.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW

(VENICE COMMISSION)

REPORT ON TERM-LIMITS

PART II – MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

PART III – REPRESENTATIVES ELECTED AT SUB-NATIONAL AND

LOCAL LEVEL

AND EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS ELECTED AT SUB-NATIONAL AND

LOCAL LEVEL

Adopted by the Venice Commission

at its 118th Plenary Session

(Venice, 15-16 March 2019)

on the basis of comments by

Mr Josep Maria CASTELLA ANDREU (Member, Spain)

Ms Sarah CLEVELAND (Member, United States)

Mr Philip DIMITROV (Member, Bulgaria)

Mr Ilwon KANG (Member, South Korea)

Ms Janine M. OTÁLORA MALASSIS (Member, Mexico)

Mr Kaarlo TUORI (Member, Finland)

CDL-AD(2019)007 
- 2 - 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
I.  Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 
II.  Comparative  overview  of  limits  on  terms  of  Members  of  Parliament  and  on 
representatives elected at sub-national and local level as well as on executive officials 
elected at the sub-national and local level ..................................................................... 3 
III.  Previous works of the Venice Commission on limiting presidential mandates ................ 4 
IV.  The international standards applicable to the right to vote and be elected ..................... 5 
V.  Do term limits unduly limit the human and political rights of aspirant candidates or of 
voters? .......................................................................................................................... 7 
1.  Term limits as regards MPs ....................................................................................... 7 
a.  Arguments in favour of term limits for MPs .......................................................... 7 
b.  Arguments against term limits ............................................................................. 8 
c.  Empirical research .................................................................................................. 9 
2.  As regards representatives elected at the sub-national and local level .................... 10 
3.  As regards executive officials elected at the sub-national and local level ................. 11 
4.  Venice Commission’s position ................................................................................. 12 
VI.  What is the best way to modify term limits within a constitutional state? ...................... 13 
VII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 14 
 
 
 
 
   

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 3 -

I. Introduction

1. By a letter dated 24 October 2017, the Secretary General of the Organization of American

States (OAS) invited the Venice Commission to undertake a study on the right to re-election,

against the background of a recently observed bad practice of modification of presidential terms

through a decision of constitutional courts rather than through a reform process.

2. OAS put four questions:

- Does a human right to re-election exist? If so, what are the limits to this right?

- Do term limits constrain the human and political rights of aspirant candidates?

- Do term limits constrain the human and political rights of voters?

- What is the best way to modify term limits within a constitutional state?

3. At its 114

Plenary Session, in March 2018, the Commission adopted the first part of the study,

which provided a response to the four questions put by OAS in respect of term limits of Presidents

(Report on term-limits, Part I – Presidents, CDL-AD(2018)010).

4. The present report deals with the second, third and fourth questions put by OAS in respect of

term limits of members of parliament, locally elected representatives and of governors and

mayors. It was examined by the Sub-Commission on Latin America on 30 November 2018 and

was subsequently adopted by the Venice Commission at its 118

Plenary Session (Venice, 15-

16 March 2019).

II. Comparative overview of limits on terms of Members of Parliament and on

representatives elected at sub-national and local level as well as on executive

officials elected at the sub-national and local level

5. The Commission has collected information on the constitutional and legislative provisions on

term limits for members of parliaments, members of sub-national legislative bodies, governors

and mayors in 63 countries (CDL-REF(2018)040rev). With respect to Members of Parliament at

the national level, the comparative analysis of these provisions reveals that term-limits for MPs

are very rare. No country in Europe has introduced them; in Switzerland a proposal of 2009 to

introduce a two-term limit was not adopted. In France, a legislative reform envisaging the

introduction of a three-consecutive-term limit is currently pending. In Italy, the prohibition of a

third mandate is contained in the code of ethics of the political group “MoVimento 5 stelle”, but it

is not binding.

6. In the Americas, parliamentary term limits exist in Bolivia (two consecutive terms), Costa Rica

(no consecutive term), Ecuador (two consecutive terms) and Venezuela (two consecutive terms).

In 2014, the Mexican Congress passed a constitutional amendment lifting the one-term limits and

thus allowing for the re-election of federal representatives and senators, as well as city mayors

and local representatives.

In Peru, Congress approved, last September, a constitutional

amendment to re-establish bicameralism. At the same time, it approved an additional

constitutional amendment to ban the immediate re-election of legislators. According to this

amendment, neither representatives nor senators will be able to run for immediate re-election in

their respective chambers. These two amendments were submitted to a national referendum on

9 December 2018; the first was rejected, while the second was approved. With regard to re-

In this report, the following terms are used with the following meanings: national legislators = members of

parliament; representatives elected at sub-national and local level = members of sub-national assemblies such as

regional councils, parliaments of federal entities, parliaments of Autonomous Communities, provincial councils,

municipal councils; executive officials elected at the sub-national level = presidents of regions, governors,

presidents of Autonomous Communities, presidents of provinces; executive officials elected at the local level =

mayors.

Constitutional reform of February 10

, 2014. Retrieved form

http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/dof/CPEUM_ref_216_10feb14.pdf

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 4 -

election of majors and regional governors, Congress approved in 2015 a constitutional

amendment prohibiting their immediate re-election. In 2018, the Peruvian Constitutional Court

confirmed the constitutionality of this amendment.

