The flip side of the third term debate

By Alhaji Kemo Conteh

The Gambia is experiencing a major shift in its political worldview as a simmering national debate all-be-it one sided rages on the question of whether President Barrow should seek his third term in power.

The extreme political opposition to his rule sees the prospect of his voluntary retreat from power as the grand moment of hope of taking over government, with his personal towering charisma, and the massive political appeal of his grand coalition out of the way.

As the national debate flares in in the rage of occasional eruptions in the landscape of political propaganda, the voice of reason seems to be submerged in the belly of heavy and high handed social media interventions mainly dominated by his opponents.

In the throes of this highly contentious national debate, as a counter balance of the opposition narrative, I seek to share at least three core principles about democracy, governance, and institutional strength on the other side of the third term debate as follows:
1.         Voter sovereignty should be absolute — Term limits restrict the fundamental democratic right of citizens to choose their leaders. If voters want to re-elect a leader multiple times, the constitution shouldn’t block that choice. In this view, term limits are seen as an artificial constraint that overrides the will of the people and replaces it with a rigid rule.

2.         Experience and continuity in leadership matter — Long-serving leaders can accumulate deep institutional knowledge, international relationships, and policy experience that are difficult to replace. Term limits may force out highly effective leaders at their peak, disrupting long-term projects, economic reforms, or national strategies. Opponents argue that continuity — especially in developing or fragile states — can be more valuable than periodic leadership turnover.

3.         Strong institutions, not term limits — This should prevent abuse of power, and another argument is that term limits are a “shortcut solution” to a deeper governance issue. Instead of relying on fixed tenure caps, a republic should invest in independent courts, a strong legislature, free media, and credible elections. If these institutions function properly, they can check any leader regardless of how long they serve. Term limits, in this sense, may mask institutional weakness rather than solve it.

These arguments don’t necessarily reject the risks of prolonged rule, they simply claim that limiting terms is a blunt instrument compared to strengthening democratic systems themselves.

This is why on the larger global stage, the question of term limits is an unending debate, dividing national  perspectives into two, between the countries that choose to adopt the option in their constitutional text and practice it in political reality, and many others well established, powerful and wealthy democracies that have chosen instead to main a presidential system that empower voters to decide at the poll which president stays on, and which one is voted out in any election. And this emphatically, not to be decided in words between the lines of a constitutional framework which may have been manipulated by rent seeking political elites.

Alhaji Kemo Conteh, is the founder and senior partner, Governance and Development Management Services (GDMS)

The Gambia is experiencing a major shift in its political worldview as a simmering national debate all-be-it one sided rages on the question of whether President Barrow should seek his third term in power.

The extreme political opposition to his rule sees the prospect of his voluntary retreat from power as the grand moment of hope of taking over government, with his personal towering charisma, and the massive political appeal of his grand coalition out of the way.

As the national debate flares in in the rage of occasional eruptions in the landscape of political propaganda, the voice of reason seems to be submerged in the belly of heavy and high handed social media interventions mainly dominated by his opponents.

In the throes of this highly contentious national debate, as a counter balance of the opposition narrative, I seek to share at least three core principles about democracy, governance, and institutional strength on the other side of the third term debate as follows:
1.         Voter sovereignty should be absolute — Term limits restrict the fundamental democratic right of citizens to choose their leaders. If voters want to re-elect a leader multiple times, the constitution shouldn’t block that choice. In this view, term limits are seen as an artificial constraint that overrides the will of the people and replaces it with a rigid rule.

2.         Experience and continuity in leadership matter — Long-serving leaders can accumulate deep institutional knowledge, international relationships, and policy experience that are difficult to replace. Term limits may force out highly effective leaders at their peak, disrupting long-term projects, economic reforms, or national strategies. Opponents argue that continuity — especially in developing or fragile states — can be more valuable than periodic leadership turnover.

3.         Strong institutions, not term limits — This should prevent abuse of power, and another argument is that term limits are a “shortcut solution” to a deeper governance issue. Instead of relying on fixed tenure caps, a republic should invest in independent courts, a strong legislature, free media, and credible elections. If these institutions function properly, they can check any leader regardless of how long they serve. Term limits, in this sense, may mask institutional weakness rather than solve it.

These arguments don’t necessarily reject the risks of prolonged rule, they simply claim that limiting terms is a blunt instrument compared to strengthening democratic systems themselves.

This is why on the larger global stage, the question of term limits is an unending debate, dividing national perspectives into two, between the countries that choose to adopt the option in their constitutional text and practice it in political reality, and many others well established, powerful and wealthy democracies that have chosen instead to main a presidential system that empower voters to decide at the poll which president stays on, and which one is voted out in any election. And this emphatically, not to be decided in words between the lines of a constitutional framework which may have been manipulated by rent seeking political elites.

Alhaji Kemo Conteh, is the founder and senior partner, Governance and Development Management Services (GDMS)