In a functioning democracy, governance must be driven by accountability, urgency and service to the people. A decade, for instance, is long enough for any government to introduce reforms, build institutions, enact meaningful policies and demonstrate measurable progress. Ten years allows not only the passing of legislation but also the implementation and visible impact of those laws. Yet, in many democracies, the absence of term limits has enabled governments to remain in power for decades without producing the transformative change they once promised.
The flaw is structural. When leaders know that their tenure is open-ended, they often shift focus from governance to political consolidation. Energy and state resources are spent on sustaining power rather than delivering development. Long incumbencies weaken public institutions, encourage political complacency and allow patronage networks to harden. Over time, democracy remains only in visible ritual, elections and rhetoric, but loses its core purpose, which is the empowerment and progress of the people. True accountability suffers when political leaders believe time is on their side indefinitely.
Term limits work because they impose a natural deadline. They ensure that leaders act within a defined window. They encourage governments to work with speed, clarity and measurable targets. More importantly, they make room for new leadership, new ideas and renewal within the political system. In the absence of such limits, governance risks becoming hereditary, monopolistic and stagnant, even when conducted under the banner of democracy.
This discussion is particularly relevant to Nagaland at this decisive juncture in its history. As negotiations with the Government of India move toward a final settlement, the Naga people and negotiating groups have an opportunity to shape a political future rooted in accountability and good governance. One of the strongest safeguards would be the inclusion of term limits in the proposed Naga constitution. If term limits are enshrined, governance in Nagaland would never fall into the trap of endless tenure without results. Leaders would know that their time in public office is limited and must be justified through performance.
The Naga people should therefore insist on term limits as a non-negotiable foundation of genuine self-governance. A political system that refreshes itself regularly is one that keeps leaders humble, institutions strong and democracy meaningful. Enshrining term limits in the proposed Naga Constitution would be the most meaningful gift that the final solution to the Naga political question can offer the Naga people, ensuring that power serves the people and not the other way around.