Axar.az presents an article, "Term Limits” by John Samuel Tieman.

Here's why I hate term limits for legislators.

Sophie called. She's held elected and appointed offices. I admire her command of issues, policy and governance. She's a profound wonk. Often, two years ago, when I was first elected to my City Council, I would just listen when she called. Yesterday, however, I noticed a difference. I kept up. I even added information. Sophie is still 90 times the wonk I am. But yesterday, I kept up. I even contributed. And that, that elemental command of issues, policy and governance, that's taken me two years to acquire.

I can think of four reasons to hate term limits for legislators. One, the most common reason that folks offer is that term limits curb corruption. Two, term limits are indiscriminate and kick out the good with the bad. Three, term limits disrupt relationships, and relationships are the core of politics. Perhaps the worst impact is that it limits a fundamental principle of the democratic republic, the ability to choose the representative. I could give a dozen reasons, but these four should suffice for this short essay.

Term limits limit corruption? Political scientists have studied the experience of states and foreign governments with term limits. Such studies regularly find that term limits exacerbate corruption. Consider just these two findings. One contention is that term limits will make legislators unconcerned with re-election. It doesn't, however, make such folks unconcerned with finding a job once they are out of office. Another contention is that term limits will decrease the dependence upon special interests. Consider lobbyists. Listening to lobbyists is not a bad thing. However, novice legislators often fill their own informational gaps by listening to lobbyists because the lobbyists are well-informed. Longer-serving officials simply have more experience with evaluating such matters.

Term limits are indiscriminate and kick out the good with the bad. Regardless of how effective a legislator may be, term limits ensure that such expertise will be lost. It's that simple. Term limits lead to a lack of experience because they truncate the development of expertise, which in its turn truncates the ability to craft legislation with long-term, lasting and widespread impact. Yes, term limits kick out the bad. So does an informed electorate.

Three, term limits disrupt relationships, and relationships are the core of politics. Disruption can be an objective good, especially if a protester disrupts an immediate evil. But legislation and reform are about process, and process is about coalition, compromise, and the building of relationships. That takes time. It also takes skills that develop over time. This may be the most misunderstood aspect of politics. Folks often define politics by the contentious debate followed by the controversial vote. Sometimes that’s the case. But not often. Legislation and reform are all about process. Process is all about relationships. And all of that takes time. Politics takes patience.

Perhaps the worst impact of term limits is that what they limit is choice. At the core of the democratic republic is the ability to choose the representative. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was a radical idea in 1776, and it remains radical today.

There are reasons to support term limits. Some executive offices, like the presidency or a governorship, have so much power that no one should have such an office for long. The case for term limits seems as strong for legislators. But the creation of successful legislation is a process, not a single event. It takes time. For even the most experienced of officials, it is difficult and time-consuming. We should not mandate that experienced legislators be forced out of the institution. The democratic republic provides for review. Every few years, the electorate submits a job evaluation for its legislators – the vote.