[i习作temp] 【NINE小组】第十三次作业-by 皮ter [复制链接]

pengzhicong
UID: 3151506

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 24
注册时间: 2011-8-14
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2011-9-14 21:47:33 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Issue 8
[Claim] In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. [Reason] The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

[Specific Task Instruction: Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agrument in support of the necessity to change power for any organization every five years seems to be an unexceptionalbe one at first glance, but couldn't hold water when appiled to some specific conditions of individual organization. Besides, the five year period is highly debatable when considering various mechanizms of institutions demanding unique substituion periods and methods of its own.

The institutionalized mechanisms for an enterprise to rejuvenile itself through changing the ruling party is a highly accepted among various fields in the modern world, no matter in public or private areas. Government institutions in the most developed countries in the world all adopt a similar mechanism for their public posititions. For example, the president of France is elected every five years. The election provides the French a chance to abrogate an unqualified president for a promising one in every five years, which guarantees a peaceful transition of government power from one to another. It is such an precious mechanism that the French had spent about two centuries of wars and revolutions to establish and keep it. As in private fields, it is common practice for a unversity principle to have a limited term period, such as five years or ten years.

Nevertheless, such an mechanism is not applicable in all circumstances. In fields thats requires a coherent policy or judgement, changing governing power in every five years would deteriote the coutability of their policies rather than ensure its vitality and success. Take the Federal Judges of the United States as an illustration, their term is life-time in order to ensure that the jurisdictions of these highest Judges could keep unbiased and consistent to principles regardless the pressure from the public opnions. If the judeges in the Federal High Court is accoutable to public elections, their judgements would be highly affected by public voices, which may based on vehement passions rather than levelheaded rationality and justice.

What's more, even though it may be generally true that it is necessary for the seniors in power to hand in their throne to a successer, the term of five years is indead arbitrary based on no sound ground. The U.S. presidential election is held every four years and some positions in business can lasts for 10 to 15 years or longer, according to the exact time of their labour contracts.

In the final statement, I would like to recapitulate my arguments that the institutional arrangements of changing head power for an individual organization in a regular bases could enhance its performance and vitality. However, it is certainly not applicable to all institutions and the exact methods for each one to change it ruling party is definately unified. We should examine the situations and methods case by case separtely.