I happen to be one of those people who believes that the raw skills and pervasive cunning of enduring political leaders is independent of the given political system in which they operate (though it can certainly have an impact).  For example, at the height of his influence, Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat was politically maneuvering with the skill of Washington heavyweight – were he Mayor of Chicago, for example, you would never be able to get rid of him.  The same can be said of Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, and a variety of other leaders who have surpassed the 10-year mark.  Though these men for the most part lack democratic legitimacy, if you dropped them into a a real Senatorial or MP race they would likely excel handily, even with control over TV or the courts imprisoning the competition.

That’s really the beauty of term limits for all.  Whether you are Michael Bloomberg or Nursultan Nazarbayev, it’s tremendously beneficial to maintain the democracy kill switch to civilly remove power from one individual’s hands to pass to unrelated parties of popular choice, which can be seen as the penultimate expression of the last check and balance.  (Naturally the U.S. has nothing to lecture about here, with unlimited terms for Congress and Senate).

Putting aside for the moment the debate over Russia’s managed democracy at the top, and the bargain struck between the people and the state, exchanging voting rights for economic growth, etc., there are some troubling issues raised by the issue of term limits for the appointed governors of Russia’s regions.