In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should be required to step down after five years.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing a

Whether to admit that the leader, manager, or the head of an organization, political position, or a business should change over a period of tenure, or he should be in-place until he is effective is a debatable issue. However, I strongly believe that remaining in as a head for lifetime will may lead some problems, and there are some reasons supporting this Idea which are discussed in this essay.

First of all, if a person remains in power for a long time, it results is dictatorship because there are always some opponents who wish to take the power, and the effort to keep them weak, there is no way unless quashing them. There are several examples for this claim in the real-world and specially politics. For instance, most of Arab countries are ruled by kingdom families or the presidents who have the power that never expires; therefore, we see every time that there are a lot of rebellions trying to overturn the governing system. That was why many revolutions began in Arab countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, etc. since 2010. The main common characteristic of these countries is oligarchy and having the power for ever. However, if a governing system changes over the time, the supporter of a party can wait for the time they are elected; therefore, there is no need to make revolution, instead they can try for have a positive competition. This trend is seen in many countries with real democratic politics such as what we see in the USA, France, Germany, Japan, and other countries of this kind.

The second reason for me to support my side is that when a person is the manager of an activity, there is now opportunity for instilling new executing opinions into the group. Sometimes the only remedy for a severe situation is to change the policy, and it is not completely achievable just by changing the head. For example, during the economic recession in the USA and most European countries, there was a vital need for changing the economical policy, and in many countries it was done by changing the presidents. For example, when Obama was elected to be the president of the USA, he tried to put an end to the costly wars; therefore, many huge costs were removed, and job situation become better. The same actions happened in many other countries such as France and Greece. However, somebody may argue that a president can change his view, and there is no need to change him. This argument can be rebutted in two ways: first, there is no insurance that the government changes his opinion, and second, his party may suppress him to keep that way even though the head tries to improve the situation. Another argument that can be stated is that by giving the power from one good leader, we may lose his experience gathered during his tenure. However, this cannot be a valid argument since the predecessors can serve as adviser of the new governments.

In the final analysis, I believe that changing the governing rule after a period of time has some advantages for the community that cannot be ignored. On the other hand, remaining in the position may lead to corruption and dictatorship. Therefore, I prefer to support the opinion that tends to change the governing system after a time they have the power.