ISSUE70球拍

hudu464UID: 2512268

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: 606
TIME: 00:45:00

DATE: 2009-12-20 10:36:45

I agreed partly with this statement because it recognizes that revitalization of any enterprise, be it in business or politics, has a significant role to play. However, frequent transition of power, as far as I concerned, does not invariably lead to revitalization, which should not be limited to emergence of new leadership.

Revitalization is important because it could limit the expansion of power and promotion of novelty. Leadership, once fossilized, could easily fall into arbitrary, which degenerates democracy in any enterprise. From ancient Rome to Soviet Union twenty years ago, we have seen devastating consequences stemmed from a leadership without time limit: wars being launched to defend the royalty of one empire, eyes being blinded towards obvious mistakes out of unreasonable admiration for one particular leader, which has a notorious name as cult of personality. Even a cursory examination of the history could tell that stagnation even retrogress of an enterprise coincided with a long term of leadership. On the contrary, a frequently renewed leadership could at least reduce, if not prevent, the incidence of over extension of personal power. Meantime, any position has a clear job description which prescribes its responsibilities and goals. Individuals, especially leaders, could fulfill its role in their own way, interjecting his or her personalities and experiences into the enterprise. We have seen companies in crisis replace its chief executive in the hope of turning it around. As revealed in politics and business, revitalization through new leadership merit the importance we attach to it.



Admittedly, revitalization can contribute to preservation of democracy and promotion of change. Nevertheless, a new leadership does not necessarily lead to revitalization in all cases. In a authoritarian society, where major elections are conducted exclusively among a small group of people, a five year term masks the fact that the newly elected leader still represents the same interests of dominant class in that country. Without a universal suffrage, a frequent change of leadership is nothing but the old trick. Democracy claimed by some authoritarian countries is built upon this attractive but deceitful alternation of leadership. Revitalization is not achieved through a changed spokesman of one particular interest group, but by power handover to competing groups. This is an important reason why in most democratic countries there exist more than one influencing and competing parties instead of one sweeping party like Communist Party in China. The essence of a five-year term is not for decoration of a democratic appearance but for a revitalization that keep the system in checks and balances.



Whether new leadership could revitalize an enterprise is subject to its situation, social context and even the personal quality of that particular leader. Revitalization of any enterprise could not solely rely on the transition of power. One prominent and capable leader who is willing to change could bring revitalization just as beneficial as a new leader. Examples could be found from Bill Gates who headed the largest software company in the whole world for so long to Franklin Roosevelt who successfully tackled the Deep Depression and turned the country around. Revitalization in this sense does not have to appear in the form of power transition. Instead, flexibility and creativity of the incumbent could bring equal revitalization to the enterprise. Some may argue that personal trait is unreliable and extraordinary leadership like Roosevelt is rare, and we have to count on a policy setting the time limit as five years. I conceded that the boundary between a respected decisive leader and notorious arbitrary leader is permeable. But in times of uncertainty and unrest, it is necessary to have a prominent leader to stabilize the enterprise with constant policies.

plukaUID: 2721764

I agreed partly with this statement because it recognizes that revitalization of any enterprise, be it in business or politics, has a significant role to play. However, frequent transition of power, as far as I concerned, does not invariably lead to revitalization, which should not be limited to emergence of new leadership.

Revitalization is important because it could limit the expansion of power and promotion of novelty（限制创新？就后文看应该是鼓励创新吧。promote novelty）. Leadership, once fossilized, could easily fall into arbitrary, which degenerates democracy in any enterprise（3 a : a unit of economic organization or activity;  especially   : a business organization  b : a systematic purposeful activity*agriculture is the main economic enterprise among these people*后文跟的例子是国家，跟enterprise搭配有些不自然）. From ancient Rome to Soviet Union twenty years ago, we have seen devastating consequences stemmed from a leadership without time limit: wars being launched to defend the royalty of one empire, eyes being blinded towards obvious mistakes out of unreasonable admiration for one particular leader, which has a notorious name as cult of personality. Even a cursory examination of the history could tell that stagnation even retrogression of an enterprise coincided with a long term of leadership. On the contrary, a frequently renewed leadership could at least reduce, if not prevent, the incidence of over extension of personal power. Meantime, any position has a clear job description which prescribes its responsibilities and goals. Individuals, especially leaders, could fulfill its role in their own way, interjecting his or her personalities and experiences into the enterprise. We have seen companies in crisis replace its chief executive in the hope of turning it around. As revealed in politics and business, revitalization through new leadership merit the importance we attach to it.
本段论述换届有利于抑制权力扩张、推动新生力量。觉得后一点阐述得没有前一点好。既然要讲换届的优点，不妨进一步解释一下新的领导人能带来哪些正面效应。
另，全文主旨句（首段末句）提出频繁换届不好，然而紧接着的本段却开始讲换届的好处，这中间是否需要连接词，比如让步之类。


