The United States presidency: a role steeped in history, tradition, and - since 1951 - a firm two-term limit. But with President Donald Trump once again hinting at the idea of a third term, a question many thought was long settled is back in the headlines: Can he actually do that?
According to the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1951, no person can be elected to the office of the President more than twice. This amendment was established following Franklin D. Roosevelt's unprecedented four terms in office, which prompted concerns about the concentration of power in a single individual. The two-term limit was intended to ensure a regular turnover in leadership and to prevent any one person from holding too much authority for too long.
Despite this constitutional barrier, Trump has been vocal about his ambitions, suggesting that he may seek a third term if he wins the 2024 presidential election. "I can do it, I can run for a third term," Trump stated during a rally, igniting discussions among political analysts and the public alike about the implications of such a move.
Across the Atlantic, a similar debate is unfolding in Italy. Massimiliano Fedriga, the President of Friuli-Venezia Giulia, is contemplating a third term as he approaches the halfway mark of his second term. Fedriga expressed his desire for continuity in governance, stating, "Yes, I would like to because we are working well. But the deadline is still far away (spring 2028). When the time comes, I will have to have the enthusiasm to continue the experience."
However, the Italian legal framework presents a different challenge. The current law, approved in 2004, limits regional presidents to two terms. Fedriga acknowledged this limitation, noting, "I have always said that the decision is up to the Regional Council. I am not forcing things. If the majority asks me if I am available to continue, I will evaluate what to do." This raises questions about whether the law should be amended to allow for a third term, as some regional leaders like Fedriga believe it should be the voters’ choice to decide if they want to re-elect an incumbent.
Fedriga's colleague, Luca Zaia, has also weighed in on the issue, highlighting a disparity between autonomous regions like Friuli-Venezia Giulia and ordinary ones like Veneto. He stated, "Luca rightly underlined that the possibility of a third mandate should be granted to everyone. And on the other hand, the Constitutional Court did not say that it cannot be done in absolute terms." This sentiment echoes a broader debate in Italian politics about the nature of term limits and the democratic process.
In the context of regional governance, Fedriga pointed out that historically, presidents in Friuli-Venezia Giulia served only one term, not due to legal restrictions but because their predecessors—Debora Serracchiani, Renzo Tondo, and Riccardo Illy—each completed five-year terms. He emphasized that the electorate should ultimately decide whether to confirm an outgoing administration, stating, "The electorate is mature, we cannot treat citizens like children."
Fedriga's remarks also touched on the broader political landscape in Italy, where party leaders often dictate candidate selections. He criticized the system of blocked lists that restricts voter choice, advocating instead for reforms that would enable direct elections for prime ministers. "The direct election of the prime minister is a great democratic reform. It gives the citizen maximum freedom of choice," he asserted.
The conversation surrounding term limits, both in the United States and Italy, raises fundamental questions about democracy, governance, and the will of the people. As Trump hints at a potential third term and Fedriga navigates the complexities of Italian law, the discussions reflect a growing tension between established political norms and the desires of leaders to extend their tenures.
In the U.S., Trump's potential candidacy for a third term would require a significant shift in public and political sentiment, as well as a possible legal challenge to the 22nd Amendment. The amendment has remained largely unchallenged since its ratification, and any attempt to circumvent it would likely face fierce opposition from both sides of the political aisle.
Meanwhile, in Italy, the debate over term limits continues to evolve. Fedriga's willingness to consider a third term, contingent upon the support of the Regional Council and the electorate, highlights a different approach to leadership and accountability. The Italian political landscape is characterized by a variety of regional laws and practices, which can lead to inconsistencies in governance and public expectations.
Ultimately, both Trump and Fedriga's aspirations underscore the dynamic nature of political power and the ongoing negotiations between leaders and their constituents. As they navigate the complexities of their respective political environments, the outcomes of these discussions could have lasting implications for the future of governance in both countries.
Whether it’s the two-term limit in the U.S. or the regional mandates in Italy, the fundamental question remains: how do we balance the desire for experienced leadership with the need for fresh perspectives in governance? As the political landscape continues to shift, both American and Italian voters will play a crucial role in shaping the future of their leadership.
