Everyone is replaceable, and we need to realise that. The sooner we understand and implement the succession concept, the better it will be for the longevity of our system.
It is an act of handing over power, wealth, and authority, and of carefully planning transition and continuity, but we have a national reluctance to hand over control. Our leadership culture – whether in corporate, political, or familial structures – is largely one of retention and control obsession. The primary goal of transition is to ensure that organisations outlive individuals and that fortune outlasts its creators, i.e., to pass it on to the next generation. In Pakistan, where the age of power often outstrips the age of retirement, succession is becoming increasingly relevant in our context.
Many global institutions have faced the succession crossroads. Some have gone through it with grace and others have not. Apple, a $4 trillion company today, went through this process. In 2005, when Steve Jobs prepared and nominated a capable successor, Tim Cook, it was not a sudden decision but a carefully crafted management continuity plan, intended as a legacy, not as a substitution. Tim Cook is not a placeholder at Apple but a steward, and after Steve Jobs’ demise, Apple did not collapse; rather, its success multiplied. In contrast, Samsung’s litigations over inheritance reveal how the family empire collapsed when there are no clear constitutions and no transparent succession mechanism; such disputes show how wealth eventually brings a legal circus in courtrooms.
Similarly, Microsoft demonstrates the strength of a professional, merit-based leadership transition. Bill Gates realised early that he could not run the company forever; therefore, he too embraced a well-planned handover. Under the leadership of Satya Nadella, Microsoft was revitalised and shifted to the Cloud and AI, subsequently entering a new era of innovation.
Forward planning is concerned not only with long-term vision but also with crisis management. This occurred at McDonald’s when its CEO died suddenly in 2004; the board appointed an emergency successor within hours. Meanwhile, Walmart demonstrates that segregation of management from ownership delivers long-term stability, while IKEA shows that a non-profit trust structure avoids family disputes.
Toyota is another example which shows that multi-generational leadership can survive decades when transitions are executed by the institution rather than the individual. One must not be afraid of an orderly handover, as it often brings new experience and skills, not just age and loyalty.
In the political sphere, Singapore presents an ideal model that ensures calm, pre-announced transitions. In Singapore, leaders step down at their peak and successors are trained long before taking office, thus avoiding any disruption or stagnation. Because of these peaceful transitions, Singapore has enjoyed political stability for decades.
Compare this with the political collapse of the Rajapaksas’ rule in Sri Lanka. The whole system imploded as there was no structured succession in place. Absolute control always resists change, and that reluctance to a structured approach will inevitably result in unfavourable consequences. Similar recurring sequences can be seen in Zimbabwe, Libya, Syria and Iraq, where dictatorships revolve around the ‘life presidents’ concept. Their refusal to plan a leadership transition ultimately led to national instability.
At the family level, Mukesh Ambani pursued a prudent course of action by decisively allocating financial responsibilities among his children during his lifetime, thereby promoting transparent, crisis-free family inheritance planning. This contrasts with the Tata–Cyrus Mistry dispute in India. The failure to have an executive handover resulted in uncertainty and governance breakdown. This also led to board politics, unclear trust controls, and personality clashes that ended in multiple litigations. Tata’s assets are estimated at around $360 billion.
Coutts Bank, with an elite clientele and a reputation dating back to 1692, is another example of successful stewardship transfer. It went through many transitions over the centuries. The story of Coutts tells us that smooth and structured transitions are only possible if there is a mechanism of strategic inheritance planning and professional management in place.
Now compare the above with the businesses led by Elon Musk. While Elon is, without a doubt, a brilliant and visionary entrepreneur, the control and centralisation of authority reveal Tesla and SpaceX’s vulnerabilities. This raises concerns about what will happen when the founder leaves the organisation. The issue will be more existential than procedural.
Islamic jurisprudence, perhaps, offers the most structured and principled succession models, where wealth, authority and leadership are considered sacred trusts rather than personal possessions. The transfer of power concept is clear in Islam; it demonstrates disciplined political succession through the consensus-based nomination of the first Khalifa, Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra), who in turn nominated the second Khalifa, Hazrat Umar ibn Khattab (ra), through peaceful transition. The second Khalifa created a Shura for selection, thus reflecting a structured transition, and finally the fourth Khalifa, Hazrat Ali (ra), negotiated under crisis, thus restoring legitimacy. Each of the above-mentioned transitions was built on responsibility, not ambition.
Therefore, in Islam, a handover is not about power, but about safeguarding the ummah (community), thus ensuring stability and continuity. In Islam, succession is an act of accountability rather than fear, but the tragedy is that our elite considers it a loss while Islam frames it as a duty and obligation to secure the future and sustainability beyond oneself.
Moreover, in Islam, wealth is not merely a resource; it is amanah – a trust. The Holy Quran explicitly defines the inheritance framework, including the distribution of proportionate shares to both men and women with clarity and fairness, thus preventing concentration of wealth. According to Islamic jurisprudence, wealth is meant to flow, not stagnate, whereas control is not meant to be hoarded.
In our homeland, too, we are facing a succession crisis. It exists across business, politics and wealth management, and even in our personal family structure. As a nation, we are very enthusiastic about wealth creation, but we have very little competence in wealth preservation and its transfer.
Family-run organisations function like personal fortresses – marked by personal control, secrecy, resistance to external ideas and isolation from market realities. Their boards are symbolic, where one can never become a shareholder or decision maker but only an employee who will be promoted on the basis of loyalty. Here in this structure, succession is assumed, ignored, and perhaps triggered only by crisis, as by default we have become a nation of firefighters.
Our national politics reflects similar dysfunction. The world is producing young leaders, and here leadership ages exceed global norms; there are no formal transitions, and re-election is merely cosmetic. The outcome is inevitable: concentration of power, weak institutions, and continuity without competence and legitimacy.
There are multiple cultural and structural factors behind these crises. For instance, political parties are heavily dependent on personalities, not processes, whereas family firms rarely document their wealth and avoid establishing trusts, regardless of Islamic guidance that wealth is a trust.
Shariah-compliant trusts and waqf structures are crucial for wealth distribution. Family firms must separate their ownership from their management. Perhaps they can adopt a trust structure executed by professional boards so that abrupt succession issues can be managed. Financial managers and advisers must shift their focus from mere financial returns to preserving generational purpose.
Similarly, political parties must undertake reforms through term limits, intra-party elections, youth councils and leadership academies. There is nothing new we are discussing here, and certainly, we can learn lessons from Singapore, the US and the UK. In the US, the presidential succession system is clearly defined. If the president dies or is unable to serve, the vice president assumes the office, followed by the cabinet members in a defined hierarchy. This transparent structure ensures continuity of governance in times of crisis.
Peaceful transitions in modern democracies are considered the foundation of stability. Although some exceptions exist, like the Trump–Biden Capitol Hill riots in 2021, which prove that even strong systems require firm rules and institutional discipline, Europe’s parliamentary handovers demonstrate how process prevails over personality. The lesson for Pakistan is clear: replacement succeeds only when institutions are stronger than individuals, and when transitions are protected, predictable, and respected.
Ultimately, succession is cultural and has much to do with mindset. Transfer of power must not be confused with surrender. Only with orderly transitions in the corporate, political, and wealth domains can Pakistan convert temporary success into a lasting legacy.
The writer is a political economist, public policy commentator and advocate for principled leadership and regional cooperation across the Muslim world.
