issue70 希望多指点，大作，pebble组作业留链互拍！

shenzhenhuaUID: 2241271

Leadership, a power emerged in a certain person, is a decision-making of almost every affairs involved in the enterprise. As the author asserts in any profession, government those in power should not stay in the position for more than 5 years. I general agree with it.

First of all, an unalterable leadership can result in an ethos of authority and icon duly. No matter how intelligent and experienced a person is, he or she can not always make decisions through wholly and discreetly deliberate. As an old saying goes a single person never sees the whole world, even if the one in power decides through careful scrutiny and thorough consideration, limited by the information he holds, his decision is also possible to be provincial. Napoleon had his Waterloo, Montgomery fell in North Korea, and anyone else also inevitably can be confused with the situation he faces. So making decisions only according to a certain person's view, it is dangerous to the enterprise. In order to avoid arbitrary decisions, a democracy is highly needed. And to make a democracy ethos, those in power should step down after a certain period.

Secondly, a perpetual leadership in an enterprise sometimes increases the possibility of embezzlement and bribery. Long time of authority makes the enterprise more stable, also makes the policies of the enterprise steady. Considered that if a mayor of a city will change to another city in five years, the profit by bribing may be only effective in the five years. Otherwise the profits got by the illicit measures will exist much longer and thus is more efficient. As a professor who teaches my political science said (and I paraphrase), "Rather than attribute the graft and corruption to the personal concisions and social ethics, I think it is actually due to the imperfect social political system." And a perfect political system calls for a better institution for the leadership. To establish a more democracy leadership system, we should make everybody can or at least have the possibility to make decisions. In my view, a constitution to ensure the person in power stepping down after certain years is necessary.

However, in some certain situations, the lead can and sometimes must hold his position longer than five years. Firstly, when the enterprise or perhaps the country is in danger, the lead should stay to converse the whole attentions to the dangerous thing. For example, during the Second World War, Rosyful lead the country to fight against the fascist as the president for nearly 20 years. Considered that if America had his election under the bullets and shells, what the result of war would be. Also, a perpetual leadership in a certain project can make it more effective because it is carried out constantly.

In sum, I hold the view that leadership in the enterprise should not be longer than a certain time which in general is five years. It can bring democracy to the enterprise and can lead the enterprise to avoid some danger. But, in some certain situation, just like facing a war, the constant leadership is useful.