Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership

The statement above asserts that leaders in any field should be substituted by setting a limited period. The statement further reasons that such a substitution is necessary as the revitalization is the surest way to bring success for any enterprise.

To begin with, 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. The finish line should be set for the political power-holders, otherwise it would be sought surreptitiously. Furthermore, 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. The president is prone to adopt the dictatorial attitude. Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq for near 24 years. He did not cede the power unless the military of United States of America got involved and many lost their lives.

We concede to the 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. In such fields, when a system is working properly, as the statement’s reason failed to consider, there is no need of revitalization. Every change might exact a high price on the system. Sometimes holding the leaders in power stand in a good stead for the systems. Even when 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. Where a substitution takes place, all connections should be reestablished, 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.

Finally, revitalization and holding the incumbent leader in power, is not mutually exclusive. The leaders can be open minded enough to align themselves with the new practical ideas during their management. It is not necessary to replace a manager to revitalize an enterprise. Consider Steve Jobs of the heads of Apple Incorporation. As a manager, he was always flexible to new ideas, and he was tolerable to make shifts. Revitalization occurred during his management with every patent the Apple Incorporation made for its product.

In short, as it is discussed, aside the politics, it does not pay to set a time limit for leaders. Furthermore, revitalization is not always justified when the system is operating optimally. Finally, even the revitalization is needed, it can be attained without necessarily replacing the leaders of an enterprise.