In December 2012, the Commission adopted a report on “Democracy, limitation of mandates and incompatibility of political functions” (CDL-AD(2012)027rev). The Commission argued the following:

“61. The theory of limitation of mandate has its followers as well as its opponents.

62. The critics say that the frequent replacement of the holders of public (political) functions in the country can have a negative impact on the quality and on the continuity of the public policies in the country and that it brings about major political uncertainty. The supporters of the limited mandate believe that it is a positive aspect of the system seen through the prism of an influx of fresh ideas, pluralism in political thought, avoidance of political domination and, most importantly, avoidance of the concept of irreplaceability in the political establishment.

63. It is a fact that the effects of the non-existence of limitations for the re-election of a member of parliament are widely softened by the activities of the opposition parties in parliament, as well as by the increased transparency and publicity that the democratic parliaments demonstrate through their activities. Perhaps these two conclusions identify the main reason why most constitutions foresee an unlimited possibility for re-election of members of parliament. Consecutively, we may draw the same conclusion vis-à-vis the re-election of ministers in coalition governments, contrary to homogeneous ones.

64. Namely, unlike the homogeneous governments -most often single-party governments- the coalition governments have a greater possibility of controlling their members, as there is a stronger inter-party consensus to open the issue of political responsibility for what has been or has not been done.

65. The majority electoral model, where the election of holders of political functions is done directly by the electorate, is more likely to lead to the admissibility of an unlimited parliamentary mandate than a pure proportional model with closed lists where the political parties have the final word. […]

71. […] prohibiting re-election of parliamentarians involves the risk of a legislative branch of power dominated by inexperienced politicians. This may lead to increase the imbalance in favour of the executive, even if the head of state and possibly ministers are not re-eligible, since the executive is seconded by a permanent public service.