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 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.

 A leader that handles any organization, company or country is a responsible and a potential human to lead them. A leader has his/her own tenure to run either company or country—in case of democratic regime. Under democratic rule, people of any organization must be get elected after the termination of the previous leader’s acting period and is a healthy practice; which give the chance to everyone. The tenure of those leader varies from different time and I am partially agreeing with the given prompt stating the acting period of any leader in power should no more than 5 years.

Firstly, the process of 5-year tenure in power will create less chance of creating environment for corruption and other irregular activities for a leader – specially in politics. In absence of conducive environment favoritism, nepotism, cronyism will not get the climate to foster as novice leader has pressure to bring some change: in terms of policy, rule, and life of people. For instance, in Nepal, if there was provision of being prime minister, politician will not be so much avarice towards becoming the prime-minister again and again. The greed of that post is the main cause of political instability even after the establishment of federal republic state. Leaders wants to offer the post to their relatives and wants to bolster their all favorite people by being on the top post—as this post reserve all powers. So, of the post date limit to only 5- year, this leader for the sake of their political career will perform targeted to common people.

Secondly, the 5-year rule for the post on leadership will automatically discard the bad leader and prevent people from being lead by failed leader. In democracy, often characteristically immoral people also won election by rigging or by illegal ways—booth capture, trapping people in money or other benefits—and getting rid of such leader will be arduous task. But this rule-- no more than five years leadership—will definitely console common people. Also, in any organization people changing the post and power aft6er 5- year will helps to participate I working post for everyone and what if the capable leader made the organization into the profit region from the debt depth condition. For instance, Nepal electricity authority was a loss-making government owned organization of Nepal. After Kulman Ghising appointed as Chief directorate of that organization, the organization has completely shed its old skin by developing itself as Now the most profit-making organization in short period of time. It was only possible after the completion of pervious CEO’s tenure—who was also accused of bribery.

Some people might argue that, ruling or being 5-year only on a leading post will not foster the development as anticipated due to time constraint. For instance, If a leader, president or any top official is working efficaciously on his/her plan , to complete them it take certain period. If such leader got complete his/her tenure on the middle of project , the project might result in total collapse or renouncement by the next leader. If that project was really changing the life of people and a huge resource already invested, middle muddling of work will cause the loss to resource and failure of a projects. In order to prevent from such loss, this provision of only 5-year being leader and stepping down is not so preferable. For instance, in our municipality, mayor elected in previous election was on the middle of road, park and bridge project. During her tenure she managed to plan, allocated budget and initiated the project which was in the middle of its progress but after completion of tenure, the other mayor has other priority rather than her project. This made those project incomplete and huge resources got wasted.

To sum, to bring check and balance on corruption and favoritism only 5-year as a leader is an exemplary technique and leader but from sight of overall development and task completion, it is not quite satisfactory. Short sweet project selection and co-operation of every leader on the public friendly task of previous leader will not create the situation of resource wastefulness and the stability with this ruling method will be maintained.