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 s

Its easy to achieve the position than sustaining and maintaining it. It applies in every field let it be - business, politics, education or government. The leader elected must justify the authority and responsibility with utmost competency to remain in power. However in some field it is plausible to reelect the same person after his satisfactory tenure of five year, so in some field change is must.Prudence lie in electing one on the basis of performance of the one who is in power than the reelecting somebody on sole base of fallowing some set of decree.

Potential candidate in power must not be discontinued from his tenure to avoid the financial loss management imbalance and market position. Naryan Murthy - owner of one of the global Technology company resigned from his position of CEO in 2009 had made company suffered intractable management imbalance and loss of prodigies man power due to dissatisfaction from the company's improper functioning. They lost many of their international cliental and faced financial downfall. Infosys's technology ltd excepted many highly experienced CEO, which includes Narayan murthy's son as well. Nobody could able to handle the worsening situation of Infosys except Mr. Murthy's comeback in his left position and in an years time company retrieved its lost clientele and gained some management balance by proving lucrative incentives and new projects to their employees and handled the attenuating share prices and market position. This fact provide us a plausible reason that potential candidate should not be stopped to tender their beneficial services merely for the protocol of changing leader in 5 years to avoid unpleasant consequence.

At some junction it become important to allow a person in candidacy to accomplish certain beneficial objective than reelecting somebody else. Congress candidate and previous president of India - Manmohan singh was highly pan by Indian populace and political parties in competition for his fashion of handling subject of national concerns. He probably did not handled the public concern of inflation fairly and solved the 2g scam cases against his party( congress) . Regardless of these complains, his intelligence and ken was of overbearing importance for India to get rid of the giant sum of debt and resolved the restriction of Nuclear power use by signing Indo - America bilateral agreement. In that time, Dr. Manmohan singh was necessary to achieve this benefit for millennium regardless of public pan and demand for another leader. Here, population might consider changing him favorable after five years, but the national long term benefit require him to continue his services for future inexplicable benefits.

Field such as education is most sensitive in which tenure of 5 years with any incompetent leader can be punishment for the service receiver. In my opinion, if education minister is not pushing the literacy and education rate up, he must be replaced for effective result. But practically it would be an impulsive decision as leader in tenure probably is not increasing the nations literacy rate but is improving the education system, which required overbearing attention to increase the education rate. Rather than getting an improper education, best education of contemporary education system is wise choice. Fixed year tenure is sometime an hindrance to see the potential and potential outcome of person in power and soil the project in hand.

Every field is different so as their functioning, demand and expectation. The fixed directive of changing a person in power after five years in any field is not most suitable edict for every field. As some leader make plans and designs to implement it, those plans are implemented by other leaders after five years. This process surfaced the competency of leader who has put in effort to coil the plan but missed the chance of implement due to restriction of 5 years tenure rule. Performance of person in power would be better analysis point of deciding to keep the person or change him after five years. This policy should be implemented only when the positive outcome is assured of sticking to one person in power for 5 years.