The United States Constitution does not allow

for term limits for members of the US Congress.

7. In Asia, term-limits for MPs exist only in the Philippines (two consecutive terms).

8. Term limits of two consecutive mandates exist for representatives at the sub-national level in

Bolivia and Ecuador; they also exist in the Republic of Korea

and in the Philippines.

9. Term limits are relatively more frequent for executive positions at the regional or municipal

level (Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Italy, Republic of Korea and Taiwan). In the United States,

36 out of 50 States have some form of term limit for governors, and 15 States have term limits

for state legislators. Some cities impose term limits for mayors and/or city council members.

10. In Europe, term limits at the sub-national level exist in Spain, where over the last few years

a limitation of no more than two consecutive mandates has been introduced for the President of

the Autonomous Communities in some of the Statutes of Autonomy or in Regional Laws.

Such

new rules do not apply retroactively. In Spain, Autonomous Communities, as the Central State,

are parliamentary systems, with an indirect election of their Presidents. The context of the legal

reforms was the political and economic crisis, with several cases of corruption or misconduct and

popular demands of regeneration of political life. Some parties have introduced such limitation in

their Manifestos.

III. Previous works of the Venice Commission on limiting presidential mandates

11. In December 2012, the Commission adopted a report on “Democracy, limitation of mandates

and incompatibility of political functions” (CDL-AD(2012)027rev). The Commission argued the

following:

“61. The theory of limitation of mandate has its followers as well as its opponents.

62. The critics say that the frequent replacement of the holders of public (political)

functions in the country can have a negative impact on the quality and on the continuity

of the public policies in the country and that it brings about major political uncertainty.

The supporters of the limited mandate believe that it is a positive aspect of the system

seen through the prism of an influx of fresh ideas, pluralism in political thought,

avoidance of political domination and, most importantly, avoidance of the concept of

irreplaceability in the political establishment.

Espediente 00008-2018-PI/TC.

Under the Constitution, members of the United States Senate may serve an unlimited number of six-year terms

and members of the House of Representatives may serve an unlimited number of two-year terms (U.S. Const.,

Article I, sec. 2, 3; Amendment XVII). In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), the Supreme

Court invalidated 23 state laws imposing term limits on members of the US Congress. The Court held that because

the United States Constitution establishes the qualifications for members of Congress, any additional limitation

would have to be imposed through a constitutional amendment. In the United States, such an amendment requires

approval by a two-thirds supermajority in Congress as well as ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the

states.

Local government officials filed the constitutional complaint arguing that the Local Autonomy Act which imposed

term limits was unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court of Korea dismissed the petitioners’ claims in a 6:3

decision: 18-1(A) KCCR 320, 2005 Hun-Ma 403, February 23, 2006.

Castilla La Mancha was the first in 2003: Ley 11/2003, del Gobierno y del Consejo Consultivo, applying the

provisions of the Article 13.2 of the Statute of Autonomy (1997); Extremadura in 2014: Ley del Gobierno y del

Consejo Consultivo for the President; Murcia in 2014: Ley del Estatuto del Presidente y del Consejo de Gobierno,

for the President; Castilla y León in 2016 by amendment of the Ley del Estatuto de los Altos Cargos de la

Administración for the President and regional ministers or councillors. In the other regions the term limit is only for

the President.

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 5 -

63. It is a fact that the effects of the non-existence of limitations for the re-election of a

member of parliament are widely softened by the activities of the opposition parties in

parliament, as well as by the increased transparency and publicity that the democratic

parliaments demonstrate through their activities. Perhaps these two conclusions

identify the main reason why most constitutions foresee an unlimited possibility for re-

election of members of parliament. Consecutively, we may draw the same conclusion

vis-à-vis the re-election of ministers in coalition governments, contrary to

homogeneous ones.

64. Namely, unlike the homogeneous governments -most often single-party

governments- the coalition governments have a greater possibility of controlling their

members, as there is a stronger inter-party consensus to open the issue of political

responsibility for what has been or has not been done.

65. The majority electoral model, where the election of holders of political functions is

done directly by the electorate, is more likely to lead to the admissibility of an unlimited

parliamentary mandate than a pure proportional model with closed lists where the political

parties have the final word. […]

71. […] prohibiting re-election of parliamentarians involves the risk of a legislative branch

of power dominated by inexperienced politicians. This may lead to increase the imbalance

in favour of the executive, even if the head of state and possibly ministers are not re-

eligible, since the executive is seconded by a permanent public service.

12. The Commission concluded that “When it comes to the function of members of parliament,

however, the situation is very different, since there are in general no constitutional limitations

here, not in the Council of Europe states, nor beyond, with regard to the right to (re)election, like

there are for the presidential function. This comes as a result of three main factors. The first factor

concerns the need for an experienced legislature which has to be in a position to control the

executive branch of power; the second one refers to the work of the opposition parties in

parliament, and the third one to the increased openness and publicity in the work of the

parliaments.”

IV. The international standards applicable to the right to vote and be elected

13. In its “Report on term limits – Part I Presidents”, the Commission analysed the international

human rights standards applicable to the imposition of term limits on the re-election of

Presidents.

