TOPIC: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should be required to step down after five years.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Below, I am sharing my writing on the topic. It is my second practice with the Analytical Writing section. (English is not my first language.)
This topic raises the controversial issue of whether leaders in any field should be required to step downafter five years. It is understandable why many would support the idea that people who have the power to rule over others should step downafter serving a limited time. Being the most powerful person in a country or in a company comes with heavy responsibilities such as declaring a war that discourage the other people from dreaming that they would become that one person one day. Also, such positions come with priceless benefits such as being at the center of everyone’s attention all the time or having luxurious life. We should also acknowledge that the power of deciding over all others on matters that affect their lives gives one joy. This power is proven to be addictive. In electing or appointing a person to be the one in power, we know that there is a danger that that person will do anything to stay such as bribing the decision makers to support his longer stay as a leader.
Although many constitutionsimpose a time limit on a political leader’s ruling, unfortunately not every country can adhere to this law as much as others. Take United States and Turkey as an example. In the United States, the president is bound by the Constitution which puts a 4-year limit on his rule as a president. After four years in power, a president can be elected only once more which makes his term eight years at most. There are no examples in United States’ history that a president was allowed to serve more than eight years. This does not mean that a president did not wish to stay in power longer. Even if he did, the separation of powers was thankfully in balance to prevent that wish from becoming a reality. Turkish law similarly requires a political leader to step down after eight years at most. However, the recent history of Turkey shows us that if the power of the state is not divided equally between three branches, judiciary, legislative and executive, this law becomes too weak to prevent a 16-year ruling by a president. As a result, in Turkey, the president has become corrupted and has corrupted the other two branches of the state. He is now above the law. For example, if a judge rules against him, he loses his job or if a congress member points out his corruption he gets removed from duty. The Turkish example proves the idea that a political leader should be strictly required to step down after a limited time.
This same logic applies to leaders in business as the power to rule over others corrupts them too. Companies only stay in power as long as their rulers make decisions based on facts and numbers. If a business leader starts making decisions to favor the ones who support him or remove the ones who criticize his decisions, that company would start perishing and out of business eventually. This must be the reason why company owners choose to appoint their CEOs for a limited time. Indeed, unlike a political leader, the life of the CEO’s ruling is limited to their success. The owner would remove the CEO if he or she failed to handle a dispute between employees or if he or she harms the company’s reputation for being customer friendly by stiffing these same customers.
In conclusion, some might think that the experience a leader gets through ruling is hard to get therefore, experienced leaders should stay in power for more than five years for a state or company’s benefit. However, we should take into account that power is corruptive and the risk of letting a leader rule indefinitely is too high.
