Take a look at my issue essay?

[Rudy55]

Claim: In any field — business, politics, education, government — those in power should step down after five years.

Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

 

In order to generate success and justice, those in power should not be allowed to rule indefinitely. There must be equal opportunity for others to come into leadership roles, as these new leaders will bring with them innovative and fresh ideas that can increase the likelihood of success. Without a change in leadership, any enterprise runs the risk of becoming stale, falling behind with the times, or, at an extreme, remaining under the power of a harsh and unfair leader. In any field, the duration of one’s role in a leadership or position of power should be capped at a maximum of five years in order to stay on the path to success, which is dependent upon the creativeness and new energy that comes from new leadership.

The issue at hand is correct in stating that the surest path to success for any institution in any field, including business, education, politics and government, is an increase in energy and creativeness through new leadership. For example, new ideas are vital to any business staying relevant in the changing times. Often, the energy of a new leader will subsequently result in fresh, new innovative ideas and actions. Similarly in education, a fresh face in power can shake up rules or principles that have been in place for decades. Sometimes it takes an outside perspective to see where an enterprise has gone complacent and, subsequently, enact change. Furthermore, enforcing a maximum time that a leader can be in power can help avoid absolute power from forming.

Throughout history, dictators and totalitarians have reigned for decades, unfortunately resulting in often corrupt and dystopian-like societies. If there is no minimum sentence on governmental roles, then absolute powers are more likely to form. This example can be taken from a less severe angle as well. For example, if a Republican was elected president and able to serve for an indefinite amount of time, then the opposite party would be at an unfair disadvantage. Thus, it is imperative that people in power, especially in roles that dictate over the livelihoods of others or societies on a whole, automatically step down after a certain amount of time.

However, one might argue that a quick turnover in leadership can be detrimental to enacting change. Indeed, change does not happen overnight. A person in power must first master the position, learning the ins-and-outs of the role, before they can enact change that will actually make a significant different. In any field, it takes awhile to master a management or leadership role, and 5 years may not be ample time for someone to truly come into the role. Regardless, the risk of an individual in an indefinite position of power outweighs the risk of cutting leadership roles short before they can really master a position because an everlasting leadership position can result in harsh ruling or a monopoly.

Overall, a 5-year time limit of roles of power benefits any enterprises chances at success and satisfaction. Change in leadership increases the chances of an institution’s success because new leaders bring with them new ideas. Furthermore, people in power should have a time limit on their positions in order to avoid absolute power, which can result in harsh ruling or other detrimental societal consequences. If enterprises become complacent and do not elicit change through new leadership, then they will inevitably suffer.