I'm always amazed by the naivete of people willing to concentrate more power into the hands of politicians for "altruistic" reasons. This is always coupled with the expectation that the "right person" will wield that power in the "right way."
But look at the evidence. Politicians use their power for reasons they and their supporters believe in, and sometimes for parochial, petty, and sometimes nefarious reasons. But they almost always exercise their power in such a way as to keep it, or get more. Power is a kind of currency that is rarely wasted or left unspent.
So, if a political leader's choice were to (a) give up power versus (b) keep it, even after 28 years of rule, even if keeping it caused widespread pain, suffering or bloodshed, what do you think the choice would be?