Anerood Jugnauth says that he is prepared to become prime minister again should the MedPoint case take down his son, the current prime minister, Pravind Jugnauth. Just like that, no ifs, no buts, not even his failing health, which was ostensibly why he made his son the prime minister in the first place. This shuffling of the PMO, and the prospect of the return of an 87-year-old prime minister only further underscores the need to institute term limits for the prime ministership.

No one should be in power for more than two terms. Power attracts flatterers. Prime ministers are told every day, for years, how wonderful they are, how wise and how clever. Slowly even the best of them become convinced. After all, so many good people cannot be wrong. Their critical senses are blunted; they become accustomed to being obeyed and eventually become immune to criticism and are angered and vindictive when criticised. With no limit, getting re-elected constantly and enjoying the spoils of power becomes their main object. That is an end in itself.

A two-year term limit will allow for new leaders to emerge from within: ideas will guide parties more than the suffocating bearhug of a single individual who will rule the roost for decades until his children are old enough to inherit it. Parties won’t be bloated by the corrosive influence of lobbies and leeches attached to this or that individual leader. And more people will want to join politics if it does not mean having to spend the next half century kowtowing to the same man. And, more importantly, it will prevent leaders from just assuming that once out of power, all they have to do is wait their turn again, for decades if necessary, for power to fall back into their lap.

Now admittedly, this is not a very democratic idea. People in democracies, particularly Westministerian ones, should be free to choose their leaders for as long as they want. That is true. But, unfortunately, we have a democracy in form only, without the substance. We have something called a parliament, which does not decide, oversee or debate much, an Executive that looks more like a princely court than a modern government (Cabinet responsibility means one man decides everything and everybody else takes responsibility for it), a civil service that is pasture for party supporters and political hacks. We have manifestos and programmes but that’s not what people vote for. We have something called a political party, but these are really fan clubs and/or extended families. And you don’t even have to be a member to be prime minister: as Anerood Jugnauth proved in 2014 and may do so again.

In sum, we have a democracy but no democrats. Sometimes it’s necessary to save a democracy from those purporting to lead it. Mauritians seem to have reached the same conclusion: a February 2015 poll saw 68 per cent backing imposing term limits. Democratic theories always assume the best of a system, but term limits, by wisely assuming the worst, are far more realistic. A little autocratic nudge via term limits might do more for improving democracy itself than any dogma.

For more views and in-depth analysis of current issues, Weekly magazine (Price: Rs 25) or subscribe to Weekly for Rs110 a month. (Free delivery to your doorstep). Email us on: weekly@lexpress.mu