When corruption, lies and crippling incapacity dominates, it is never the country that benefits. It is almost invariably a clique of self-interested individuals who gain and we let them plague us when they can employ public offices to their avail, by buying off career politicians who will speak for the masters and never the citizens.

The problem with an absence of term limits is how we make democracy vulnerable to special interests. When corporations and special interest groups help politicians get elected or buy a vacation house; they have long-term goals in mind.

We also see than once a politician is elected, they control so much resources that it is easier to get elected. Which is why the politicians who are most heavily influenced by special interest groups also tend to remain in power for longer, and democracy loses. Note how opposition to term limits often comes from either politicians who will be affected by it or from groups who are known to influence politicians.

Term limits help restrict the unholy alliance of legislation and bureaucracy. People have dreams, and representatives are supposed to be our agents communicating with bureaucracy. Civil servants, ministries, law enforcement, judiciary and so on are state apparatus providing invaluable stability and experience.

A common incidence however is when legislators exercise a disproportionate influence on these. The Turkish president and ex-premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan is now infamous for his use of state apparatus to restrict democracy and failure to engage with the Islamic State (IS). However, his first two stints as the prime minister of Turkey was nothing but revolutionary. We have seen how power corrupts leaders.

Term limits help civil servants act with full capacity. Senior politicians will always be there but term limits makes the problem infinitely worse for civil servants. If we look at the recent changes in Malaysian offices, we will realize how unlimited power grants overreaching control.

The deputy prime minister who had only begun vocalising some concerns was fired, people who were supposed to investigate into the corruption probe were suddenly rewarded with ministerial power. It was distinctly explicit when the attorney-general himself was replaced. Absence of term limits means we know who is going to run the game and more often, it is easier to lose morality at the price of comfort.

For politics as a whole, term limits help curb the vicious effect of seniority. Politics is a risky endeavour and you do not want to make unnecessary enemies. Especially not powerful ones. So when politics is saturated with ‘senior’ figures, change is deprioritised and you focus on surviving.

Term limits therefore ensure that everything about our civil and political apparatus is better off. It changes how politics is done, it changes how civil servants think, it changes the relationship between bureaucracy and politicians and it weeds out undesired elements. Term limits also perform a critical second function. They spark and keep our hopes alive.

Hope is beautiful thing but its hard to retain it when you are more likely to come out failing. It is hard to stand up to the podium and ask for votes. More so for people who have worked hard for who they have become. These are community leaders, activists, conscious citizens who are able and willing to lead but they are bound by fear of failure.

‘The smart thing to do’

Only the exceptional few would dare to contest against a senior politician. So it doesn't make sense when your opponent is a long-time incumbent. You will almost invariably choose not to contend, because it’s ‘the smart thing to do’.

Our right to vote forms the central foundation of democracy. But we should also be brave and face the fact that often we vote from sentiments and not through a measure of capacity. The phenomenon of choosing familiar faces despite their continued failure is because we are simply comfortable. This means that new contenders start off on the back foot, with too much to prove, if victory is to be theirs.

Now say you win the election by a miracle, you are faced with a cabinet of old hogs who have amassed unlimited powers. Every time you want to change things you are expected to choreograph the most complicated waltz. Such barriers to change should be unnecessary but they persists because we allow a system where some people get to hoard power at the absence of term limits.

This is interesting because a younger legislator from Penang, Tanjung Bungah assemblyperson Teh Yee Cheu is known to have persistently raised the issue of limiting term limits. Constantly shot down, he relentlessly pursues the cause.

Another reason we must ensure an ever-changing cabinet is because we want fresh ideas. And when power is perpetually passed around among career politicians, only people lose as we widen the rift between politics and ideas that actually change things around us.

We must realise that holding an elected office is hard work. Public servants are expected to be sharp and work hard. Even without corruption or selling out to special interests, it is entirely possible for officials to lose touch, or become less effective over time.

There is something very noble about the knowledge that you may be holding this office today, but tomorrow you will back on the street with old friends and all too common concerns. That is a recipe for humble civil service.

Benjamin Franklin made the most persuasive case for term limits when he said more than two centuries ago: “In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors... For the former to return among the latter does not degrade, but promote them.”

When politicians are just people who accept that they must return to the society they will help create, they become careful about what they build.

SYED SADDIQ SYED ABDUL RAHMAN is a part-time lecturer at Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) Malaysia and is Asia’s best debater, winning the United Asia Debate Championship in May 2015.