RALEIGH – To argue for limiting the terms of politicians or political leaders is not necessarily to question either their competence or their intentions.

This observation should go without saying, it seems to me, given that term limits in some form have been inherent in nearly every system of representative government since the days of the Roman Republic. Sometimes, the limits were statutory. In other times, such as the pre-FDR American presidency, the limits were merely traditional but honored nevertheless. Rotation in office was seen as a positive good, not just something tragic that occasionally happened to “good” politicians with bad electoral luck.

I’m for full-blown term limitation in North Carolina. Might as well go ahead and say it. I think it was a mistake to change the state constitution to allow Jim Hunt to succeed himself as governor in 1980. It set a horrible precedent, and led inexorably to legislators wanting to stay in leadership posts longer to compensate. Virginia, for example, still gets by with one-term governors, many of whom are considered to be highly successful chief executives with national stature and aspirations (think Doug Wilder, Chuck Robb, Jim Gilmore, Mark Warner, and the pre-macaca George Allen). And Virginia is at least as well-governed a state as North Carolina is (some would argue Virginia is a better-run state, and a few nit-pickers would insist that it’s a commonwealth, not a state).

In the legislative context, I’d limit the number of terms lawmakers can serve in either chamber, to somewhere in the range of six to eight years a piece. There are plenty of good North Carolinians who could serve for a while in the General Assembly with distinction and effectiveness. Incumbency is such a powerful impediment to competitive elections that many of these candidates will never run. Guarantee more open seats, through constitutionally required rotation in office, and I think the result in good government would be both positive and persistent.

But I recognize that many folks don’t agree with me on this. They believe that term limits are unnecessary, because periodic elections allow voters all the power they need to rotate politicians should they so desire. They believe term limits are dangerous, by tipping the balance of power in favor of executives, lobbyists, and legislative staff. And they believe term limits will rob the state of the expertise and experience required to govern wisely.

I think the available evidence offers ample reason to reject these arguments. Still, if we can’t agree on the general concept of term limitation, surely there is the potential for common ground on the matter of requiring legislative leaders to serve only limited stints. As Democrats jockey for position to replace Jim Black as House Speaker, most of the candidates appear to agree that two terms at a time is a sufficient period within which to lead the House effectively without succumbing to the pressures and temptations of power that got Black into so much trouble. The same logic can and should apply to the position of president pro tem of the North Carolina Senate.

At first, it would be sufficient for leadership candidates to pledge to serve only two terms. Eventually, though, I’d like to see a constitutional amendment submitted to voters that would limit leaders’ terms. If experience is any guide, the electorate will enthusiastically support any such move.

By the way, overwhelming public support for term limits more generally constitutes a persuasive refutation of one argument against the idea: that it is “anti-democratic.” No, term limitation is manifestly a means of carrying out the popular will of the vast majority of voters. In the present case, most North Carolinians, regardless of party or ideology, recognize that it is simply not a good idea to have legislative leaders in power very long. That’s wise – and nothing personal.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.