Admittedly, revitalization can contribute to preservation of democracy and promotion of change. Nevertheless, a new leadership does not necessarily lead to revitalization in all cases. In a authoritarian society, where major elections are conducted exclusively among a small group of people, a five year term masks the fact that the newly elected leader still represents the same interests of dominant class in that country. Without a universal suffrage（哦，前文也说了，问题在于候选人范围小而不是投票人）, a frequent change of leadership is nothing but the old trick. Democracy claimed by some authoritarian countries is built upon this attractive but deceitful alternation of leadership. Revitalization is not achieved through a changed spokesman of one particular interest group, but by power handover to competing groups（后半句话待商榷，不是交权给反对党就一定能复兴的吧）. This is an important reason why in most democratic countries there exist more than one influencing and competing parties instead of one sweeping party like Communist Party in China（- -|||）. The essence of a five-year term is not for decoration of a democratic appearance but for a revitalization that keep the system in checks and balances.
本段论述并非所有领导人的更迭都带来新生，因为有些更迭只是换汤不换药。例子集中在政治领域：独裁政府仅替换发言人，民主政府则是实权的移交。私以为本段过分关注‘更迭’了，对‘新生’讲得少了些。论述部分讲的无非是怎么样才是真正的实权更迭，但为什么民主政府换届选举一下就一定会有新生呢？觉得可以考虑一下‘新生’是从何而来的。

Whether new leadership could revitalize an enterprise is subject to its situation, social context and even the personal quality of that particular leader. Revitalization of any enterprise could not solely rely on the transition of power. One prominent and capable leader who is willing to change could bring revitalization just as beneficial as a new leader. Examples could be found from Bill Gates who headed the largest software company in the whole world for so long to Franklin Roosevelt who successfully tackled the Deep Depression and turned the country around. Revitalization in this sense does not have to appear in the form of power transition. Instead, flexibility and creativity of the incumbent could bring equal revitalization to the enterprise. Some may argue that personal trait is unreliable and extraordinary leadership like Roosevelt is rare, and we have to count on a policy setting the time limit as five years. I conceded that the boundary between a respected decisive leader and notorious arbitrary leader is permeable. But in times of uncertainty and unrest, it is necessary to have a prominent leader to stabilize the enterprise with constant policies.
该段提出并非只有新领导人才能带来新生，有创新想法和灵活性的旧领导人也能。貌似分了两个部分。第一部分论述旧老板也能干得好；第二部分讲领导人的个人才干很重要（？）。说实话，第二部分有些摸不着头脑，没有与主题直接相关，更像是中途插进来的话题。


全文脉络：T（复兴重要但换届不一定带来复兴）——>B1（换届利于抑制权力扩张推动新生力量）——>B2（并非所有换届都意味着新生，有些是花招罢了）——>B3（并非只有新领导人才能领到新生，旧领导人也能）

列出来之后，各观点之间的关系还是看得清，但在文中似乎没这么清楚。尤其是B2和B3，私以为在读B2的时候，感觉好像把实权更迭跟新生混为一谈了，最后一句也说到民主社会的实权更迭是为了for a revitalization that keep the system in checks and balances，仿佛暗示实权有更迭就能有revitalization。但B3段首又提出Revitalization of any enterprise could not solely rely on the transition of power，指出实权更迭也不一定能有revitalization...
另外，纵观全文，并不能搞清楚revitalization到底是啥东西——个人以为这该是个关键名词。

以上~~