At the hand is the issue about whether in any field those in power should step down after five years. Admittedly, enterprises in some fields do need constantly change and innovation in order to suit the fast speed of develpoment such as the electronic product field. However, for education field, frequantly changing leader means no revitalization through new leadership but might cause catastrophe for students.
In the realm of business, one of the principles of success is a visionary leader who can bring innovative ideas replacing the banalities and have insight judgment for all the changes, since the business world is fluid and mercurial. Thus, new blood in the leadership is necessary to the progress of a company. For example, Steve Jobs’ return to Apple in 1997 was so encouraging to the company that it got out of the dismal sale situation and came back to profitability......If the members of the management of a enterprise remain immobile all along, the enterprise can hardly receive pioneering views compatible with the mercurial market. Flying Pigeon, a Chinese bicycle company, used to have its day and owned the largest share in the bicycle market. However, due to the conservative leaders unyielding to the increasingly competitive bicycle industry, it had to confront disappointing sale account and gradually disappeared in sight.
 
Additionally, in government, immobility of leadership will become a danger in motivating totalitarianism. Consider Mao's government in China. Mao Zedong and his adherents held over control the nation over 30 years until his death. Although he contributed to repel Japan's invasion at the beginning of his reign, Mao's economic policy was not compatible with China's situation, which caused a series of turmoil of events like Cultural Revolution resulting thousands of deaths. After Mao's reign, the new leadership of Deng who rejected his totalitarianism finally guided China back on the track. Furthermore, with different background leadership hold diverse points of view to national development, which can bring kinds of  ideas of country management and make the state more comprehensive.
 
However, it is not suitable to change the people those in power in education field. For one thing, the field of education is a enterprise which could not bring efficiency immediately, the method of education needs the test of time to judge its result. Moreover, by changing leader frequantly may not only bring no revitalization but make the students become experimental article, which is contrary to the original intention of education.