issue70，领导人5年下台，观点很反动

imongUID: 140258

严格控制45min，结果结尾又差一点

70"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."

Though many people take the renewal of authority for granted, as it is commonly practiced throughout the world, I don't agree with the proposal that in any profession those in power should step down after five years. Even granted that revitalization has positive effect for success to some extent, it has several serious drawbacks.

First of all, reelection, which has been making trouble in every field, comes along with revitalization. When it comes to the issue of power, people have already been familiar with how sensitive the candidates are, as they watch the reelection of American president every four years. Both sides try the best to exalt their candidate and more often rack their brains to concoct scandals to denigrate the opponent. This is what revitalization brings about: struggle for power. This case applies universally, whether in business corporations, universities, or governments. To be competent for the position one must have certain merits, yet when none of the candidates exhibit obvious advantage over others, the most savage attacks among them begin. The more influential the position is, the more combative the candidates are. Though they may shake hands at times, no one will miss a chance to publicize and "incisively" comment on the mar of others. The result is that people who vote fails to recognize the merits of the candidates since they are already submerged in the bombardments from all sides. Consequently, the renewal does not necessarily bring the most able, effective leader, but bring the one that excel at propaganda, making promises that rarely realize, cheating people with fake information, and debate with others over trivial issues, most concerning personal affairs. Therefore, revitalization seldom bring vitality, since those in office always share these negative features as their common trait, and there is hardly any improvement. It is mere useless drama that produces a stage for candidate to quarrel.

Besides, the five-years-and-leave proposal will inevitably impede the long-term development in any institutions, because principles are easily varied from such frequent and continual change. Take the government for example, in order to gain power one party promise great tax cut in favor of the public, while the other insist that higher tax is beneficial to all in the long run. However, both sides stuck themselves in the bog of taxation issue and no one at any given times is to take real viable measures to promote economic development. The outcome, therefore, is a five year high tax followed by another five year low, while the important factors, say, the structure of industry, is never looked into. The nation then consistently shake between the left wing and the right wing with rarely a single step forward. This case is the same in universities and business corporations. Different executives have divergent ideas and the change in office means the change in guideline. It is wise for universities and business corporations to engage in a definite field of development so as to gain long term profit and reputation, yet everything is destroyed by the inconsistency in the office. For example, a university invests one million dollars to set up an organic synthesis research center to promote the development in organic chemistry, yet five years later the subsequent money is appropriated for the purchase of documentations for research in traditional arts. The only result of such disarrangement is mediocre in all, and the institution will be destined to fall. Thus, the inconsistency in the office results in confusion in the principles, and consequently a series of ill practices. Ironically, the vitality brought by revitalization is fully exerted on confusing the situation.

In conclusion, I believe the renewal of office is an ill advice. Reelection does not necessarily guarantee better governor to be in place and

当然，只提及了下台的两个坏处，根本不提好处，而且没有比较，应该说是一个大问题
不过严重到什么程度呢？
我想知道这样写能不能算5分的水平，至少也是在做分析，用例子支持，基本的东西还是有的。