In any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years.

In contrast to the statement, I firmly believe that (the political field should step down)[confusion  ] after three or four years, [ punctuation error ] otherwise, leaders in other fields ought not to step down for the following reasons[summarize reasons here  ] .

To begin with, politicians should step down[ repetition ] after three or four years in light of reflecting the will of the country’s citizens. For instance, In[spelling error  ] my xxx-Taiwan, all citizens have the right to vote for president[spelling error  ] and legislators every four years,[  punctuation error] In other words, the people who we vote for directly present our living demand. Several years ago, people in Taiwan desperately concentrated on economic growth, thus, undoubtedly people are likely to vote for politicians whose political brief is pertinent to economics. Nowadays, citizens in Taiwan progressively return to focus on the issue of human equality. If the current trend changes all the time, the politicians are inevitably the optimal leaders to meet the country’s citizens’ meet. Therefore, stepping down is necessary for ensuring to reflect the will of a country’s citizens in the political field.

In addition, “Power trends to corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely”, we heard a great deal of news that politicians cannot overcome greedy desire for pursuing power, even though they are well-intended in the beginning. Let alone political leaders who hold their position for prolonged periods of time may fall victim to corruption. Policies that involve a great deal of money and numerous people, the greater the power politicians wield, they are desperately liable to monetary allure, as a result, the optimal way of avoiding corruption is that politicians step down after several years rather than endless terms of office.

When it comes to professionals in other fields such as business, education, government, the regular term of office is not necessary due to professional skills and knowledge. For example, CEO of International corporation people who are gifted with exceptional performances and talents can stay in the position for sure because they can lead the corporation to move forward and come up with innovative ideas. If the CEO position keeps altering, the employers must adapt to different company cultures and operating standards, which are based on different CEO. Thus, given that large-scale corporations utterly require experienced people to lead the company, stepping down might be difficult for the management team to accumulate the necessary skills and knowledge.

Although stepping down is the approach of  supervising politicians leaders in other fields have alternatives to live up to supervise. For instance, a great number of companies establish boards of directors to monitor their actions. If the CEO makes improper decisions which negatively harm the company, the board of directors can take action against the CEO, so, being required to step down after five years is not necessary.

As a result, political leaders ought to step down after five years, while I assert that leaders in other fields need not step down as long as there is adequate supervision and management policy.