Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
In Any Field—business, Politics, Education, Government—those In Power Should Be Required To Step Down After Five Years - With A Free Essay Review
"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."
Changes are the law of nature but it is not mandatory that these changes have to necessarily come after a fixed duration of time. The changes should be brought only when it is absolutely necessary and not for just the sake of doing it. The same stand should be taken even in the field of business, education, politics and government also.
For an organization to succeed, the involvement of fresh blood as well the foresightedness of an experienced leader is essential. As far as business and education fields are concerned, the duration of the term served by a leader, say the CEO or the director of an organization should never be the criterion for their stepping down and this fact is very obvious in the present world. The veteran leader is far more experienced than the young leader who would succeed him and has witnessed the growth of the organization, the ups and downs and fought hard during the crunch times. So such a veteran leader is more vital for the continued success of the company. Let us consider Microsoft where Bill Gates is leading it successfully since the last 20 or more years. Even in the Indian companies like Infosys and Wipro the director is the same since its inception and these are conducting their business with panache. To the credit of these leaders they have been able to bring the required innovations to the company and infuse new ideas to contribute to the continual development of the organization as well as the workforce. These leaders are well assisted by the pool of young people working just under them and ready to fill in the big boots whenever they step down. So till the time the leader is able to contribute to the cause of the concerned, he is innovative enough and is able to take vital decisions when required, there is absolutely no need for them to step down. There need not be any predefined time length for their service. Also whenever a change is brought it should be made sure the new leader is mature enough to handle the responsibilities he is endowed with.
As far as politics and government are concerned, while it is not imperative that such a strict time length for a person to hold the office of power is followed, history has shown that sometimes when a person has held power for a long time, he has become a tyrant. We can take Hilter as an example for this case. It is quite easy for those in high post to misuse their power when they are at the top of the world. Let us consider the case of Indonesia. In 1965, Suharto became Indonesia’s president. Initially he was a good leader and brought good economic development to the country. Lured by his achievements, people trusted him and he continued to remain in power for more than 10 years. Then he was corrupted and eventually became a tyrant. Today Indonesia is one of the poorest and most unstable regions of the world.
In India also, there have been instances where politicians have misused their power when they held the office for long. In Bihar, one of the states of India the chief minister Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav held office for almost 15 years and was involved in too many corruptions. The state did not see growth until the government was changed. While on the other we can consider the example of Mr. Narendra Kr. Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat(India) who has been holding the office for 15 years now but the state still sees the highest GDP in the country. To avoid such kind of predicaments, all democratic states of the world give people a chance to choose their leaders after some fixed duration. So people elect them based on their past achievements. If the leader has performed well enough, he is re-elected and continues in the office of power.
This is a reasonably well written essay, but one that fails to fully engage with the given prompt. You have two basic arguments: first, business leaders should not be required to step down after five years because their experience may be "vital for the continued success of the company"; and, second, politicians who stay in power may become corrupt. The weaker of these two arguments, as a response to the prompt, is the second, which is inconclusive, and relies heavily on examples. The examples don't really add much (argumentative) value to your discussion, and you end by remarking that in democracies the people can change the leader every few years, which is true, but irrelevant to the task of assessing the given claim or the reason upon which it is based. You need to construct arguments that unambiguously assert your position on that claim and that reason, even if your reasons for supporting the claim are different from the given reason. You need, in other words, to make statements like the following: "I agree that political leaders should step down after five years but not because doing so helps produce success on the basis of revitalization through new leadership, but because it is important to limit the chance of power corrupting political leaders." Presumably, that statement doesn't do justice to the complexity of your thoughts about the issue, but however you would want to qualify that statement, your version should look like it, in the sense that it establishes your position on the original claim, establishes your position on the given reason, and defends your position.
Finally, except in those cases where the instructions specifically demand that attention be given to invocation of relevant examples, I would recommend that you focus your efforts not on elaborate examples but elaborate arguments. There are all kinds of issues related to the argument that you don't get to address here because of the time you devote to illustration.