Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What historical examples exist of leaders serving more than two terms and what were the outcomes?
Executive summary
Historically, leaders in multiple countries — and U.S. presidents before the 22nd Amendment — have served more than two terms; the most-cited U.S. example is Franklin D. Roosevelt, elected to four terms (died early in the fourth), which helped prompt the 1951 Twenty‑Second Amendment limiting U.S. presidents to two elected terms [1] [2]. Outside the U.S., term limits have been removed or extended in places such as China (2018 amendment abolishing presidential term limits) and other states have altered or repealed limits, often with large political consequences and debates about concentration of power [3].
1. FDR: The U.S. precedent that changed a rule
Franklin D. Roosevelt remains the only U.S. president elected to more than two full terms — winning a third term in 1940 and a fourth in 1944 — and his death early in the fourth term intensified calls to cap presidential tenure; Congress and the states ratified the 22nd Amendment in 1951, which now bars anyone from being elected president more than twice [1] [2].
2. How the U.S. fixed it — the 22nd Amendment’s language and limits
The Twenty‑Second Amendment explicitly states “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” and it adds a clause limiting election eligibility for anyone who has served more than two years of another president’s term; that constitutional text and its ratification were direct responses to FDR’s four-term presidency [2] [4].
3. Ambiguities and legal discussions about third-term loopholes
Legal commentators note the amendment prohibits being elected more than twice but does not clearly forbid a two‑term former president from ascending again without election (for example, by becoming Vice President and assuming the presidency) — a scenario described as “more unlikely than unconstitutional” by commentators and discussed in constitutional analysis [5] [6].
4. International examples: removing or changing term limits
Outside the United States, constitutional term limits have been changed to extend leaders’ tenure. Notably, China’s 2018 constitutional amendment abolished presidential term limits, enabling Xi Jinping to continue as president indefinitely; academic and media coverage links such removals to consolidation of power at the top [3].
5. Pattern: why leaders seek extra terms and the outcomes observed
Sources show two common drivers: crisis or perceived need for stability (Roosevelt cited World War II) and deliberate constitutional change to preserve power (e.g., China’s 2018 amendment) [1] [3]. Outcomes vary: FDR’s extra terms contributed to institutional change (the 22nd Amendment) while removals of limits elsewhere have been associated with strengthened executive control — sources describe the change in China as allowing indefinite rule [1] [3].
6. Competing perspectives on term limits’ costs and benefits
Proponents of term limits argue they prevent concentration of power and encourage turnover; critics contend limits can cut off experienced leadership during crises and reduce accountability incentives at the end of tenure. U.S. debates have included calls to repeal the 22nd Amendment for continuity in crisis, while other analyses show removing limits can enable long-term policy planning but also risks authoritarian drift [7] [8] [3].
7. Empirical findings about longer-serving leaders at subnational levels
Research on governors and other officeholders suggests mixed results: some studies find governors who win multiple terms correlate with higher economic growth and lower borrowing costs, while term limits can change incentives and behavior — indicating that longer service can produce measurable governance differences, but not uniformly positive ones [9].
8. What the record does — and does not — show
Available reporting documents clear, concrete examples (FDR in the U.S.; China’s 2018 change) and links between prolonged leadership and institutional consequences (the U.S. constitutional amendment; China’s consolidation of the paramount leader role), but sources do not provide a universal causal rule that more terms always produce a given outcome — effects depend on political systems, checks and balances, and whether limits are removed by legal amendment or bypassed by extra‑constitutional means [1] [3] [2].
9. Takeaway for readers considering “more than two terms” today
Historical cases show two predictable dynamics: [10] extra terms often prompt institutional reform or political backlash (FDR → 22nd Amendment), and [11] removing term limits tends to centralize power (China’s 2018 amendment). Debates persist about tradeoffs between leadership continuity in crisis and the democratic risks of prolonged incumbency; scholars and policymakers cite both potential governance gains and danger signs in different contexts [1] [3] [9].
Limitations: this summary draws only on the provided sources and therefore focuses on high‑profile examples and legal analysis cited there; available sources do not mention every global case of leaders serving more than two terms, nor do they quantify long‑term economic or democratic outcomes across all countries [3] [9].