issue70 【mettle作业小组】第六次作业 by imagic80

imagic80UID: 2342633

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."
决定执政者是否应该下野的标准不应该是时间，而应该是其能力。
1、对于在位五年，业绩平平的领导者而言，让贤也许是最明智的选择。
2、然而， 并非所有的业绩都会在五年之内表现出来，毕竟五年不算是很长的时间。也许领导采取的很多措施都具有长远性。
3、五年可以作为一个评估期，有能力者继续在任，无能者主动让贤。
Five years as a term of leadership is widely accepted in the profession of politics and government. In my opinion, what determine whether a leader in power should step down or not after five years is not the time but his accomplishment.
Admittedly, for a leader who have done nothing in his position , it is a good choice to ask him step down and give his chair to a new leader who is more initiative comparing with his predecessor and more likely to bring  in new ideas. Thus the enterprise will be revitalized through new leadership. A new leader of business will bring in new concept of management and new technology of manufacture to the company. A new leader of politics may be less domimeering and more democratic to his people. A new leader of education can adopt new idea to train his students. A new leader of government will carry on new policies which will benefit its people. In short, for an incompetent leader in any field, it it the time for them to give the position to their successors.
Nevertheless, for a leader who focus on the long-term problems, it is unfair for him to resign after five years. Because we can not see the result of what he have done. We must admit that five years is not a long period of time in which many problem can not be solved. One need look no further than water pollution. It is very likely that from the first day of being a government leader, he has made his determination to solve the problem of water pollution. So in the first one or two years, he is busy working at search for accuate information of water pollution. Then, in the following years, he devotes himself into finding the most effective way to prevent pollution and dealing with them. It is the time for him to step down when he just plans to apply the most effective method to solve pollution problems. However, no one than him know much about what they should do next in the project of solving water pollution. The same is true of other matters.
Finally, five years as a term of leadership is not reasonable but as a term of evaluation is necessary. Because absolute power leads to absolute corruption. If the leader have no fear about losing their power, they are more likely to abuse their power, such as corruption. In order to prevent corruption, there must be some limitation for power. Although we think that five years is not long enough for an competent leader, it is a good way to evaluate the behavior of a leader in five years. Therefore, those in power should accept some kind of test to check whether they should step down or not. In this way, the leader can not only solve long-term problems, but also will make good use of their power.
In sum, five years as a term of leadership will force leaders give up paying attention on the long-term problems and devote themselves in the short-term actions which will enhance their accomplishment in the time of their leadership. Thus, many serious problems which may break out in the future will be deliberately overlooked. So, in my point of view, it is not as wise as it stands.