Are There Criteria to Evaluate Success of Politicians?

Professions often have criteria by which the success of its practitioners may be evaluated. Doctors are often evaluated by the efficiency with which they heal people. Teachers are often evaluated by their influence on students and their contribution to their fields of study. Architects are evaluated by the quality of the designs they make, mechanics by how well they fix cars, and so on and so forth. There are of course many other ways by which practitioners of these and other professions may be evaluated. However, as I think about the matter, I wonder if there are any criteria by which politicians may be evaluated. It seems to me that evaluating politicians all over the world is just as dicey as the practice of the profession itself. What are the criteria that are used in evaluating politicians? Is it longevity in office? This seems to be the most important criteria around the world, especially in Africa. Politicians often stay in office for years on end without anything to show for it. In America and Europe, the evaluation of politicians has been left to talking heads whose very desire is to obfuscate why people should be engaged in politics. Books on politics seem to give the impression that politics is a very high calling but they are not often clear about the issue of criteria.  One book argues that despots have no place in politics but despots thrive all the time in politics and no one seems to be complaining about them.

Or is asking for criteria to determine success in politics the wrong question to ask? Is politics the one profession where criteria seem to make no sense?