Is Four years enough

A majority of nations span a tenure of the president for four years, in countries that have a lot of challenges especially in Africa, when put on the spot these leaders confidently say four years in not enough to create that substantial change that the people yearn for and to vibrate the economy. yes there are fiscal and monetary policies that take long term to really show substantial effect but to a serious determined and well prepared leader who has the best interest of the country at heart, is four years really enough?

Four years is probably not enough to finish the job, but it should be long enough to see if the country is moving in the right direction. At least here in the US, the last three years have been long enough to see that we are moving swiftly in the direction of disaster and we need new leadership.

It's really 8 years. With a performance review at 4 years.

I think the problems a lot of this countries face isn't long term leadership, it is lack of coherent and stable leadership. Democracy isn't supposed to usher in a leader or system capable of carrying out a grand blueprint from above, it is supposed to inculcate that from below. Democracy, true and legitimate democracy, tends to bring with it stability due to the sense of societal ownership and the legitimacy of the 'other' within the framework of the system. Stability and predictability are by far the most important things in bringing in investment and spurring confidence for growth. I'm unsympathetic to leaders in Africa who say they need more time in office. If they value their countries future they should avoid agitating for term extensions, and pass power on peacefully. This will not only encourage stability, but real democracy also over time brings with it transparency and liberalization of bureaucracy which tends to be a positive thing.

ogochukwu said:

A majority of nations span a tenure of the president for four years, in countries that have a lot of challenges especially in Africa, when put on the spot these leaders confidently say four years in not enough to create that substantial change that the people yearn for and to vibrate the economy. yes there are fiscal and monetary policies that take long term to really show substantial effect but to a serious determined and well prepared leader who has the best interest of the country at heart, is four years really enough?

Click to expand...

Given that the problem of many African countries is that of incumbent Presidents thinking the job is a lifetime role where they can ignore the popular vote, I'm curious which countries in Africa you are referring to?

the_recruit said:

It's really 8 years. With a performance review at 4 years.

Click to expand...

You need to check which forum / continent / country you think you're replying about.

Britain holds votes of no confidence which puts the head of government on an indefinite term whether more or less than 4 years.

That's more organic, so more relatable.

Infinite Chaos said:

Given that the problem of many African countries is that of incumbent Presidents thinking the job is a lifetime role where they can ignore the popular vote, I'm curious which countries in Africa you are referring to? You need to check which forum / continent / country you think you're replying about.

Click to expand...

no specific country is required given that countries in Africa face a similar problems when it comes to leadership but if you need a country lets pick Nigeria

Thank you for your reply Ogochukwu.

The democracy experiment in Nigeria is still young is it not? Goodluck Johnson took over from Umaru Yar'Adua who himself was the first civilian to take over peacefully from another civilian. 3 relatively peaceful handovers since independence is not a great record but it does give hope that Nigeria is beginning to overcome many of the problems that face many African countries.

Umaru Yar'Adua had a long list of reforms he wished to achieve but death and other causes in Nigeria itself delayed that change. I've not heard enough in major news outlets regarding continuation of change from Jonathon's government but on the ground - my contacts in Jos still fear for their lives when ethnic/religious conflict starts and their lives are not changed.

My view is that 4 years (if democracy can be kept going) IS enough, that if a leader wishes to retain power he does so through continued campaigns at the election box. There have been too many leaders who got into the job only to use their tribal majority block to change the role of re-electable position into lifetime position. Politicians should be held to account and they should do so at the ballot box. If they are doing well - then they will be re-elected. If not, then someone else deserves the chance. I would prefer the 4 year rule to the lifetime position rule anyday.

given my perspective is a matter of the normal and my perspective is that, for any administration in a country in this day and age especially an oil producing country such as Nigeria four years is enough to secure a significant change or rather percentage growth in the economy of the country.if the preordained intent of political leaders in democracy are adhered to as prescribed by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle with out the irregularities, it should not take much time to cause significant development and growth.it took Hitler about 3 years

4-years is pretty good. I'd prefer it to be coterminous with the Senate though.