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 and suppo

The young generation is more and more proving their excellent ability in a wide variety of fields. Thus it is not surprised that the old one is yielding their places to young people after a time. When and in what context they should do that, however, is the question. In my opinion, it is inflexible and unreasonable to pass the policy that those in power should step down after five years for several reasons, among which are the matter of time, experiences and knowledge.

First, five years is not a long period of time for a person to be in power. It is, conversely, just sufficient time for him to be mature in his new position. When one is promoted, he needs a time to adapt, learn, improve himself and then fully becomes a leader with adequate skills. In many cases, five years is just enough time for a new leader’s changes or policies proved to be effective. If he is replaced immediately at the point of his career maturity, it will be a waste of time and effort to the company to find someone new. Bill Clinton, George Bush or Barack Obama, for example, were the U.S. Presidents who won the election again for their recognized leadership after one tenure of five years. This effectively demonstrates that the short time is not necessarily a sufficient period of time in a politics.

Second, somebody who has proved his excellent knowledge and skills in leading an organization is deserved to hold power more than five years. It is not easy to choose a leader, and even far more difficult to have talented one. While we recognize that our company is prospering and obtaining more and more profits, or reaching closer to its purpose, the leader’s ability has been attested and is it a good idea to replace him by another one? Certainly not, as nobody ensures that the new leader is talented enough to make the same success as the old one. Bill Gate and Steve Jobs, for example, held the CEO position for far more than five years. But with their innovations that changed the whole world, I do not think they should be replaced by anyone else.

Last, although new knowledge and technologies are highly regarded and usually introduced to change old ideas, experiences are sometimes overwelming. In these cases, the person in core position, and certainly having power, should be retained for an enough time to give traing to the young generation. This is the so-called transition period and that it is less or more than five years is essentially dependent on specific contexts, one of which is the concern if young people are sufficiently qualified for new position. If not, the old leader should still be in power, the transition time may be longer and certainly cannot determined by a specific interval of time.

In conclusion, the world is flexible enough for us not to use a number of years to designate a person in power. It essencially depends on a range of reasons and particular cases, for which a person should be replaced or not.