Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.

The speaker claim that any field should limit the term of leadership because through new leadership,any enterprise will obtain revitalization which is the surest path to success.Admittedly, there exists lots of advantages involved in preventing corruption and lack of initiatives.However,in the meantime,defects of the claim should not be overlooked concerning certain situations.

As I see,there are two fundamental arguments for advocating that any profession should limit the term of leadership.First,when leaders have no fear of losing their power, they tend to abuse their power. Undoubtedly,one of the fundamental obligations for leaders in any fields is leading their members to create splendid fortune of their common enterprise which is need the support of every member.Therefore, leaders will try their best to assure benefit deserved of all of them so as to acquit advocacy. However, after getting success,some of the leader may begin to satisfy with achievement they have got and then advert their goal to get more benefits for themselves by abusing their power without concerning other subordinates' benefits anymore.Moreover,they are not necessary to worry about losing their position if they are not circumscribed by the term of leadership. Thus,they can arbitrary abuse their power,such as appointing the person subjectively to do certain essential work doesn't through formal process in order to obtain more benefits from the one. At result,all achievement they've got will be destroyed by themselves.

The second argument has to do with greater initiative and new ideas that will be brought by a new leader. It is extremely vital for a country.For example, in China,xiaoping Deng,who is the second the leader following zedong Mao,brought fresh air to the poor China at the day. He brought up with the new idea of reform and opening to the outside world and then dramatically increasing the economy development rate of the country. Just about the variety new ideas brought by different leaders can prompt a country's better development. In contrast, always leaded by the particular person with the solely idea will narrow the road for a country's development.

On the other hand are two compelling arguments against doing .First, in certain realms such as business it might not be so necessary to limit the term of leadership. For the leaders doing business,getting a largely amount of money is their forever goal and the money they finally got is positive proportion with company's benefits. Therefore, whenever,all the things they conduct are order to prompt the development of firms. One of a successful brand in China is Tong rentang,leaders of the company always spend all their lives manage the whole company. For them, changing the leaders after five years is not necessary because no matter who is the leader, their common goal is firm that is to produce much better quality of medicine as well as getting more profits. So even after hundreds of history, the company is still thrifty.

Second, new leaders often lack the necessary skill and experience to cope with existing problems; therefore, they need a period of time for adaptation.Undoubtedly,the power stepping down after five years will inevitable enmesh development of firms into stagnant period because every new leader should spending some time on being familiar with situation of firms. During its time, most of them don't have spare power to lead firms enter the new stage as they imagine before.

In sum,I argue that we must be circumspect about limiting the term of the leadership concerning both the advantages and disadvantage in it.