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 sur

The statement contends that those, who are at the top post, should be relegated after five years of their tenure. I am not agreeing with the author's contention. The author has generalized this idea on broader aspect. In many fields like politics, government etc., five years is not enough judge person’s deeds, and then step down him from a power and substitute it with another power so that new person can make better progress, even though old person is doing good. But for fields like education, it is easy to judge one's performance in five years and even in less number of years, since education doesn't require addressing vast amount of problems. Nevertheless, in any case, it is not viable to step down a person after five years, even if that person is actually productive for an organization.

For an example of a democracy- in which people choose their leader on the basis of voting system and give them a power to rule over nation, people want a progress, development from their elected candidate. It is not possible for the leader to make changes in meager time of five years, especially when a leader has a charge of nation with huge population. For an example, India, one of the biggest democratic countries of the world, has a constitution in which Prime minister and other candidates are elected on the basis of the voting. The tenure for the Prime minister's regime before the next election is exactly five years. In this time, the leader has to make necessary steps for welfare of an nation. However, this stipulated time is not enough for the prime minister to address all the problems of nation and solve them. India has population of almost 100 million, and lots of problems are with this developing nation. India suffers with unemployment, poverty, terrorism, bilateral issue with neighboring countries i.e. Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc. So for the prime minister, it is not an ideal time to address all the problems. Even people know this thing. So, they elect the same candidate for almost two times consecutively. Manmohan Singh, an ex-prime minister of India elected twice-first in 2004-2009 and second in 2009-2013. If the proper time is not given to leader to address problems, it works against the progress of a nation.

However, in some cases, five years is more than enough to do proper actions. If elected candidate is futile, he or she will waste time of five years. So that person must be stepped down. For an example, contrary to prime minister of democratic country, in education institute, people at the power don’t have ample issues to address. Even one year is enough to address all issues. Therefore, even after five years of huge time, if the person isn’t productive, he or she must be relegated from their position.

Sum, not in all the profession- business, politics, education and government- those in power should be stepped down after the tenure of five years. In democratic country, this time is not sufficient to judge one's potential as lots of issues are required for consideration. But cases like education bodies i.e. colleges, schools, this time is enough to evaluate one's work. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that after five years, people at the power should be relegated. There has to be some criteria to evaluate person's work. If he or she doesn't fulfill those criteria, the person at the power should be stepped down.