In a republican context term limits on the executive and legislative is usually framed from the perspective of liberty. Relatively frequent changes of position stop politicians remaining too long and becoming entrenched in the position and estranged from their electorate and popular will. The balance is to make the changes frequent enough to protect liberty, but infrequent enough to enable competence.

The Killfile argued today for term limits from the perspective of good executive governance. His argument is that leaders who stay too long in parliamentary systems destroy the electoral capability of an opposing party. Maybe we could call it the Menzies effect.

From the Killfile:

Still, I think there is an argument to be made for a fixed limit in the top job. The premiers all gave it about ten years before handing over the reigns, which probably means that ten years is too long. Something a little less might be more appropriate.

If NSW is a good example with the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] both Greiner and Carr were being investigated before the eight year mark, so approximately six to eight years is the optimum for a party leader to provide good governance before the temptations of power catch up with them. As adam noted in the past; term limits save politicians from themselves.

Killfile leans to eight years with four year election cycles, similar to what NSW has:

If we accept that Howard has achieved anything, then he probably would have achieved it all in eight years, if he knew that was all he had.

Importantly, though, he would know that he came with a used-by date, and toward the end of that second term he would have been actively auditioning for a replacement.

There had to be a transition (to a new head of the party, rather than necessarily to a new Prime Minister, as that would be up to the electorate), so it likely would have been planned and orderly.

Interested parties could have used the time to express their interest, and start making the electorate aware of what they stood for (does anyone seriously know what Peter Costello stands for, even now?).

I think three years is the optimum, the two years of the American Congress is too short, and the four years of NSW parliament is too long. Three years is a good balance. Six years in the top executive position is enough for a leader to make their mark and I agree with Killfile that orderly transition from that period would improve governance.

It would stop the fiasco of Keating taking power where an obvious talent was backbenched, it would also alleviate the Costello situation where a Prime Minister has refused to loose the reigns even when they appear to be in a hopeless position. It is a bit more difficult with Howard however; as until recently he was electorally competitive.

I prefer term limits from the republican point of view and protecting liberty while keeping representatives close to their electorate. It is easier to term limit a separate executive IMO. Harder to do with a parliamentary executive which is more informal than a separate one. For instance the PM is not mentioned in the Australian Constitution at all.

I like the idea of limited the Prime Minister and Premier to two terms or six years. I also like limiting legislators to twenty-five years of service. It is a generation in length and if they haven't achieved anything by then the system should kick them out.

More Reading on Term limits

• Term Limits
• Westminster
• Party Mechanics
• Increasing the Churn Rate
• Term Limiting of the Venezuelan Executive
• Executive Term Limits in Parliamentary Systems
• Term Limits Redux - Do They Improve The Political Process