Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
please rate my issue essay [#permalink]
28 Aug 2012, 18:28
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.
Many people think that those in power, regardless of the field, should be required to give up their position after five years. However, others feel that people in charge can serve for longer than five years. This topic is a controversial one but a closer examination reveals that people in power should abdicate their post after five years of services for several reasons. One reason is that policies can be changed if it is not favorable to everyone. For example, tax law can be changed if it favors only a subset of population. If the president, who implements the tax law, is allowed to continue beyond five years of service, then the president’s tax policies will only favor a small portion of the countries citizens. However, if the president is required to step down after five years, then the country’s citizens can elect someone who they think will write tax policies that favors everyone. Clearly, this demonstrates that individual in charge should step aside after five years of service. Another reason is that we do not know what will happen in the future; circumstances can change will requires a leader with different set of leadership skills then the current individual in power. For example, when a country is in time of war or in need economic growth; these two different circumstances require different leadership skills from the president. In case of time of war, it requires a president that will find ways to save money and spend it to build its arsenal of weapons to win the war. However, in case where a country requires economic growth, the country requires a president that can spend money what will stimulate the economy. For this reason, allowing those in power to hold position longer than five years will not be beneficial because circumstances can change that requires different leadership skills. However, there are instances when those in power should be allowed to serve longer than five year. For example, a person on a committee that makes important decision. This committee member could be the only person representing a view of subset of population; removing this individual after five years will prevent a portion of constituent to be representing when important decisions are made. For instance, committee members on the gas and energy committee decide which states should be allow building of power plants. Power plants are considered beneficial to the local economy; all members represent a region on country to voice their opinion which represents the view of its constituent. If a member on this committee that represents the northeast region of the country is removed, the northeast region will lose an advocate; this region will be neglected in the decision process and potential loss economic benefits that come along with building a power plant in the region. For this reason, individual in power can be allowed to serve longer than five years if removing then neglects a opinions of subset of population. In summary, while there are arguments to be made for both sides, it is clear that there are greater advantages to prevent those in power from serving terms longer than five years. This idea is beneficial when policies that can favor subset of individual and when there are changes in circumstances that require different set of leadership skills.