In fact, Washington’s decision to only serve for two terms set an informal precedent that all US Presidents followed until WW II, when Franklin Roosevelt was elected for four terms. After that, a constitutional amendment was passed limiting the President to two terms in office.
Tony Blair
Chuckle…I think Chefguy got his post in quicker, because I dawdled while perusing Wikipedia entries on the '68 elections. 
And, ironically enough, LBJ passed away a couple of days after the next presidential term ended (though one might argue that the pressures of the job might have hastened his decline, had he remained in office).
Both Queen Wilhelmina and her daughter Queen Juliana stepped down from The throne of the Netherlands, leading me to wonder if Queen Beatrix might not do the same one day. I don’t see Queen Elizabeth doing it, however.
The Dutch queens don’t really qualify as world leaders or any sort of leaders for that matter, but yeah, they generally do step down rather than die on the throne. There has been widespread speculation as to when Beatrix will step down; she recently celebrated her 74th birthday so it is probably time. She’s been a widow for some years now, her parents have passed on, and her son Friso was recently hit by an avalanche and might die or be a vegetable for the rest of his life, so it has not been an easy decade for her. It is suggested, however, that with the political climate in the Netherlands being what it is, and with the royal family being criticized more heavily than before, she does not want the crown prince (Willem Alexander) to have to step in when it is such a mess.
I considered Blair and his deal with Brown. But according to wiki, and the various cites, he was under a lot of pressure to go. The pact just made it look dignified and planned (even though, officially, there was no pact).
Nelson Mandela.
Ferdinand Marcos to some degree. Political pressure caused him to call for an election while he still maintained dictatorial powers in the Phillipines.
In that same caliber: Vaclav Havel. Highyl respected, intelligent and good for his country, nevertheless voluntarily handed over the reins when the term was up.
King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan, a popular monarch, stepped down in favour of his son a few years ago while still healthy and in his fifties.
It’s a small country, but he was one of TIME magazine’s *100 people who shaped our world * for 2006.
Well, some two-term presidents in that period wanted a third term. They just didn’t get it.
For example, Grant tried for a third term in 1880, but failed to gain his party’s nomination. And Teddy Roosevelt ran for a third term in 1912, under a party created just for him, but lost the general election.
I think he was ineligible to stand again having served two consecutive terms – cite (also, incidentally, some time before that as leader of Czechoslovakia).
The man was deadly sick during most of his presidency, and not that well respected in political circles; I am not sure that the houses of parliament would have reelected him in 2003 if he had run.
The ‘voluntarily handed over the reins’ bit seems odd, by the way - that’s what all democratic elected leaders do when there terms are up; you don’t hear people saying that Bush Jr ‘voluntarily left the White House’ as though that is something special.
-
The question wasn’t limited to “democratically elected leaders” but leaders with a lot of power
-
Not every country has term limits
-
People who have a lot of influence and who are convinced (rightly or wrongly) that their work for the country was good and right, but that the successors or competitors are weak fools not in any comparision to the them can be easily tempted to run again for the good of the country (or because God called them), and not because they want the money or privilege. They may also believe - like in South Africa and Czech Republic - that the country wasn’t finished yet with the transition from the old to the new form and therefore further guidance by them necessary, less old-timers or corrupt leaders take over and reverse their changes.
If people with that influence and that objective possibility reject that temptation, it’s noteworthy because it’s so rare.
Truman was not elected to two terms as President. He was elected only in 1948. He did serve the majority of Roosevelt’s last term and would therefore not have been eligible to run again under the 22nd amendment except as you note it specifically did not apply to the sitting President.
Likewise, Teddy Roosevelt was not elected twice but did serve more than half of McKinley’s term which would have made him illegible to run again had the 22nd amendment been in force.
No, but the Czech Republic has a limit of no more than 2 consecutive terms. Which Havel had served, plus 3 years.
Kind-of, sort-of, if you squint: Pinochet?
Harold Wilson quit without warning.
Macmillan too, although his was mainly for health reasons.
Tony Blair, although under intense pressure from his party to go.
Robert Menzies, Australian Prime Minister, retired in 1966. According to his Wikipedia article, “To date, he is the last Australian Prime Minister to leave office on his own terms.”
Looks like the current one won’t be leaving on her own terms …
Perhaps, but this is not the situation that Havel was in in 2003. For one thing, he could no longer be a candidate. For another, as I’ve said, he was not so wildly popular in political circles (note that the houses of parliament elect the Czech president, it is not a popular vote) that his reelection was a matter of course. In particular, the ODS, lead by Klaus at the time (who ended up succeeding Havel), had many a bone to pick with Havel whom they thought of as too left wing. He might have been defeated, which would have been embarrassing, so it was a good thing for him to bow out. This was especially the case since Havel was very ill during a lot of his presidency and even suffered a heart attack at some point.
Your characterization of the situation in which Havel might maintain in 2003 that the Czech Republic might slip back into communism somehow without him at the helm is not accurate. For one thing, Havel never really was at the helm in the first place, since in the Czech system the prime minister is generally more powerful than the president. Secondly, in 2003 the Czech Republic was a firmly consolidated democracy, and had been for most of its post-communist history. To emphasize how off your characterization is, you should realize that it was especially Havel who would have emphasized his country’s ‘return into Europe’, and who resisted the narrative more commonly espoused by the right that the Czech transition is not yet complete.