Ken Livingstone: Should we have stopped Roosevelt after two terms?

Saturday 14 February 2009 01:00 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Only the media make the argument that there should be time limits on holding power, and that's because someone losing and a changing of the guard makes for a better story and sells more newspapers. As long as a leader still has the support of the people, he should be allowed to stay in power.

Term limits really only started being en vogue after they were introduced in the US in 1951 following the death of Franklin Roosevelt during his fourth term in office. But just imagine if he'd been obliged to retire before the US elections of 1940. The Nazis might have been faced with an isolationist Washington giving them free rein over Europe.

So I see nothing wrong with Hugo Chavez, the man who has done so much for Venezuela, wanting to have more time to finish the job, as long as the public keeps wanting to elect him. Venezuela used to be run by 100 or so rich oligarch families, who stole all the wealth. Chavez said "Enough". He nationalised the oil industry so the country's resources could benefit all of the country's people. It is a huge achievement, he has paved the way for Venezuela to propel itself into the First World. He has brought literacy to children and adults; he has brought health care to people who had never seen a doctor before in their lives. Of course, there is more to do. Mr Chavez has been stymied in tackling crime and particularly the high murder rate because the police forces are under local control. The referendum he lost in 2007 aimed to sort that out. The other handicap he faces is that the middle class is still very small and there are not the technical skills that you need to build a society.

Mr Chavez came to Tony Blair's Third Way seminar in 1999 precisely because he was looking for this assistance and expertise but the West – and especially America – has always told him no.

Tomorrow's referendum is an important moment for the Chavez project and for Venezuela. The only reason some politicians want term limits is because they don't trust the people to choose. And to those who say that being the long-time incumbent confers an unfair advantage in elections, I say: "Well how come I didn't get elected for a third term as London mayor last year then?"

Ken Livingstone is the former mayor of London

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in