These standards also apply to term limits of MPs, representatives elected at sub-

national and local level and executive officials elected at the sub-national and local level. Of

special relevance are Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR) on participatory rights, complemented with Articles 2(1) and 26 on the prohibition of

discrimination, of ICPPR; Art. 1 of Protocol 12 to European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

on the prohibition of discrimination; as well as Article 23(1b) of the American Convention on

Human Rights (ACHR) on participatory rights, complemented by Art. 1(1) on the prohibition of

discrimination.

14. Article 25 ICCPR recognizes and protects the right of every citizen to take part in the conduct

of public affairs, the right to vote and to stand for election, and the right to public service.

Whatever form of constitution or government is in force, the exercise of these rights by citizens

may not be suspended or excluded except on grounds which are established by laws and that

Venice Commission, Report on term limits, Part I: Presidents, CDL-AD(2018)010, §§ 64 to 76

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 6 -

are objective and reasonable.

Persons who are otherwise eligible to stand for election should

not be excluded by reason of political affiliation.

15. While it is not directly relevant for presidential elections, Art. 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR,

providing that “the High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable

intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of

the people in the choice of the legislature” applies to electoral rights concerning national

parliaments and other “legislatures”. According to the European Court of Human rights, the term

“legislature” does not necessarily mean the national parliament alone: it has to be interpreted in

the light of the constitutional structure of the State in question. Municipal councils, district councils

and regional assemblies may be covered by Article 3 Protocol 1 if they possess inherent primary

rulemaking powers and form part of the legislature (see a contrario Mółka v. Poland (dec.));

generally speaking, however, the power to make regulations and by-laws, which is conferred on

the local authorities in many countries, is to be distinguished from legislative power, including at

the regional level, so that the scope of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not cover local elections,

whether municipal (Xuereb v. Malta; Salleras Llinares v. Spain) or regional (Malarde v. France).

16. The Court has emphasized that the electoral rights guaranteed in Art. 3 of Protocol 1 are not

absolute, but there is room for “implied limitations” within a rather wide margin of appreciation

conferred on the States. This margin is not limited by an explicit list of legitimate aims, such as

Articles 8-11 of the Convention. Yet, the aim a state pursues must be compatible with the principle

of the rule of law and the general objectives of the Convention.

17. The concept of “implied limitations” also means that the Court does not apply the traditional

tests of “necessity” or “pressing social need” which are used in the context of Articles 8 to 11. In

examining compliance with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court has focused mainly on two

criteria: whether there has been arbitrariness or a lack of proportionality, and whether the

restriction has interfered with the free expression of the opinion of the people. In addition, it

underlines the need to assess any electoral legislation in the light of the political evolution of the

country concerned, which means that unacceptable features in one system may be justified in

another (Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, § 52; Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], §§ 103-104 and

115).

18. Stricter requirements may be imposed on eligibility to stand for election to Parliament (the

“passive” aspect) than is the case for eligibility to vote (the “active” aspect). In fact, while the test

relating to the “active” aspect of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 has usually included a wider

assessment of the proportionality of the statutory provisions disqualifying a person or a group of

persons from the right to vote, the Court’s test in relation to the “passive” aspect has been limited

largely to verification of the absence of arbitrariness in the domestic procedures leading to

disqualification of an individual from standing as a candidate (Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], § 115;

Melnitchenko v. Ukraine, § 57).

19. It follows from the above standards that the right to political participation is not absolute.

International treaties – as well as national constitutions - establish restrictions on its exercise,

which may differ in scope and aims. The most common requirements are citizenship and age,

and there is a broad range of possible additional restrictions. The scope of the right to be elected

is determined by the system or form of government, which in turn is decided by the people who

See CCPR, General Comment No. 25, op. cit., paras. 3 and 4. Cf. Arias Leiva v. Colombia, Communication No.

2537/2015 (July 2018), paras. 11.5-11.7 (addressing ban on political service of former Minister as a result of

criminal conviction); Nasheed v. Republic of Maldives, Communication Nos. 2270/2013, 2851/2016 (April 2018),

para. 8.4-8.7 (addressing ban on political service of former President as a result of a criminal conviction).

Ibid., para 15.

See Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, Right to free elections,

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_3_Protocol_1_ENG.pdf

Ibidem

Ibidem.

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 7 -

are the sovereign constitution-making entity. In general, therefore, restrictions to the human right

to political participation and to stand for election are allowed within a constitutional democracy to

the extent that they are based in law, reasonable and objective. As long as these conditions allow

for reasonably free access to office, are prescribed by law, pursue legitimate aims, are necessary

in a democratic society and are not discriminatory, they should be permitted.

V. Do term limits unduly limit the human and political rights of aspirant

candidates or of voters?

Term limits as regards MPs

Arguments in favour of term limits for MPs

20. The idea of restricting the number of mandates of elected representatives is based on the

presumption that power is a privilege which spoils inevitably. Imposing term limits also implies a

conviction that the democratic procedures fail to guarantee that unwanted representatives will

not be re-elected.

21. Term-limit advocates argue that limits have a positive influence on legislative behaviour:

they minimize the incentives for re-election based on “pork-barrel” legislation;

the parliamentary

mandate ceases to be seen as a career instead of a temporary assignment to public service, and

consequently MPs spend less time posturing, raising money for their re-election campaigns and

running for office.

Term limits thus foster better representation, reduce the ideological

divergence between the electorate and their representatives, and increase the elected

representatives’ responsiveness toward the electorate.

