In any field like business, politics, education, and government, should those in power be required to step down after five years?

The are two kinds of people in this world: ones with power and the ones without it. Everyone tries to reach the pinnacle, but only a few succeed. Hence, it is easy for someone who just reached it to get used to the benefits associated with it, but this has to be reprimanded as suggested by the claim. Thus, I completely agree with the claim that in all the fields, the people in power should step down after five years of their tenure. First and foremost, in my opinion, the claim is valid as it provides a stage for the young leaders to take the metaphorical ‘throne’. The youngsters are not only motivated but comply with the contemporary norms much better than their counterparts. While motivation is important, there is one which is far more important: novelty. The existing leaders are rigid and sticklers to the rules and the young are more inclined towards breaking the norms with their breakthrough ideas. They often seek for new ways of managing their businesses, which drives the innovation that is much needed. Secondly, the new leaders, who might not be young, can also be productive. The routines of the existing leaders are broken, paving a path for a budding blossom of creativity and innovation, the two most important virtues of any field. While some might argue that rules and routines are made for a specific reason, we need to assess if the reasons are still applicable in the ever changing situations such as now. Moreover, if the leaders are given free rein without any such constraints as their tenure, they develop characteristics that have negative impacts. For example, we can take the scenario of anarchy and dictatorship that arises with unlimited tenures. Also, in the current world, there can be other issues such as corruption that are reared by the leaders if they are not kept under the leash. Finally, taking a one-sided stance is never fruitful - we must also consider the problems posed by changing the leaderships frequently. The new leaders, though with good intentions, might take wrong decisions due to their inexpertise. Additionally, the risks they take can prove counterproductive in very rare cases as stability is also crucial. Taking too much risk is not advantageous and it could even bring down the whole company. In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, I believe that the claim is credible. As there are a few threats, it is with caution we need to follow this. In the myriad factors that affect the success of an organisation, the tenure is one, but not the only - experience and handling also matters as much. Therefore, ideally, there needs to be an equilibrium, but in