COMMENT Last week, Tanjung Bungah assemblyperson Teh Yee Cheu has again submitted his proposal to limit the tenure of Penang's chief minister to two terms after having done so last year.

He reasoned that the proposal will provide opportunity for “more aspiring, qualified and talented politician” to contribute and “prevent unscrupulous and over-friendly businessmen from seeking unfair advantages”. In an egalitarian tone, Teh drove home his point, “Let’s give everybody a chance, it is time to change for the sake of accountability to the people.”

James Ligunjang, a former Sabah assemblyperson, recognised Teh’s proposal as a “good idea” that enables “fresh perspectives” and prevents authoritarian rule.

A commentator agrees: “We are facing a dearth of young leaders not because there are none who have the potential, but because we don’t have a system that gives enough opportunities for potential leaders to develop themselves. We should begin putting such a system in place by limiting the tenure of our elected officials at all levels. Two terms would be about right.”

Basically, the reasons for limiting the tenure are five: (1) Rejuvenates leadership, (2) provides opportunity for others to lead, (3) prevents authoritarianism, (4) prevents cronyism, and (5) upholds accountability.

But are these good reasons to limit the tenure of a chief minister?

Leadership rejuvenation

There is an assumption among the proposal’s proponents that good political leaders are aplenty. And what is lacking is opportunity.

Firstly, it remains to be seen if there are qualified candidates waiting to fill the role. One cannot simply assume without basis the availability of suitable aspirants for the job.

The proposal needs more than a rehashing of self-assuring pseudo-egalitarian shibboleth that everyone can be a great leader, for leaders are very much like money do not grow on trees.

Secondly, contrary to the claim of lack, the opportunity to acquire the chief minister’s position comes through the electoral process. Thus, what is lacking is not opportunity but candidates who are capable enough to take over the role through the same process which the incumbent went through.

After all we are talking about the chief minister position, a highly demanding job. Limiting tenure to two-terms does not only open up the floodgate for underqualified candidates to rise to the job but also prematurely terminates the service of great leaders and deprives the state of needed leadership.

Hence, instead of rejuvenating leadership, the proposal actually promotes mediocre leadership for the state. We do not need underqualified short-term office holders but determined visionary leaders whose service must not be prematurely aborted.

Besides, long-term service does not necessarily exclude fresh perspectives and ideas, while two-terms tenure does not guarantee openness to new thoughts and initiative. To assert otherwise is nothing more than an attempt at manipulating perception.

Systemic Improvement

Some have argued that the two-terms tenure will improve the present system, with benefits including the prevention of authoritarianism and cronyism while advances accountability.

There are several problems with this.

First, it is simply wrong to think that limiting tenure will prevent authoritarian rule. Authoritarian rule in a democratic country like Malaysia comes not from limitless tenure but from consolidation of power.

In other words, authoritarian rule is not established based on the length of tenure but the exercising of strong political power when one is elected into the office. A glimpse of this is seen in Tunku Abdul Rahman’s ousting of Stephen Kalong Ningkan from the chief minister post in Sarawak in 1966.

When the Kuching High Court went against Tunku in reinstating Ningkan as the state’s chief minister, Tunku responded by declaring emergency rule in Sarawak. The emergency rule consolidated power for Tunku to amend the Sarawak constitution which then enabled Sarawak's governor to convene a state assembly meeting to table a ‘no-confidence’ vote which ousted Ningkan once and for all.

Tunku orchestrated that in the ninth year of his tenure as prime minister, less than two terms of service.

The point here is not to say that the office of Penang’s chief minister is similar to that of the prime minister. Rather, it is to highlight the fact that authoritarian rule comes from the consolidation of power, not from the length of tenure.

Therefore, the proponents of two-terms tenure are simply delusional to believe that it will prevent authoritarian rule.

Second, it is also wrong to think that cronyism can be prevented by the two-terms arrangement. Cronyism can occur immediately after the person is elected into office, without needing to wait until his or her third term.

Thus, cronyism is not prevented by limiting tenure of office holder but by establishing transparent administration, such as the open tender system put in place by the current Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng. To believe the contrary is a leap of logic.

Third, the alleged benefit in advancing accountability has constructed a false dichotomy between length of tenure and accountability. Accountability is not advanced or hindered by the length of service but by the very practice of being accountable.

Political accountability is about giving the best to the majority public and the future of the state, not bootlicking noisy interest groups.

After constantly being tossed around by unthinking politicians, the word ‘accountability’ has been reduced to nothing more than a conceited mantra for the latter.

The primary accountability a politician has to the people is to manage and sustain a society where people are able to live and make a living with least threats and violence. Not about scratching the itch of every interest group under the sun.

Absence of reason

As examined thus far, the two terms tenure proposal has not shown conclusively the benefits it promises. Rather, it is demonstrated that the proposal harbors misconceived notion of leadership rejuvenation and systemic improvement which are actually detrimental to the state.

The proposal is an attempt to limit power, yet there is a dire deficiency of how it can constructively create and negotiate power for the betterment of the state.

A political vacuum will emerge, with social disruption to follow, when power is limited without an equivalent or stronger and more reasonable power in place. As Francis Fukuyama said, “Before you can limit power, you have to be able to generate power.”

And here lies the proposal’s deepest flaw: ignorance of the fundamentals of politics and power.

JOSHUA WOO SZE ZENG is special officer to the Member of Parliament for Bukit Mertajam, Penang.