They remove the intense focus on

politics and place it back on policy. Term limited politicians may also be willing to take positions

of principle on politically controversial issues that protect the interests of minorities and human

rights.

22. When term limits exist, the handing over of functions from the outgoing MPs to the incoming

ones is duly organised and accompanied by the relevant political parties, instead of resulting in

conflictual situations.

23. Also, term limits may function as an antidote to the MPs’ entrenchment and concentration of

power; they may represent a necessary corrective to inequalities which inevitably hinder

challengers and aid incumbents and avoid the concept of irreplaceability in the political

establishment. Term limits could also avoid having MPs become enmeshed in a culture which is

toofamiliar with the government and insulated from the communities they represent. Term limits

thus help secure MP’s free and independent judgment.

24. Term limits also ensure that MPs are eventually exposed to life outside of the Parliament

and diversify their professional experience. In this sense, term-limits become a reality check.

See Carey, John M, “Los límites a la reelección y representación legislativa”. Mexico: CIDE. 2006, p. 37 ; Türk

P., « Le cumul des mandats dans le temps : Quelles limites au renouvellement du mandat et à la rééligibilité des

gouvernants », Les Petites Affiches, 31 juillet 2014, n°PA201415208, p. 32.

Boeckelman, Keith A. 1993. “Term Limitation, Responsiveness, & the Public Interest”. Polity, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.

189-205.

« En rendant les députés perpétuellement rééligibles, ne les a-t-on pas rendus perpétuellement candidats ? » :

TARDIEU A., La révolution à refaire, tome II : La profession parlementaire, 1937, Flammarion, p. 33

Elhauge, Einer. “Are Term Limits Undemocratic?”. The University of Chicago Law Review. 1997. 64(1): 83-201

TÜRK P., op. cit.

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 8 -

25. Another common claim by proponents of legislative term limits is that they will result in a

more diverse legislature, increasing the number of women and minorities, while introducing

younger, “fresher” representatives into the political process.

26. In many ways, it is argued, term limits would restore respect for the Parliament.

Arguments against term limits

27. There are numerous counterarguments to the wisdom of term limits for MPs. The most

general one is that they are undemocratic in that they restrict voters’ rights, reducing

representatives’ accountability through elections, and hence the right and the capacity of

citizens to hold those in power accountable. From this point of view, restrictions on re-election

or term limits directly affect one of the foundations of a democracy: the capacity to choose

representatives freely, by popular vote, without restraints.

28. Representative democracy implies that politics is channeled through institutions because

they have the ability to make decisions in a more conducive atmosphere, to follow established

procedures and create checks and balances among themselves – possibilities that are not

completely applicable to any form of “direct democracy”. The credibility of the system is

achieved by the experience that institutions actually do what they are created for. Decision

making outside the institutions destroys credibility. Term limits therefore interfere with three

main premises of modern democratic representation: 1) that professionalization of

representatives is desired and favourable for democratic government, 2) that representatives

are more responsive to voters’ demands when they are more independent from their political

party’s leadership, and 3) that career perspectives of representatives shape their political

behaviour.

29. Thus, term limits impede professionalization, automatically locking out experienced (and

effective) legislators and diminishing MPs’ motivation and need to develop expertise on

specific issues. To the extent that prohibiting the re-election of parliamentarians involves the

risk that the legislative branch of power be dominated by inexperienced politicians, this may

lead to increase the imbalance in favour of the executive, even if the head of state and possibly

ministers are not re-eligible, since the executive is assisted by a permanent public service.

30. Term limits can increase the influence of party leaderships. Those who are prohibited

from running for office but wish to stay in politics may seek another way to do so, such as

currying favour with the party leadership to obtain other offices (e.g. in the executive branch

or at local or regional level) other than the other House of Parliament. This increases the power

of party structures to an unnecessary, unhealthy extent.

31. In addition, term limits may increase the influence of lobby groups and legislative staff.

More novice legislators are more inclined to fill their own informational and policy gaps by an

increased reliance on special interests and lobbyists,

as well as on employees of government

agencies, and MPs’ staffs; this may have a negative impact on accountability. MPs with a

restricted mandate will be aware of the need for a remunerative employment after they leave

elected office. As such, they may feel a stronger need to satisfy the demands of lobbyists and

Deanna Wallace, Legislative Term Limits: Friend or Foe, 6 Grove City C. J.L. Pub Pol'y 81 (2015)

Dan Greenberg, Term Limits: The Only Way to Clean Up Congress,

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1994/pdf/bg994.pdf; Tom Murse, The Debate over Term Limits for Congress,

https://www.thoughtco.com/debate-over-term-limits-for-congress-3367505.

Cf. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), pp. 831-879 Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/ U.S. 779 (1995), pp. 831-879, Retrieved fromavailable at

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/ (striking down state efforts to impose term limits on members

of the US Congress, and noting that the qualifications set forth in the Constitution for such members advanced the

“fundamental principles of our democracy”, “that the people should choose whom they please to govern them”).

Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2012)027rev., § 71.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/153244000100100404; D. Wallace, op. cit.

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 9 -

members of the Executive Branch who could either provide or assist them in finding

employment following the end of their mandate.

32. Reforms in campaign finance law, particularly in order to eliminate tremendous incumbent

advantages in elections, are needed rather than term limits.

