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.Write a response in which you discuss the ext

A single field that is most well known to a public with its five-year term of office would be the presidency. It is not only in America but also other countries that conduct president election such as Korea which has the five-year term for a single president. There is supposed to be a reason for setting a specific term for a elected national leader. Prevention of corruption, achieving efficiency through competition, and replacing outdated leaders would be explanations for such practice.

Admittedly, there are some competitive edges that old leaders have compared to new leaders. Old leaders are well-informed about the current state of their enterprises and have experience of running that group which is extremely invaluable. However, having the same person as a leading figure could have dire effects on the enterprise that surpasses above listed advantages. Looking at historical leadership, those who had permanent regime inevitably decayed, losing their initial motivation and passion. Political leaders of North Korea only quit their term when they cannot dictate anymore and pass their thrones to their offsprings. While their people are suffering from lack of food, inhumane workload, and too long mandatory service, political leaders abandoned themselves to luxuries, lavish food, and sexual entertainment. If there were a policy that restricts their term of service, the situation would not be this hard for average people living in North Korea because any corrupted leader would be gone after only five years.

The best part about limiting a term of ruling for five years is shown when there is about to choose a new leader. New challengers fully motivated and deeply empathizing show up to the public and compete with each other to prove themselves smart and qualified. People belonging to the enterprise then get a chance to compare the candidates and choose their leader. This competitive environment encourages members to select the right leader who truly care about the enterprise and its members. Even if the members chose the wrong figure this time, they can change the leader just in a half decade.

Once the most suitable leader might not longer be the best choice as time passes. Leaders should always adapt to new environment and pave the best way for their followers with foresight. Still, for some leaders the world changes so fast in a way they cannot fully understand what is going on. In 2007, the world economy started struggling and many economists named it the great recession. There were some political leaders who immediately knew what to do like Obama and Abe but there were also presidents who failed to deal with the new economic situation. Korea was too late in conducting their own version of quantitative easing compared to Japan and America and still suffering from high unemployment. At the advent of recession, the president worried too much about keeping the inflation rate in the range, failing to successfully overcome an economic hardship. It was time for Korea to change their leader to whom has better economic insights and it would be impossible without five-year limitation of a presidential term.

Nearly every developed country adopts a policy that contains the length of leadership. Most successful business conglomerates change their chief executing officer periodically. Many explanations exist to support this revitalization but one thing is clear that those in power should step down and give a chance to new candidate in order to bring prosperity to the enterprises.