In any profession business, politics, education, government those in power should step down after five years :Is

it necessary to have those in power step down after five years in office of various fields such as business, politics or education? Is the change of leadership always a better path to the success of a government, or an enterprise or a school? Admittedly, new leadership composed mostly by young people is more likely to bring about new things by making a "long-wanted change", compared with those who have been in power for too long and are so used to the cliche of their government strategy and management style. Enthusiastic and full of new visions, the new leadership could manage things from a different perspective and would be able to make renovations and guide a government or a company into a new stage of development from a stagnation. The changed and fresh outlook might just provide the underpinnings crucial to the reform of a government or renovation of a company and an organization. U.S. President, Barack Obama presents such a paradigm, where he could overwhelm the US presidential election by promising a change to his country and the world. On the other hand, the experience and expertise of a veteran leader is often more than the young leader who succeeds him. These individuals had set the benchmark in the institutions or in enterprise or in the governments, and such contributions cannot be undermined. They have fought a long hard battle, full of pitfalls, and have witnessed the growth and fall of their enterprise or governments, and thus have become a paragon for the future young Turks to emulate. More importantly, any reform or innovation has to be based on the pitfalls of the governance of yester years. No individual, how charismatic one might be, cannot start from the scratch, by simply ignoring the contributions of his forerunners. Obama continues to be an example, where the foundations of the change promised by him had to be laid by the hard work the former presidents of America. However, it is not necessarily the best way to the success of a government or an enterprise to simply have their senior leaders replaced by amateurs, as five years might not be an overwhelming amount of time to perform all the deeds guaranteed by the individual, and also there can be instances where a marked improvement could be reflected in his performance, and in such a circumstances a replacement might jeopardize the situation. To add to that, the alternative young leader might not be competent enough to carry out the work appropriately and efficiently, and might cut a sorry figure when bestowed with the responsibility. One needs to address, that whether the stepping down of individuals in power is synonymous with a change in governance? Is the institute or enterprise benefitted by subsuming new individuals? Or the apparent freshness would just be an accretion to the old school of thoughts, a deadlock of ideas. A severe instance is the authoritative ruling is of the leftist government in West Bengal, India for over three decades, puffed up and while facing no oppositions had created a quagmire of difficulties, encompassing the entire state. Occasional revamp and rearrangements of the ministries with young leaders could not recover the state of affairs. Overall, a new leadership embodies a possible reform or renovation of the strategy and management style of an old-fashioned government or company, which is salubrious for the government or the enterprise to develop. But, the senior leader's experience adds vital contribution to the success of a government or a company. Therefore, an amalgamation of the exuberance of youth and experience of the stalwarts contribute to the strengthening of the organisation, and the capability and brilliance of the new leaders must be sole criteria for them to be superseding the veterans.