33. The effects of the lack of limitations for the re-election of a member of parliament are

softened by the activities of the opposition parties in parliament, as well as by the increased

transparency and publicity that the democratic parliaments demonstrate through their

activities

and primaries inside the party for the election of the candidates. The unwanted, i.e.

untrusted, may not be always ousted by the voters but the more independent the candidates,

the more the chances for this outcome in elections. In addition, an important subsidiary

principle of democracy is that when majorities don’t care (or are lazy to care) the active

minorities decide.

Empirical research

34. The effects of term limits on the political system have been widely studied, although most

research on this topic focuses on legislative rather than executive behaviour. Some empirical

research on term limits points out their negative effects. However, it is inconclusive, as evidence

supporting both positions has been found. The seminal study of John M. Carey shows that term

limits do not improve policies, nor do they eliminate the impact of private interests on legislative

behaviour.

Another study shows that legislators who can no longer seek re-election sponsor

fewer bills, are less productive on committees, and are absent from more floor votes.

Term-

limited politicians dedicate less effort to their office, engage in opportunistic behaviour,

and

frequently run for another office or for a different party.

Recently, a 2017 study of the effects of

term limits on representation in US state legislatures provided no evidence that term limits

improve collective representation.

Moreover, term-limited officials pay less attention to local

matters, focusing instead on nationwide issues.

35. Especially when political parties are weak, such as in new democracies, “the adoption of

rules that constrain electoral accountability may feed into higher volatility, which can in turn

weaken parties’ roots in society and decrease their legitimacy. This dynamic can create a vicious

cycle where the weakness of individual parties, in combination with limited electoral

accountability, reinforces the weakness of the party system as whole”.

36. Empirical research has clearly confirmed that term limits weaken the legislature’s power vis-

à-vis the executive branch.

This effect is strong even when both branches are subject to similar

CDL-AD(2012)027rev, § 63.

Carey, 2006, op. cit., pp. 315 and 339-40.

Fouirnaies, Alexander and Andrew B. Hall. “How Do Electoral Incentives Affect Legislator Behavior?”. Working

Paper. March 19, 2018. Retrieved from

http://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Fouirnaies_Hall_Electoral_Incentives.pdf

Ferraz, Claudio, and Frederico Finan. “Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local

Governments.” American Economic Review. 2011. 101: 1274–311; Zamboni, Yves, and Stephan Litschig. “Audit

Risk and Rent Extraction: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Brazil.” Barcelona GSE Working Paper

Series. Working paper no. 554. July 2016. Retrieved from http://www3.grips.ac.jp/~s-

litschig/pdfs/Zamboni_and_Litschig_2016.pdf

Klasnja, Marko and Rocío Titiunik. “The Incumbency Curse: Weak Parties, Term Limits, and Unfulfilled

Accountability”. American Political Science Review. 2017. 111(1): 129–148, 132.

Olson, Michael and Jon Rogowski. “Legislative Term Limits, Polarization, and Representation”. Harvard

University Working Papers. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rogowski/files/ajps_nonblind.pdf

Egan, Patrick J., “Term Limits for Municipal Elected Officials: Executive and Legislative Branches”. A study

prepared for the New York City Charter Revision Commission. June 2010. Retrieved form

https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/faculty/documents/egan.municipal.termlimits.2010.pdf

Klasnja, Marko and Rocío Titiunik, op. cit., p. 130.

Kousser, Thad. Term Limits and Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. New York: Cambridge

University Press. 2005; Kurtz, Karl T., Bruce Cain, and Richard G. Niemi, eds. Institutional Change in American

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 10 -

limits. Term limits diminish the legislature’s role

and “contribute to a migration of power from

elected representatives to non-elected officials”.

37. Some research shows that term limits have not led to the election of more women or racial

minorities as legislators,

nor have they been associated with election to office of legislators who

are younger, less wealthy, less ideological, or less likely to already be politicians.

38. An assessment of the introduction of term limits in the Philippines found that “the ability of

term limits to dismantle political dynasties is not obvious, as term limited incumbents may be

replaced by relatives or may run for a different elected office. Whether these strategies undermine

the direct effects of term-limits in reducing the time an individual can hold office is an empirical

question. I find no evidence of a statistically significant impact of term limits on curbing families’

persistence in power. Moreover, term limits deter high-quality challengers from running prior to

the expiration of an incumbent’s term. Challengers prefer to wait for the incumbent to be termed-

out and run in an open-seat race. As a consequence, incumbents are safer in their early terms

prior to the limit. These results suggest that political reforms that do not modify the underlying

sources of dynastic power may be ineffective in changing the political equilibrium.”

Examples

of how term limits were ineffective may be found in the Russian Federation, where President

Putin and Prime Minister Medvedev exchanged roles, and in the United States, where some time-

limited State officials have moved to Congress, the Senate or other political roles within the same

electoral orbit.

As regards representatives elected at the sub-national and local level

39. The effects of term limits on representatives elected at the sub-national and local level

could be considered similar to those observed in national legislators. This is the case

considering the similarities that exist between national, sub-national and local government:

“council manager governments share many features with parliamentary government and

mayoral government is quite similar to a presidential system”.

