Leaders are most effective in their first term of power

Every hero becomes a bore at last. RW Emerson observes that most politicians tend to overstay in their particularly in the developing world with young democracies, where several incumbent leaders change the constitution at the peak of their popularity to extend their stay in office. In the long established democracies also the populace generally tires of rulers who hang around for more than one term. Any goodwill generated in the first few years of their reign almost always dissipates rapidly if they remain in power for longer. This axiom is even more relevant in the current economic environment where growth and inflation dynamics are taking a turn for the worse across the globe. 

• Russia is a prime example of such trends. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's ratings were at a record high 70% while Russia's economic growth having averaged 7% since he took over office in 2000. Putin's ratings are now at 50%, lowest in the decade. Russia's economy has been struggling to grow at half the pre-2008 crisis levels. Had Putin rode away into the sunset in 2008 after completing both his four-year terms as President, he could have gone down in history as the most successful Russian leader since Nikita Khrushchev. Putin had frittered away goodwill by staying on for too long, with Russian economy struggling to regain its pre-2008 growth momentum. 
• Leaders who seek to extend their hold on power don't realise that such a path is not just bad for the country, as their focus invariably shifts to protecting deeply vested interests rather than offering any new vision for development, but also for their own place in history. By the time the extended terms end, voters often are fed up with the ruler and their past good deeds are largely forgotten.
• Most eminent leaders in history from Margaret Thatcher in the UK to Francois Mitterrand in France eventually lost their way. Both Thatcher and Mitterrand witnessed a major decline in their popularity after a decade in power. 
• Winston Churchill too was knocked out as the head of government in 1945 despite his widely hailed leadership during World War II as voters got tired of the Conservative Party's many years of rule and began to favour the Labour Party's more welfare-oriented policies following a long period of economic hardship. 
• In genuine democracies, popular opinion will do the job of voting out leaders who have overstayed. In countries where the political systems are not yet well established, rulers will figure out ways to keep extending their stint in office only to see diminishing returns during the second decade of their rule. 

The lesson from history is that leaders are most effective in their first term of power and the goodwill they have erodes very quickly if they stay on in office up to a decade or longer. There are exceptions to the rule, such as Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore who after 30 years of rule was still widely admired. Those are very rare cases; the odds generally are that after a few years in power, most leaders become a bore. 

In Indian scenario Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Manmohan Singh were far less effective in their later terms making people feel bored. Lethargy creeps in, leader gets isolated in ivory towers, coterie wields power recklessly with selfish motives, corruption becomes order of the day, friends wont tell nor the leader likes to listen truths, and the nation and its economy takes severe beating. Therefore for democracy and nation to survive and retain its vibrancy, independent institutions must be strong, headed by men of integrity & values and must never be allowed to subverted. Fourth estate and its freedom must be protected to play vital watch-dog role.