In any field business, politics, education, government those in power should step down after five yearsReason: the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership

I agree that periodic change in leadership has its advantages, but this system has some inherit drawbacks as well. To make sure that the drawbacks don’t outweigh its usefulness one must set some rules.

A fresh perception from time to time helps solve many long standing problems, but frequent change in policies result in situation where in no policy is effectively implemented. For example if a leadership that believes that good public transport is paramount for the development of a state is replaced by a leadership according to whom development of water supply must take precedence over transport and diverts all the funds from the transportation project to the water supply project and at the end of their term leaving both projects incomplete. In order to avoid such situation the leadership should either plan to implement their policy in one term or make sure that the leadership to follow will bring the project to a satisfactory conclusion.

A change in the leaders from time to time will make sure that no leader holds power for long enough to become all powerful and unchallengeable. But the process of appointment of new leaders is not an easy task. There is bound to be some competition among the candidates which may not always be healthy and have a negative impact on the organization. An effective and unbiased method of choosing a new leader must be devised for the process to be fair. There may be cases in which there is no candidate as capable as the present one. In such cases the present leader must be offered a second term.

If the change in leadership occurs smoothly and without any loss to the organization, revitalization through new leadership is a sure path to the success of the enterprise.