Put five-year term to a vote

The logic in Mr Mark Curron's letter is flawed (The Lawyer 31 October). I understand the distinction between the duties of president and secretary general. But why cannot the two roles be combined? It seems to work well in the US.

While I feel that presidents should serve a five-year term, they will be elected democratically by members on the merits of their manifesto.

Mr Curron's fears are completely unfounded – I don't think Mr Mears' proposal will turn a representative democracy into a dictatorship. Before the president's election this year, his predecessors were chosen by a very select body – the council.

I am not a personal supporter of Martin Mears as Mr Curron seems to suggest. He has some good ideas but so had his predecessors. Change is obviously necessary at the Law Society, otherwise he would never have been elected. Why not put a five-year term to the vote? Surely this is the most democratic way of deciding the issue.

Richard Bagley

116 Pall Mall