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

In any profession, be it business, politics, education, or government, those in authority and power color the policy and the style of how an organization will be run and managed. Autocratic government reigns its country with unlimited authority whereas a democratic president of a business company relishes eliciting and adopting opinions from lower tiers of employees. The style of how an organization will be run usually has an enormous repercussion over whether a given entity will sustain or not. Changes and replacement of leaders are allegedly believed to invite banes and turmoil, since the implementation and introduction of new policies from time to time would likely confound matters at issue, leaving followers obfuscated. However, such an repudiation seems perfunctory, without solid proofs; instead, having those in power step down after five years would potentially invite more boons and benefits to any professional field, notwithstanding the claim entailing several restraints that might qualify the potential merits.

Throughout the early human history, monarchy was deemed as the paradigm of ruling, since it guaranteed the consistency and continuity of policies and political activities. Roman Emperor Julius Caesar would not have achieved to expand the Roman Empire had his dictatorship had been overthrown. He would not have been able to deploy troopers to remote regions so successfully and to reinforce his legitimacy of ruling so robustly. His ruling had therefore transformed the Roman Empire one of the most flourishing countries in the early human history. Without Julius Caesar having occupied the sovereignty throughout, the Roman Empire would have foundered and collapsed much earlier. Take another example. Mahatma Gandhi, in his pursuit of the independence of India and the release from the British governance, was considered the core spirit of the anti-colonization campaign. With Gandhi’s years of incessant dedication and uncompromising determination to achieve autonomy, the pressure imposed had propelled the British government to yield. Many successful revolutions and insurgence fighting goer the izdpenendece of a nation demand a sincere and loyal and dedicated leader to serve as a beacon and guide them to flight through the obstacles. Had Gandhi been replaced at the interval, the Indian people might lose a central figure that they could have relied upon, which might lead to the collapse of the campaign.

Consistency therefore appears to be a contributing factor that might inform the end result. However, such cannot be aptly attested to other more contemporary and more wide-ranging cases. Ever since the human civilization entered a wireless era, with the entire globe being interconnected and parochialism ceasing to be an option, one conspicuous hallmark of such an era is that everything is transient: technological products, political alignment, business trends, and the like. Having those in power changed at regular intervals, therefore, furnishes professions necessary impetus to keep abreast of the latest information, hoping to galvanize innovation and advancement. When the Apple Boards, after losing its competition against Microsoft’s Windows platforms and models, realized that they needed someone who could come up with ingenious ideas to revitalize Apple and its stagnant business. In 1997, Steve Jobs, hired by Apple Boards in 1985, returned as the CEO of Apple and instigated several state-of-the-art technological products, such as iPod. Thanks to Steve Jobs’ outside-of-the-box ideas, Apple was able to re-gain its popularity and acceptance among global users. A break from stagnancy therefore requires someone who can stay informative about the ephemeral world of technology.

Another exemplary that can generally substantiate the claim stems from politics. If monarchy had been so successful, as in Roman Empires, a probing question that deserves closer scrutiny is why it failed to prevail throughout the human history. Nowadays, more than half of the countries around the world operate under democracy. The underlying reason is that although it is quite exhilarating to have people dancing round to absolute rulers’ whims and caprices, with vassals acting obsequiously, it is this feature that marks the corruption and degeneration of the monarchy. People in power abused their power, stories of embezzlements and appropriation abounded, and briberies and frauds and nepotism never failed to appear in front pages of national dailies. The tenure of those in power had been morphed into the cause of debauchery and corruption. Therefore, it behooves that those in power should be supplanted at regular intervals so that the misuse of power can be forestalled, which echoes one of the spirits of democracy: whenever those in power exude any inkling of corruption, common people would have ways to stave off this by replacing those incumbent.

Granted, requiring those in power to step down after five years of ruling in every professions seems extreme, impractical and arbitrary, considering that a successful policy demands time and continued support to fulfill. However, as long as a policy is considered beneficial and will do the majority good, then it does not matter who embraces, implements and realizes it. Instead, what it truly matters is that in twenty first century which witnesses swift changes of everything, a change of the person in charge of an organization might provide probable benefits germane to innovations that may aid revitalization of a stagnant condition or might serve as a check on any insidious, negative development. Only by constant changes of those in charge can the betterment of an organization be attained.