40. On the other hand, local bodies deal with a different set of problems. They are less prone

to pursuing reformative approaches (i.e. are expected to operate on a higher level of

consensus) and have less bearing on the issue of creating dictatorial parties. The risks of

limitation of the terms of office with them are less harmful for the credibility of the democratic

institutions. In smaller communities, however, if the same decision-makers are reproduced by

stable local (clannish) configurations, this can negatively affect the credibility of local

institutions and the functioning of representative government.

41. So far there is no evidence that term limits for city councils provide for a greater

responsiveness of elected officials.

On the contrary, some studies provide evidence that

Politics: The Case of Term Limits. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007; Moncrief, Gary and Joel A.

Thompson. “On the Outside Looking In: Lobbyists’ Perspectives on the Effects of State Legislative Term Limits”

State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2001, Vol. 1, 394‐411; Peery, George and Thomas H. Little. “Leading When the

Bell Tolls: Perceptions of Power among Termed and Untermed Leaders”, in The Test of Time: Coping with

Legislative Term Limits, ed. Rick Farmer, John David Rausch and John C. Green. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,

2002; Powell, Richard J. “Executive‐Legislative Relations” In Institutional Change in American Politics: The Case

of Term Limits, ed. Karl T. Kurtz, Bruce Cain, and Richard G. Niemi. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007.

Carey, John M., Richard G. Niemi, Lynda W. Powell, and Gary F. Moncrief. “The Effects of Term Limits on State

Legislatures: A New Survey of the 50 States” Legislative Studies Quarterly 2006, 31(1): 105‐134.

Kousser, op. cit., p. 207.

Powell, op. cit., p; . 146.

Carroll, Susan J. and Krista Jenkins. “Do Term Limits Help Women Get Elected?”, Social Science Quarterly,

2001 82(1): 197-201.

Egan, op. cit., with references to Bernstein & Chadha 2002; Carey et al, 2006; Carroll & Jenkins 2001).

Pablo Querubin, Political Reform and Elite Persistence: Term Limits and Political Dynasties in the Philippines,

https://leitner.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/resources/papers/Querubin_Term_Limits.pdf.

Tausanovitch, Chris and Christopher Warshaw. “Representation in Municipal Government”. American Political

Science Review, 2014, 108(3), 605-641, 26.

Tausanovich and Warshaw, op. cit., pp. 24-5.

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 11 -

term limits lead to increased short-sighted decision making, since they weaken elected

officials’ accountability to voters. This may happen due to misalignment in officials’ interests,

who “will not be eligible to reap the benefits of far-sighted behaviour. As a result, [they] face[]

incentives to spend government money to implement [their} preferred policies, or limit the

spending behaviour of future policy-makers”.

Moreover, research suggests that term limits

are not helpful in ousting bad legislators and local politicians, as they provide equal treatment

for both good and bad representatives and shorten the politicians’ time horizon.

As regards executive officials elected at the sub-national and local level

42. Special considerations apply to executive positions as opposed to the legislative or

representative ones. Regional presidents or governors

can be either directly elected by

citizens, or indirectly elected by the sub-national councils (executive-appointed governors do

not fall within the scope of this analysis). The same applies to mayors, who may be either

directly elected by citizens or indirectly elected by municipal councils.

43. In systems where governors, regional presidents or mayors are directly elected, there is

a risk that the incumbents abuse of their office to distort the electoral competition and the

equality of opportunity of all candidates. It is counter-argued that regional and municipal

councils may nonetheless serve as an effective check on the powers of directly elected

governors or mayors. Another counter-argument is that non term-limited governors or mayors

show accountability incentives, and also acquire experience, hence accrued competence.

Finally, in small communities it may be difficult to find suitable alternative candidates.

44. In systems where governors, regional presidents and mayors are indirectly elected by the

sub-national or municipal councils respectively, they are accountable before them and the

risks of concentration of powers and of interference with equality of opportunity in elections

are far less significant.

45. Some research regarding governors in the United States suggests that “holding tenure in

office constant, differences in performance by reelection-eligible and term-limited incumbents

identify an accountability effect: reelection-eligible governors have greater incentives to exert

costly effort on behalf of voters. Holding term-limit status constant, differences in performance

by incumbents in different terms identify a competence effect: later-term incumbents are more

likely to be competent both because they have survived reelection and because they have

experience in office. […] economic growth is higher and taxes, spending, and borrowing costs

are lower under reelection-eligible incumbents than under term-limited incumbents

(accountability), and under reelected incumbents than under first-term incumbents

(competence), all else equal.”

Donovan, Colleen. “Direct democracy, term limits, and fiscal decisions in US Municipalities”. Job Market Paper.

November 2009, p. 4. Retrieved from https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~colleend/DonovanJM_Nov6.pdf; See also

Timothy Besley and Anne Case. “Does electoral accountability affect economic policy choices? evidence from

gubernatorial term limits”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3):769–798, 1995.

Donovan, op. cit.

Presidents of Autonomous Communities, Presidents of Provinces and similar.

Alt, James, Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan, Rose, Shanna, “Disentangling accountability and competence in

elections: evidence from US. term limits”. Retrieved from

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9639960/alt_disentangling.pdf?sequence=1

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 12 -

Venice Commission’s position

46. The Venice Commission considers that restrictions on the rights to political participation

should be assessed against multiple factors, such as constitutional values, political tradition and

social context, a country’s own history, the concentration of power in a political system, and the

broader political and social trends. Democracies differ profoundly – in terms of checks and

balances or scope of governments’ accountability and responsiveness – so that elements that

could deeply affect the relations between voters and representatives, like term limits, should be

carefully analysed. Concerns as to what enhances the credibility of the democratic institutions

should also be taken into account.

