Proposal acknowledges shift in public perception towards prime ministers: Expert
PETALING JAYA: As Malaysia considers a landmark reform aimed at curbing executive dominance, University of Reading Malaysia and National University of Singapore law professor Andrew Harding said the proposed 10-year limit on a prime minister’s tenure reflects modern political realities rather than classical constitutional theory.
The constitutional expert added that the proposal acknowledges a fundamental shift in public perception in which prime ministers are increasingly viewed in much the same way as presidents.
Modern politics over classical theory
“What is called ‘elective dictatorship’ is encouraged by the absence of any formal limits on tenure and the emergence of populist politics.
“In one sense, a 10-year limit imports the idea of term limits from the presidential system,” Harding told theSun.
He said in practical terms, such a cap would mean a prime minister could not reasonably expect to lead a party into more than two general elections, given that a parliamentary term is limited to five years.
At odds with parliamentary principles
However, Harding emphasised that the proposal runs counter to orthodox parliamentary theory.
In a parliamentary system, a prime minister’s tenure is determined not by a direct popular mandate but by the confidence of a majority of members of parliament.
“The prime minister is not elected by the people, as a president is. He does not appear on the ballot except in his own constituency.”
By convention, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoints as prime minister the MP who is likely to command the confidence of the majority in the Dewan Rakyat.
Harding said that confidence could endure for decades or collapse within weeks.
He pointed to the contrast between Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s 22 years in office, Britain’s first prime minister Sir Robert Walpole’s 21-year tenure and Liz Truss’s seven-week premiership in the United Kingdom.
“The twin dangers of long-term domination and governmental instability highlight the flaw in this system.”
Presidential systems and global precedents
Harding said by contrast, presidential systems elect leaders for fixed terms, with removal possible only through impeachment.
The United States introduced a two-term limit in 1947 after President Franklin D. Roosevelt won four consecutive elections between 1932 and 1944.
Indonesia imposed a two-term consecutive limit in 2001 after President Suharto won eight elections, while the Philippines adopted a single, non-renewable six-year term.
Risk of loopholes through early dissolution
He added that while a 10-year cap would ordinarily restrict a prime minister to two general elections, early dissolution could allow a leader to contest three polls, undermining the intent of the reform.
He suggested safeguards be built in, including a prohibition on a prime minister advising dissolution for a third time.
Is 10 years the right benchmark?
On whether 10 years is an appropriate threshold, Harding observed that only two Malaysian prime ministers have served longer than a decade – Tunku Abdul Rahman, who served 13 years, and Mahathir, who served 22.
In Britain, only two prime ministers in the past 200 years exceeded the 10-year mark – Margaret Thatcher, who served 11 years, and Tony Blair, who served just over a decade.
“Historical experience across the world suggests that one term may be insufficient to carry out a concerted programme of transformation, two terms are possibly sufficient, while a third term usually results in the prime minister missing his way or becoming excessively authoritarian and out of touch.”
Arguments for extended leadership
Nevertheless, Harding acknowledged that certain leaders required extended tenures to deliver major national transformations.
“It could be fairly argued that Mahathir could not have transformed Malaysia without a more extended period in office, similarly Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, (Franklin D.) Roosevelt in the US during global economic collapse and world war and Margaret Thatcher in Britain.
“So there is a profound political choice to be made about the country’s confidence in, and expectations of, its leaders and its democracy.”
Constitutional change needs bipartisan support
Any move to impose term limits would require a constitutional amendment supported by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament.
Harding said even if the government could command such numbers on its own, it would be wiser to frame the change as a bipartisan institutional reform rather than a Madani-specific policy, as the Opposition would also be subject to the same rule.
He added that major constitutional amendments have traditionally been preceded by extensive public debate.
“There is no great hurry and the government has only referred to 2026 as the timeline.
“The opportunity should be taken not just to debate this interesting issue but to educate the public as well as canvass its views.”
