Propositions for Term Limits

Thus far the debate about California’s propositions to limit the terms of legislators on the editorial pages of The Times has been largely misdirected and historical. Neither supporters, such as Cal Thomas (Sept. 27) nor opponents of term limits such as Nelson W. Polsby (Sept. 27) and Sherry Bebitch Jeffe (Sept. 30) seem to understand that there is a strong American precedent for term limits that emerges from radical democratic theory and a deep aversion to the concentration of political power in the hands of professional politicians. Thomas poorly defends term limits by suggesting that only frustration with legislative behavior is at work in motivating voters to support such restrictions. Polsby’s criticism that term limits won’t really solve much and Jeffe’s criticism that neither Propositions 131 nor 140 is really about term limits anyway do not even begin to respond to the intrinsic virtues of term limitations for democratic self-governance, effective political representation and the facilitation of citizenship.

Thomas, Polsby and Jeffe miss the entire relevance of the democratic experience in their commentaries on term limitations. Disgust with Congress and legislatures generally may have initially stimulated the movement to limit the terms of officeholders. But nothing less than a return to the Aristotelian principle of “ruling and being ruled in turn” should now be at stake in debates about the merits of term limitations. The demand for term limits is a demand for self-governance, effective representation and citizenship. In a political system characterized by unprecedented apathy, such demands are welcome signs that the democratic spirit is still alive, at least for the moment, in the new world.

MARK P. PETRACCA

Assistant Professor, Department

Politics and Society, UC Irvine