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.

Fix issues evidenced with the screenshot reviews.

Working ethics for leadership have been an (important)[vague word   ] issue. The duration of one’s term in critical positions (has also become a heated topic)[ why? how? — use your own words to write  ] . From my perspective.[ punctuation error  ] in general cases, those in power ought to step down after five years[repetition from the prompt   ] .

Supporters of long-term leadership claim that under the continuous command of certain outstanding people, the stability and sustainability [dangling   ] of the[ article error  ] enterprise will remain. [ Awkward sentence flow  ] Those in charge already possess a high level of competence. With their longstanding service and unwavering course of career development[ lengthy modifier  ] , they would[could   ] turn abundant experience into insight and courage in the face of impending challenges. They will also acquire a sense of belonging to it[ unclear pronoun  ] , thus maintaining unwavering loyalty and lofty aspirations for steady progress however kaleidoscopic circumstances are[ unclear/hard to read  ] .

However, this[unclear pronoun   ] has been proved wrong especially in modern society, where elders’[ elder  ] authority and fedual [spelling error   ] allegiance have diminished. History has also shown us what’s more robust.[unclear   ] Tito, the lifelong president of Yugaslavia [punctuation err   ] has been[ grammatical error  ] an evident example. He [ had  ] fought against the fascists and [ then  ] built the [ article error  ] new socialist federation, yet he failed to keep the political system secure and (even-handed with concrete institutions.)[ unclear  ] He[consecutive sentences start with the same word   ] pacified striking conflicts [unclear   ] and suppressed those potential dissidents, maintaing[ spelling error  ] unity with his own charisma. After his death, his [the   ] country soon went[/fell   ] into catastrophic turmoil.

In a holistic review of politics, it could be concluded that survival of an entity in any field-business,[spacing error   ] government-relies on these elements: progress, equity and accountability. Terms of office shouldn’t be so short that directors[ unclear word  ] become powerless to push toward a single agenda. We can’t expect a president would instantly eliminate poverty(, for[weak/unclear coordination conjunction   ] it is quite complex to learn from precedents, discuss feasibility, attain universal support and oversee implementation.)[wordy   ] In fact, pundits in comparive[ spelling error  ] politics have remarked that American presidents[ spelling error  ] may [ grammatical error  ] have directed[word choice   ] more structural changes[ unclear  ] instead of preparing for elections had their single term been one year longer.

While a term too long would also be prone to dictatorship and inefficiency,[punctuation error   ] five years as the term of office would reinforce (checks and balances)[unclear   ] , building transparency and dialogues among stakeholders [ spacing error  ] . Malfeasance, nepotism and negligence of duties would face thorough inspection [ unclear  ] and receive severe punishment, [ punctuation error  ] since no permanent authority of particular persons is allowed. Besides, limited term of office bring [ grammatical error  ] incentive for wholehearted devotion of the[ article error  ] employees. Owing to upward mobility, employees feel propelled to serve in the best interest of the institution[unclear word   ] .

In a nutshell, five years as the term[ unclear  ] is the most suitable and efficient to maintain the[ article error  ] vitality and soundness of any institution. Since in [ In  ] the current society, five years is sufficient to witness substantial development while leaving space for future correction.