【Flyer杀G作文组】7月26日Issue70-By 但我

但我UID: 2763822

The speaker over-generalizes about the tenure of the leaders in various fields. Whether leaders should step down after five years of leadership is a complex problem, which should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, revitalization via new leadership does not necessarily lead to success.

In the realm of politics, in democratic countries, it is generally necessary for political leaders to step down after a five-year term. When leaders have no fear of losing their power, there is more potential for abuse of their power. As Sir. Acton once said, "Absolute power leads to absolute corruption."In ancient China, the emperor ascended the throne from their fathers and stayed in the position for their whole lives.
Whatever the emperor said was the law, they could use their power at their desire. Therefore, when the emperor happened to be an fatuous and self-indulgent ruler, the common people would be in extreme miseries. Another example is Chairman Mao, who was the first leader of the People's Republic of China, led Chinese people to step into a new society, but made serious mistakes in his later years. When his mind was not as conscious as before, he was confused by some guys who were ur to no good and started the "cultural revolution", which impeded China's progress greatly. Moreover, new leadership usually has greater initiative and would bring in new ideas. As the saying goes--A new broom sweeps clean. Abraham Lincoln saw Negroes' miserable lives since young and determined to change the situation, so when he became the president of America, he issued the "Emancipation Proclamation" in 1863. So we can draw the conclusion that in politics, it is beneficial to limit the term of leadership.

However, as to the realm of business, whether those in power should step down from their position is contingent on how well they do in managing the whole enterprise. A good leader should be praised and maintained while a bad one should be dismissed. We all know that merchandising requiring experience and many successful businessmen have formed their broad acquaintances. If the current CEO is doing well, the social connections he or she accumulated could bring in big profits for the company, so the very position could not be replaced in a short time. And the company should have confidence in the leader's insight. But if the one in power who is leading the company to downhill should be dismissed as soon as possible, for the evil influence could not be made up in a short term. The company needs to change leaders to compensate its prestige.

In addition, changing leadership does not necessarily lead to the success of the enterprise. Those who led enterprises effectively in the past five years tend to be more experienced and understand this organization better than new leaders.

All in all, the tenure of the leaders requires to be discussed case by case. We cannot generalize it in one phrase. In politics, limiting the term of leadership might be good news for the masses, but when it comes to the realm of business, the situation is more complex and could not be judged easily. Moreover, new leadership may not necessarily bring success to the enterprise.