What seemed like a close contest ended in a comfortable victory for Barack Obama. Thank goodness for that. Freed from the shackles of having to seek re-election in four years’ time, there’s reason to hope that the president will be far bolder in his second mandate. Not that he did supremely badly in his first one, mind you, what with the growing vindication of his economic policies, the introduction of universal health care and general level-headedness in international affairs. On the minus side, his timid regulation of the financial sector, apparent fondness of drone attacks and failure to close down Guantanamo are as many stains on this principled man’s record. As per usual, the Republicans will do everything in their power to stifle his every move, but that’s the name of the game. For all its brashness, excess and love of special interests, there’s still something we can learn from the US political system: the merits of the two-term limit.

The issue of political dynasties has long divided Mauritians there are those of us who find comfort in seeing the same faces over and over and…over again, and then there are those who yearn for renewal and change. Whichever side of the fence you’re on, there’s no contesting that our political parties have become somewhat staid, their leaders rehashing the same tired messages ad nauseam and forging alliances with erstwhile nemeses simply to secure a bigger slice of the political cake. In their fantasies, they all see themselves as being in power until virtually their dying breaths, irrespective of the relevance of their vision and competencies. And because familiarity breeds contempt, the population’s opinion is only solicited when its votes are needed.

This is not only bad for democracy it makes for awful management too. Imagine, for a second (it’s free), that the prime minister was in his second and last mandate. He controls parliament and is ineligible for re-election. Do you think he’d be going about the business of running the country any differently than he currently is? The putative answer, of course, is a resounding yes! Notwithstanding pressure from within his own party, he would be free to implement policies that further the country’s interests rather than ones that strengthen his stranglehold on power. This would have far-reaching implications for public life everything from the nomination process for directors of parastatal bodies to the role played by socio-cultural groups would be up for revision.

And naturally, each party would need to have to be some sort of a succession plan in place, rather than just being churches for worshipping a given cult of personality. It wouldn’t solve all our problems of course but given how keen our political leaders are of talking about electoral reform at every chance they get, the omission of any reference to term limits is notable. Perhaps the issue should be included in any further debate on the question. Don’t bet on it though turkeys are known to have an aversion for Christmas.

Nicholas RAINER