Deliver for a second term
I hope some "experts" on democracy have been following elections in Germany.
Angela Merkel won a third term, as Germany's constitution allows for this.
Limitation of terms does not define democracy. It may be an enhancement, but not an absolute definer. True limitation in a democracy is the people.
Democracy is about the will of the people. The decision about whether someone can continue to head their state is theirs, and the will to offer oneself to be elected is for the individual.
It is our romance with mediocrity that sees us praise people for limiting their length of stay as head of state, even if they have nothing to show during their rule.
I doubt anyone with a genuine mission in a country trying to find itself will want to walk out as soon as possible. Anyone with a mission would want to see realisation of his mission to its logical conclusion. You can't achieve a mission in one or even two terms, which is why Britain's Margaret Thatcher stayed so long.
The people are the ultimate moderator. They are the ones who see if the mission is worthwhile, whether it is being achieved, whether the incumbent conducts himself in a manner that brings pride and advances their country. They are the one to elect and fire as they deem fit. It works perfectly where the electorate is vigilant and knows what is good for their country.
It is for this reason that in countries with constitutions that do not limit terms for a head of state, very few have been able to stay more than two terms. It is not how long a head of state stays in power, but what he does with his mandate in that time.
A vigilant electorate will return an effective individual to head the country for as long as he exercises his mandate with aplomb. The difference in Africa is that dictatorial heads of states have stayed for several terms, not by the will of the people, but by unilateral "decree" in most cases.
In South Africa the electorate perceive elections as a game in which one's party has to win.