In any profession — business, politics, education, government — those in power should 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 and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
The speaker, a well-respected professional, argues that five years is an appropriate amount of time for a leader to reign over an organization before stepping down. Although five years may seem like a reasonable period for a leader to serve, it is not necessarily so. In fact, the period for which a leader holds power can have profound effects on his or her organization. The longer a leader is in power, the more likely it is that he or she will no longer be able to maintain control or inspire confidence in his or her subordinates. Furthermore, the longer a leader serves, the more likely it is that he or she will form a negative opinion of his or her institution
The following case study, taken from United States history, vividly illustrates points made above. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President at the age of 39. Although Lincoln had been a successful lawyer, he had never held political office and was thrust into the position of Commander in Chief of the United States. Although Lincoln was a charming man with a warm personality, he was inexperienced in the world of politics. His inexperience showed during his administration as the American Civil War raged on. Many of his cabinet members either resigned in protest or were fired. Lincoln himself had a difficult time forging a consensus on national policy, as various factions of the Republican Party vied for control. Lincoln’s inability to overcome these divisions ultimately led to his defeat in the 1864 presidential election
Shortly after Lincoln’s defeat, he grew disillusioned with his government. He had become weary of the endless bickering and felt that people in Washington were more concerned about their personal ambitions than serving the American people. Lincoln was convinced that the Founding Fathers had created a system of checks and balances that prevented any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. He believed that, had the Constitution been followed, the disagreements between Lincoln’s cabinet members would not have led him to fire them. Lincoln’s disillusionment may have influenced his decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, an act that historians believe hastened the end of the American Civil War
Lincoln’s disillusionment certainly did not help the United States recover from the war. After the war, the Reconstruction era began in 1865. Lincoln’s defeat in 1864 prompted Southern states to secede from the Union and form the Confederate States of America. Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, was impeached on federal charges in 1867 and was removed from office after the Senate refused to delay his removal. Lincoln’s successor, Ulysses S. Grant, was then forced to fight and win two Civil Wars in order to restore the United States to its previous glory
Lincoln demonstrated the importance of maintaining control of a government. If Lincoln had remained President, it is likely that he would have continued the bickering and failed to push through any important legislation. Perhaps Lincoln would have remained in office until his death, thereby allowing President Grant to fight and win two Civil Wars. Furthermore, even if Lincoln had remained in office, it is likely that a number of his cabinet members would have remained in power until their deaths, thereby preventing Lincoln from gaining any sense of control over the government. In contrast, Lincoln left office after only five years, thereby giving him the opportunity to enact important legislation, uniting the nation by putting an end to the American Civil War, and gaining the respect of the American people
While the five-year rule seems reasonable, it is important that a leader be replaced every ten years to maintain the effectiveness of the organization. No leader should be in power indefinitely. Doing so encourages corruption and hinders the ability of an organization to maintain control over its own affairs.