- UID
- 742284
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-3-28
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
N8 [Claim] 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.
Should those inpower step down after five years in any field such as business, politics, education, government? The author argues so, because of the reason that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. In response to the issue, we need to analysis comprehensively and systematically. In a sense, I agree in so far as some fields involved should make their inpower step down after five years. However, a far more compelling argument can be made that it is not all the same in any field. In my opinion, five years is not a definitely enough time for some field to procure revitalization.
First of all, this is no denying the fact that in some field it is necessary to step down the inpower after five year to revitalization through new leadership. Timely update is useful for revitalization. For the incumbent, this action will stimulate them to make good decisions to make sure they will be elected in the next five years. They will care more about the populace’s welfare rather than their own. If not for the five-year-term, absolute power leads absolute corruption. For example, in the ancient China, when the emperor inherit power from generation to generation, they trend to pay more and more attention to their own comfort and pleasure, and regardless of the populace’s welfare when nobody seems to revolt against them. I believe if there is something endanger their power, they will come up with good ideas to strengthen their fame. Five years’ term is a good choice. On the other hand, the younger generation is always full of energy and eager to come up with creative ideas into practice. Moreover, they will work hard to establish their own career, this is definitely a benefit to individual, to their company, to their country and so on.
Despite these merits above, however, new problems come out in the process. whether five years is a long enough time to make sure the incumbent executing their plan is not determined. Maybe the field needs a long-term goal, such as Federal Reserve, a five-year term is not sufficient to achieve the goal. for example, Deng Xiaoping, one of the greatest leaders of china, planned the revolution and openness in economy to improve the whole living standard of Chinese. This great feat needs no less than five years. It is too short to execute all the plans involved.
Finally, and perhaps the most importantly, the author seems to forget to take into account that too frequent the election leads incumbent eager to make their own career without concerning about long term running.
From the analysis made above, I prefer the optimal approach that we need to weigh all the things involved in all fields and seek a balance. in some fields, a five-year-term is sufficient and necessary, while in other fields, stability is needed. What is more, a longer time is needed to be adjusted to keep revitalization in some other fields.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-6-4 11:27:03
收藏
收藏
楼主
