ISSUE 70【clover】 by a08805436

a08805436UID: 2725634

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: 505


Should those in power step down after five years in any profession, as the speaker contends?
I agree to the extent that if leaders on the power for many years, it may constitute detrimental element to the whole system. However, in different professions we should consider this convoluted issue respectively.

Admittedly, long-term presidency of leadership in any fields may lead to deteriorated consequence for the enterprise. In the initial time of a leader's presidency, it is easy for him or her to keep cool-minded and industrious, but corruption and backslides would turn out as the overall situation stabilized and security affirmed. A striking example involves Mao Zedong, the first chairman of People's Republic of China (PRC). As one of the most outstanding and preeminent strategists and leaders in China, he successfully defended the Japanese and other enemies in his early time. However, as different voice inside the Party diminished, he made several huge mistakes in his old time after long-term office, which caused a total pandemonium in PRC for more than ten years. From his failure, we may safely conclude that bureaucracy and autarchy are the greatest enemies of success.

However, it is still a hasty generalization to postulate that those leaders like Mao should be step down after five years. According to diversified professions, we should carry out a case-by-case analysis. In the fields like politics and business, I agree with the speaker to the extent that long-term presidency is detrimental to the enterprise. But it is presumptuous to assert that every leader should be step down for revitalization and five years of presidency is not enough for a great leader to show his ambition and to fulfill his feat. Take Mao's example again, he successfully striving against the Japanese and other enemies for more than ten years of his presidency of the Chinese army. If, say, we choose another leader through democratic methods during that time, the morale may become depressed and the Chinese would not defeat its enemies.

In the fields like education and science, long-term presidency seems to be justifiable due to the fact that it takes time to demystify and quantify different subjects in a school and efficient and effective leadership in education ask for a deep and profound understanding of the education itself. In those fields, people who elected to be the leaders should be familiar with the pedagogy. As far as bureaucracy and autarchy is less seen in the realm of education, it is unwise to change chief leader in the school frequently. However, we can carry out some reelection system to perfect the presidency.

In final analysis, in the fields of politics and business, revitalization is of vital importance to ensure a sustained development of the enterprise whereas in the fields like education and science, we shall keep the stability of leadership. Moreover, five years of presidency is not enough for an eminent and excellent leader to achieve his goal and comprehensive analysis such as the performance of different leaders should be taken into consideration when dealing with this issue.