47. The Commission has examined the comparative material, the numerous arguments in favour

and against term limits for members of parliament, as well as the results of empirical research. It

considers that, in principle, term limits for MPs are not arbitrary or disproportionate interferences

with the free participation of the people in public and political life. Neither are they, per se, arbitrary

or disproportionate limitations of the right to be elected.

48. The Commission has previously reached the firm conclusion that in a presidential regime,

presidential term limits should be considered as necessary to maintain the democratic system.

Presidential regimes indeed give the incumbent an excessive advantage when he or she runs

for re-election; term limits aim at preventing the incumbent from taking advantage of his or her

position in order to remain in power and at guaranteeing a level playing field for other candidates.

These arguments are stronger in case of immediate re-election.

49. In parliamentary systems, term limits usually exist for Heads of State, despite their mostly

ceremonial role, in order to avoid a perpetuation of power and the weakening of the position of

the Prime Minister, and instead do not exist, at least in the 63 countries observed, for Prime

Ministers, as the government’s survival is closely tied to the legislative term, and the PM depends

on the continued confidence of parliament, other than on internal elections or primaries in the

party.

50. Unlike Presidents, members of parliament exercise a representative mandate and form part

of a collegiate body. Term limits for MPs are therefore not required to prevent the equivalent of

an unlimited exercise of power by the Executive. In a collective representative body, the

possibility of re-election does not entail a similar advantage for the incumbent.

51. It is true that term limits for MPs may have a positive effect as a corrective to inequalities

which inevitably hinder challengers and aid incumbents and avoid the concept of irreplaceability

in the political establishment; they may also avoid the concentration of power in the hands of a

few professional politicians and foster more accurate representation and increased

responsiveness of the elected representatives toward the electorate.

52. However, term limits also weaken the legislature’s power vis-à-vis the executive branch and

diminish the legislature’s role, even when both branches are subject to similar limits.

53. Term limits may also increase the influence of party leaderships. The dependence of MPs

on party leadership, which distances the represented from their representatives, becomes

inevitable when the leadership is responsible not only for choosing the candidates, but also

for accommodating them after the term expires. Political parties then become dominant in

every political decision. Bureaucracy is an important part of democracy but only as

complementary to (not as a substitute for) political representation. Strong party headquarters

turn the very parties into a bureaucracy. To avoid such an effect it is important to guarantee

Venice Commission, Report on term-limits, Part I: Presidents, §§123, 124.

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 13 -

the independence of the elected representatives. The pressure of the realities in parliament to

form groupings of MPs should suffice to guarantee for the maintenance of parties under

normal circumstances. The limitation of the number of terms of office for those who are

determined to stay in politics seriously diminishes their level of independence.

54. Term-limits finally increase the influence of lobby groups and legislative staff, thus

contributing to a migration of power from elected representatives to non-elected officials, which

risks negatively impacting voters’ ability to hold representatives accountable.

55. On balance, therefore, the Venice Commission does not recommend the introduction of term-

limits for MPs, although it recognises that it is up to each constitutional or legal system to decide

on their opportunity in light of the prevailing particular circumstances and of the will of the

population.

56. The Commission is also of the view, for the reasons sets out above, that if term limits are to

be introduced for a legislative body, they should be less strict than those that apply to an executive

body.

57. Further, the very limited state practice (see paras. 5, 6 and 7 above) suggests that at least

two consecutive terms should be allowed. This appears to be a mitigation of the adverse effects

of term limits indicated above, and would preserve in particular the need for accountability

towards the electorate. It would also be more respectful of the principle of proportionality in the

interference with the rights to vote and be elected.

58. The Commission is of the view that guaranteeing continuity in a functioning democracy also

requires that the rule should be applied in a manner allowing for gradual renewal of the MPs.

Staggering the departures would also mitigate the adverse effects of having too many novice

legislators at the same time in terms of influence of lobbyists and parliamentary staff.

59. The Commission has reached similar conclusions as regards representatives elected at the

sub-national and local level, who like national MPs exercise a representative mandate and form

part of a collegiate body.

60. By contrast, the position of a directly elected regional president or governor and of a directly

elected mayor may be more comparable to that of a president in a presidential system, to the

extent that the incumbent could abuse of his or her office in order to distort the electoral

competition and the equality of opportunity of all candidates, and also to concentrate powers to

an excessive extent. These risks prevail over the advantages of accountability and competence

incentives. The check on their powers exercised by the sub-national or municipal councils might

not be sufficient. For this reason, the imposition of term limits on directly elected sub-national or

local executive officials could appear more justifiable. Comparative law supports this conclusion.

61. The position of governors, regional presidents and mayors who are indirectly elected by the

sub-national or municipal councils respectively is, however, different, and is more similar to that

of a Prime Minister in a parliamentary system. They are accountable before the relevant

representative body and need to have the latter’s continued confidence. The threat of great

accruals of power and of interference with equality of opportunity in elections is far less significant.

