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, Those In Power Should Be Required To Step Down After Five Years. - With A Free Essay Review
Prompt: "In any field- business, politics, education, government- those in power should be required to step down after 5 years. - Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position."
Earlier this year, we witnessed the ousting of monarchs of the Arab world. Egypt’s Mubarak who had ruled the country for 30 straight years was asked to step down by the public. Even though there had been previous elections in the country, it was always Mubarak who won and got elected to power. This created a huge gap between the rich and the poor. The citizens were angered as the government in charge for little less than half a century couldn’t care less about its people. Thus the youth revolution erupted in Egypt calling for a change in the system.
Compared to wealth, psychological studies prove that power is preferred by an individual. Being in a commanding position grows to become an addiction more than an obligation. Hence most bureaucrats favor to retain their position as long as they can. Partiality is shown to personal interests. A five year term at the authority assists to curb such attitudes of leaders. Moreover a five year venture helps to reevaluate as well as compare the performance with their predecessors. This opens room for improvement and to identify the flaws in the system.
Consider the example of the Malaysian government which has been ruled by their National party since its independence. Malaysia, which consists of three races of citizens, is a multi-cultural society. But the government ruled by the Malay majority of the country continues to oppress the Indians and the Chinese who are the minorities. Though following a democratic regime, the elections are biased and corrupted to keep the ruling party always in power. This fails to bring a change in the system and hinders the development of the country. However, different people have different mindsets. Therefore the successor after 5 years may not have the same ideas as their predecessor. When one political leader might aim for industrial development of the country, the former may have planned for an improvement in health sector. Thus it is important that both leaders are in sync with regards to matters that are beneficial to the organization or the country.
Lastly, humans have a tolerance period for anything. Reiteration bores them. The same can be applied for a leader. Despite the fact that the person in charge might be doing well or not, the public demands change. This necessity for change made Barack Obama the first African-American president of the United States. In addition, a change in authority every 5 years creates a platform for competition. A healthy competition acts as a catalyst for development, whether its politics, business, government or education. Hence, in the long run, a change in regime is inevitable for success.
Insofar as you are being asked to analyze an issue, and in particular both to explain your reasoning for your position and to consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy outlined in the prompt, the first paragraph, which in truth does none of those things, is relatively weak. To be sure, it is your introduction, and in an ordinary academic essay it might be a reasonable introduction, but when writing these types of test essays, you don't have the luxury of crafting a merely suggestive introduction. You need, I would suggest, to get straight to the point. Implicitly, you might say, you are doing that; your example of Mubarak's reign and its tumultuous end could serve to show the danger of a leader remaining indefinitely in power. For the GRE, I would recommend against argument by implication. Make every argument explicit. It is fine to give an example (preferably a brief one); it is crucial to explain the argumentative significance of that example, for it is the latter that the GRE readers are interested in seeing.
Your essay also defends its position without clearly establishing that position in the first place. Certainly there is no mistaking the fact, inferable from your second paragraph, that you agree with the policy, so it may seem pedantic to insist on your actually stating that fact. Let's just say it is the safer course of action in general to establish your position explicitly in the form, say, of a clearly articulated thesis statement.
Your third paragraph introduces another example, a substantial example; again, examples are relatively poor substitutes for reasoned arguments. The first half of this paragraph teaches me more about your knowledge of Malaysian political history than about your understand of the issues relevant to determining the merits of the given policy. In this paragraph, you do turn eventually to make specific claims whose relevance extends beyond the confines of the Malay Peninsula. But those claims do not arise naturally out of your discussion of Malaysian politics, making the relevance of the example more obscure.
Generally speaking, the essay does not really answer the posed question even implicitly. There are brief indications of what the consequences of the policy might be, but no significant discussion of those consequences, and certainly no consideration of any possible negative consequences of following the policy. Of course you cannot address all the relevant issues and possible consequences in a short essay, but you could address much more if you abandoned the elaborate examples and focused sharply on the assigned task.