In any profession business politics education government those in power should step down after five years Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to

Leaders are contributors for reshaping the world history. In every fields, be it business, politics, education, or government, leaders have been paving the way for making the world a better place in terms of living conditions. Although, some might agree to the claim that those in power should step down after five years, it would be a presumption without taking all evidence in. Some leaders might take more than five years for peak performance, but his/her contemporaries may take only one or two years for their best performances. Some governments last for more than thirty years, not only because of a good performance or people’s choice, but this can be considered an autonomy as well. Let us look at various possible scenarios.

Power of a private business mostly remain in hands of the founder(s). The hierarchy of the organizations are created thereafter. Constant change of authoritative figures after every five years would create bewilderments among the lower ranks, and also disorganization. The newly appointed leaders may announce the decisions taken by their former counterparts, invalid or dubious. If the former leader is performing at his/her best and helps the business to achieve new heights, then the leader should remain in power, in order to maintain the consistency. For example, Mr. Bill Gates is the co-founder of Microsoft. He was accompanied by his friends in creation of Microsoft. Mr. Gates stepped down as CEO of Microsoft after almost thirty years. Now, if he had followed the five-year stepping down option after five years since the inception of Microsoft, it is for sure that the software giant would not have reached the same height that it is now standing on. On the other hand, Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple, due to his low performance for a consistent three years.

On the field of politics, it generally takes not less than ten years to put your name on the forefront. Magnanimous personalities such as Barrack Obama or Narendra Modi struggled for their half of their lives in leaving a positive impingement on the common people. These long years of struggle are accompanied by landslide victories on the parliament elections. Nelson Mandela had patiently waited for twenty-seven years of his jail term before he became the people’s face and finally became the President of South Africa in 1997. Also, Vladimir Putin has been the president of the Soviet States of Russia for over thirty-four years. His contributions towards the development of Russia has been enormous and is bolstered by the love of common people of the country. Had these prominent figures followed the same five-year step down, United States, India, Russia and South Africa would not have become such economic majors of the world. Though some may argue that those who rule a country for over ten years tend to become dictators, and the government becoming authoritarian, until and unless the citizens are suffering, such claims remain scrupulous.

It also takes decades for leaders of education to implement major reforms. Diane Ravitch has held key positions in education under two U.S. presidents, helping build a decade’s worth of educational policy and assessments. While working under president George H.W. Bush, she was an advocate of school choice and accountability. Later, under George W. Bush, she helped develop and implement No Child Left Behind. She is a one of the loudest and most important voices in education reform today and her books, articles, and commentary on education matters are some of the most sought-after and respected, making her a sure player in any educational change in the future.

Clearly, haphazard changes at the authority level create a state of uncertainty. Rather, a person’s accomplishments during his/her reign should be considered to discuss whether he/she should remain in power for over five years. Every democracy has the power to throw over a leader who has been a failure in terms of overall development of the country. Similarly, every business has the power to force out a non-performing leader, even if that person is the running CEO. Hence, in any field even though five years is a standard measure of the leader’s ability, the timeframe should be extended based on the positive outcomes of those five years.