For this reason, in the Commission’s view, imposing term limits on them does not seem justified.

VI. What is the best way to modify term limits within a constitutional state?

This differentiation may also be found with reference to the institute of recall, which insofar as mayors are

concerned, is, as a rule, associated with direct election by the voters; where mayors are not directly elected,

instead, preference is given to a system, closer to the logic of a representative system, of a no-confidence motion,

enabling the local council to decide on the early termination of the mayor’s mandate.

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 14 -

62. In a previous 2018 report, the Venice Commission recognized that a constitutional

amendment is required to modify term limits for presidents. Any adjustment in a political system

that affects checks and balances between the executive and the legislative branches and that

has an impact on the citizens’ ability to hold representatives accountable should be adopted

through the established amendment procedure, according to the Constitution.

Introducing or

lifting term limits of members of parliaments entails a modification of the conditions of the

representative mandate; only the sovereign people can modify the scope of delegation which

they have given to MPs: term limits should therefore be established in the Constitution.

63. A popular referendum should not be used as a way to override the due constitutional

amendment procedure.

64. For the sub-national authorities, regulation should be made at the same level of regulation

of their legal status: it could be the State Constitution, or a Statute of Autonomy, and at times also

national or regional legislation.

65. At local level, national or regional legislation is required in accordance with the relevant rules

of local self-government in each country.

VII. Conclusion

66. There is no absolute human right to hold office, i.e. to be part of a particular government

institution. The rights to vote and to be elected and the right to political participation are not

absolute. The general right to participate in government is based on rules established by law,

which also define the framework of exercise of the rights to elect and be elected, with due respect

for international standards. What distinguishes representative (i.e. institutional) democracy from

direct democracy is that only those hold office, who are trusted by the voters (following an

established procedure). Both international treaties and national constitutions establish restrictions

on the right to vote and to be elected, which may differ in scope and aims. Such restrictions must

be established by law and must be reasonable and objective. Voters’ capacity to elect freely thus

is always limited by the rules that regulate the right to stand for office and access to the ballot or

nomination rules. The most common requirements are citizenship and age, and there may be

additional ones.

67. Restrictions to the human right to political participation and to stand for election are therefore

generally allowed within a constitutional democracy, to the extent that they are justified and

necessary.

68. The Venice Commission has examined the numerous arguments in favour and against term

limits for members of parliament. It considers that they are not per se arbitrary or disproportionate

interferences with the right of the people to vote and participate in public life. Nor are they arbitrary

or disproportionate limitations of the right to be elected.

69. The Commission stresses, however, that MPs, unlike Presidents, exercise a representative

mandate and form part of a collegiate body. Term limits for MPs therefore are not required in

order to prevent the equivalent of an unlimited exercise of power by the Executive. There is

academic research that supports the idea that term limits for MPs may have a positive effect in

terms of avoiding concentrating power in the hands of a few professional politicians and fostering

more accurate representation and increased responsiveness of the elected representatives

toward the electorate. However, they also weaken the legislature’s power vis-à-vis the executive

The same view was expressed by the US Supreme Court: “State imposition of term limits for congressional

service would affect such a fundamental change in the constitutional framework that it must come through a

constitutional amendment properly passed under the procedures set forth [in the Constitution]”: U.S. Term Limits,

Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), 781. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/

CDL-AD(2019)007

- 15 -

branch and diminish the legislature’s role, even when both branches are subject to similar limits.

They also may increase the influence of party leaderships, as well as of lobby groups and

legislative staff, thus contributing to a migration of power from elected representatives to

nonelected officials, which risks impacting on voters’ ability to hold representatives accountable.

70. On balance, therefore, the Commission does not recommend the introduction of term-limits

for MPs, although it recognises that it is up to each Constitutional or legal system to decide on

their opportunity in the light of the prevailing particular circumstances and the will of the

population. The Commission is of the view nonetheless that if term limits are to be introduced for

a legislative body, they should be less strict than those that apply to an executive body.

71. If term limits are introduced, at least two consecutive terms should be allowed. This appears

to be a reasonable mitigation of the adverse effects of term limits indicated above, and would

preserve in particular the need for accountability towards the electorate. It would also be more

respectful of the principle of proportionality in the interference with the rights to vote and be

elected. The introduction of term limits should be applied so as to allow for a gradual renewal of

the MPs, thus guaranteeing continuity.

72. The Commission has reached a similar conclusion as regards representatives elected at the

sub-national and local level.

73. The imposition of term limits on executive officials directly elected at the sub-national and

local level could appear more justifiable, as their position may be more comparable to that of a

president. By contrast, the position of executive officials who are indirectly elected by sub-

national or municipal councils is more similar to that of a Prime Minister in a parliamentary system.

For this reason, in the Commission’s view, imposing term limits on them does not seem justified.

74. If adopted, term limits for members of national parliaments should be established in the

Constitution. Thus, in general, the appropriate legal route to introduce or modify term limits is the

same as for any other constitutional amendment. A popular referendum should not be used as a

way to override the due constitutional amendment procedure.

75. For the sub-national authorities, regulation should be made at the same level of regulation

of their legal status: it could be the State Constitution, or a Statute of Autonomy, and at times also

national or regional legislation. At local level, national or regional legislation is required to impose

time limits in accordance with the relevant rules of local self-government in each country.