TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "In any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."
WORDS: 493 (589 modified) TIME: 00:50:00 DATE: 2007-7-27 1:46:32
As a means of regulating the power of leaders, I concede that, there is some wisdom lying in the author's suggestion. However, it is somewhat too extreme and inadaptable-the 5-year time is not fit for all occasions. But I, fundamentally, agree with the author that a mechanism of regulating power do more good than harm, as we discuss below.
To begin with, with out the mechanism that leaders step down after certain years, varies of problem would raise. Firstly, viewing from the human nature, there is sin and evil deeply hidden in every ones' heart, leaders included. Even if a leader appears noble initially, we cannot guarantee that he would not abuse his authority for the sake of his or his relatives own benefits. Based on such assumptions, this mechanism serves like a casher machine-by a casher machine can prevent cashers from putting money into his own pocket during the deal, which, by excluding the possibilities of evil of humans, successfully insure the fairness and equality in the process. Similarly, the mechanism that regulating the power of leaders can help exclude the potential errors of leaders. Furthermore, for real examples to illustrate the problem, we need look no further than Hitler, who once ruled the Germany and spread his anger throughout the Europe. By autarchy, this dictator finally imposes his own willingness on the whole country and brings disasters to the world. It once again shows the darkness and potential risk if a person can hold the power for a long time. Therefore, for the concern of safety, we should bring in such a method.
What's more, the mechanism brings wisdom. As an old Chinese saying goes, "three cobblers combined, make a genius mind". One person's wisdom is limited. In fact, owing to the limitation of a leaders background and cultural temptation, there will always be deviation from what is considered the right decision. To make things worse, although might not be intended, if the leader doesn't recognize his decisions as wrong, he would likely bring the whole organization-maybe a school, a company, or a country.-to a even darker extreme. By the succession of a new leader, actually a chance for adaptation and restarting is offered. Therefore, such mechanism usually directs to the right place.
Although with all these benefits sited above, I admit that the author's states is too extreme and even the mechanism itself can sometimes is counterproductive. Firstly, situations are quite different in realms such as education, business, and politics. The 5 years maybe not widely-suitable. The period of five years, which might be slightly long for a company faced with frequently-changed environments, can be proper for an educator who implements his ideas on pupils. Therefore, in the system, the period should be well designed to suit particular conditions. Furthermore, the system like this cannot be perfect in every situation. For example, during the Second World War, according to such restriction of leaders, Roosevelt should step down. However, in a time that his directions so vital to the War, it is undoubtedly unwise to change leaders. In all, just like there is no panacea suitable for every illness; the mechanism has several flaws.
In summary, as the discussion above, the system that leaders step down automatically after certain period does more good than harm. Although it functions badly sometimes, but in most conditions, it serves a good job. 作者: Puding 时间: 2007-7-27 18:20:30
As a means of regulating the power of leaders, I concede that, there is some wisdom lying in the author's suggestion. However, it is somewhat too extreme and inadaptable the 5-year time is not fit for all occasions. But I, fundamentally, agree with the author that a mechanism of regulating power do more good than harm, as we discuss below. To begin with, with out the mechanism that leaders step down after certain years, varies of problem would raise(rise).
Firstly, viewing from the human nature, there is sin and evil deeply hidden in every ones' heart, leaders included. Even if a leader appears noble initially, we cannot guarantee that he would not abuse his authority for the sake of his or his relatives own benefits. Based on such assumptions, this mechanism serves like a casher machine-by a casher machine can prevent cashers from putting money into his own pocket during the deal,(比喻很好) which, by excluding the possibilities of evil of humans, successfully insure the fairness and equality in the process. Similarly, the mechanism that regulating the power of leaders can help (缺谓语，可以写这个group之类的)exclude the potential errors of leaders. Furthermore, for real examples to illustrate the problem, we need look no further than Hitler, who once ruled the Germany and spread his anger throughout the Europe. By autarchy, this dictator finally imposes his own willingness on the whole country and brings disasters to the world. It once again shows the darkness and potential risk if a person can hold the power for a long time. Therefore, for the concern of safety, we should bring in such a method.
What's more, the mechanism brings wisdom. As an old Chinese saying goes, "three cobblers combined, make a genius mind". One person's wisdom is limited. In fact, owing to the limitation of a leaders(leader’s) background and cultural temptation, there will always be deviation from what is considered the right decision. To make things worse, although might not be intended, if the leader doesn't recognize his decisions as wrong, he would likely(to) bring the whole organization-maybe a school, a company, or a country.-to a even darker extreme. By the succession of a new leader, actually a chance for adaptation and restarting is offered. Therefore, such mechanism usually directs to the right place.
Although with all these benefits sited above, I admit that the author's states is too extreme and even the mechanism itself can sometimes is(be) counterproductive. Firstly, situations are quite different in realms such as education, business, and politics. The 5 years maybe not widely-suitable. The period of five years, which might be slightly long for a company faced with frequently-changed environments, can be proper for an educator who implements his ideas on pupils. Therefore, in the system, the period should be well designed to suit particular conditions. Furthermore, the system like this cannot be perfect in every situation. For example, during the Second World War, according to such restriction of leaders, Roosevelt should step down. However, in a time that his directions so vital to the War, it is undoubtedly unwise to change leaders. In all, just like there is no panacea suitable for every illness; the mechanism has several flaws.
In summary, as the discussion above, the system that leaders step down automatically after certain period does more good than harm. Although it functions badly sometimes, but in most conditions, it serves a good job.