I mean, Fidel Castro is the only national leader I know who is going to lead a country for over 50 years. All you need is good health and you should serve over 50 years as President or Prime Minister.
Even before term limits was instated, none of our presidents served over 50 years.
Why?
2007-06-19 11:17:31 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
lol
2007-06-19 11:19:20 · answer #1 · answered by Caroline J 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
However, because the people of Cuba cannot fairly decide who there leader is, that is an unfair statement. If England were still a monarch, Queen Elizabeth would have been leading for over 50 years now, I realize it's not the same, I'm just ranting now.
2007-06-19 18:28:07 · answer #2 · answered by Greg 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Constitutional Amendment limiting them to 2 terms. Franklin Roosevelt was the only President to serve more that 2 terms. That was why the amendment was passed... to keep someone from being "King". But even at that *our* Presidents have been and are elected every 4 years... and without WWII it is unlikely that Roosevelt would have gotten his 3rd term, much less the 4th. Castro was *NEVER* elected... He is just a dictator... and they rule as long as they have the power to kill any opposition.
2007-06-19 18:31:27 · answer #3 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many presidents seem to age unnaturally fast. Running Cuba probably doesn't take the same strain as running a superpower. The politics in the US is also cyclical. When you are the dictator, you set policy as long as you can kill the opponents before they kill you.
2007-06-19 18:26:27 · answer #4 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We were never designed to be a dictatorship like Cuba so why would we want something like that.
2007-06-19 18:21:02 · answer #5 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