We are discussing a topic about whether or not people in power should be required to step sown after five years. I, in this discussion, tend to depend on the leader's or president's areas, and different fields may have different considerations on this issue. Here I will elaborate my point of view from the following aspects.
As a business leader in a company, in my opinion, he or she should not be asked to step down after five years, in spite of some special circumstances. On one hand, from creating a company to managing it and make it prosperous, some leaders might devote their whole personal time during several years. And the company is often like their own babies, thus they are the best people who know the company well and who can lead them to thrive. After a long period's engagement, five years or more, the exacutive of a company could have been more professional and sensitive about this area, since he or she has more experience of both success and failure than any other new coming people. So that they should continue their manegement of company to maintain the long-lasting development of the company and its employees. On the other hand, if a business leader left a company after a few years' leading, the company will be negatively influenced. For example, Apple was established in the 1970s, almost the same age with his competitor Microsoft. But in the 1990s, with their establisher Steve Jobs' leave, Apple lost its consumer confidence by their CEO's unrealistic market forecasts and experienced a number of failures caused by the confusing products. When in 1997 Steve Jobs returned Apple, Apple was revived by this legendary leader. By introducing the Macbook series and the iPod products, Apple backed to people's attention, and then, the amazing iPhone,iPad and Macbook air makes Apple one of the largest companies in the world and the most valuable technology company in the world, having surpassed Microsoft. For reasons as various as its philosophy of comprehensive aesthetic design to its distinctive advertising campaigns, Apple has established a unique reputation in the consumer electronics industry.
When it comes to the educational and political areas, this issue may be discussed in other ways. Imagining presidents of universities, and I think they need to be required to change their working places after several years. First, changing leaders of a school can promote the communication and interaction among different schools, which will help to improve our education system and make a more balance and free educational atmosphere. Students, as a consequence, can benefit from the change of their president by experiecing diversified thoughts and ideas. In addition, it is good for the president him or herself to go to a new place to work, since he or she can develop the ability to deal with different areas. He or she can also expand their social interacting circles and improve their managing ideas.
Political leaders, or those in power in government, should also be replaced by a new generation after certain years. The foremost reason for this is to impulse them to have risk of losing power, so that they can try their best to do their own business rather than taking advantage of such power to enjoy his or her own life. What's more, the democracy and fairness are very important to a nation, thus we should make every person with competence to compete for this position. This updating machenism may also eliminate the phenomenon that some greedy officials in government may secretly take a bribe.
To put it in a nutshell, the issue whether or not a leader in areas, such as business, politics, education, or government, should be replaced by new one has been elaborated above. As demonstrated here, I believe that business managers are not necessary to change every five years in a company, whild education presidents and politic leaders are in great need to change their position.