Political systems often appear stable—until they are not. Institutions endure for decades, even centuries, accumulating legitimacy, procedures, and routines. Then, sometimes abruptly, they falter. What seemed resilient reveals itself as brittle. What appeared orderly dissolves into crisis.

At the same time, there exist systems that appear almost paradoxical: they operate with low levels of continuous participation, imperfect oversight, and uneven engagement, yet they do not collapse. They persist—not because they are flawless, but because they remain, in some sense, adaptable.

Why do some systems endure despite limited engagement, while others decay beneath the surface of apparent order?

The usual answers focus on corruption, leadership failure, or institutional design flaws. These explanations are not wrong, but they are incomplete. They assume that power is something that can be held, misused, or corrected. They treat power as an object—something actors possess.

This assumption may be the deeper problem.

Much of political thought, across traditions, shares a quiet premise: that power is fundamentally stable.

In one version, power is tied to position. Authority belongs to offices, roles, or formal hierarchies. Change the occupants, reform the structure, and the system adjusts.

In another version, power is treated as a resource. It accumulates through wealth, information, or influence, and can be redistributed through policy or reform.

In yet another, power is understood as will—the capacity of actors to impose outcomes, to decide, to act.

Each of these perspectives captures something real. But they all share a limitation: they assume that power can be located, measured, and, ultimately, stabilized.

In practice, power rarely behaves this way.

Positions change without altering outcomes. Resources shift without dissolving dominance. Intentions collide with constraints that render them ineffective. The same patterns of advantage and exclusion reappear under new forms.

What persists is not any particular actor or institution, but a pattern.

To understand this persistence, we must move away from viewing power as a static possession and toward understanding it as a dynamic process.

Power is not something that actors simply hold. It is a condition that emerges within a network of relationships—continuously produced, reproduced, and transformed.

A more useful definition might be this:

Power is a state variable that evolves over time within a relational system.

This definition shifts attention away from individuals and toward the interactions that sustain or transform authority. It suggests that power is neither fixed nor fully controllable. Instead, it behaves more like a dynamic system—one that can accumulate, decay, and reorganize.

Three mechanisms govern this process.

Power accumulates.

It builds through repeated interactions, through asymmetries in information, through control over resources, and through the density of relationships. Trust, reputation, access, and coordination capacity all contribute to this accumulation.

Importantly, accumulation is often incremental and self-reinforcing. Once a node in a network gains an advantage—greater access, better information, stronger connections—it tends to attract more of the same. The system does not distribute power evenly; it channels it.

Over time, accumulation produces what might be called structural inertia: patterns of influence that persist even as individuals come and go. The system remembers, even when its components change.

This much is widely recognized. What is less often acknowledged is what does not happen automatically.

Power does not naturally decay.

This is the central, often overlooked insight. In many domains—physical systems, biological processes—accumulation is counterbalanced by entropy, by forms of natural dissipation. In political and social systems, however, no such automatic process reliably exists.

Absent explicit mechanisms, accumulated power tends to persist.

Relationships remain. Informational advantages endure. Organizational structures solidify. Even when formal authority changes hands, informal patterns of influence can remain intact.

This persistence explains a familiar phenomenon: systems that appear to change while reproducing the same underlying distributions of power. New actors inherit old pathways. New rules operate within unchanged networks. Reform modifies the surface while leaving deeper dynamics intact.

Without decay, accumulation becomes dominance.

The question, then, is not simply how power is acquired, but how—and whether—it diminishes.

Power can also be reconfigured.

Relationships break and reform. Alliances shift. New actors enter, old ones exit. Networks reorganize themselves in response to internal tensions and external shocks.

This reconfiguration is often mistaken for transformation. But reconfiguration alone does not guarantee a reduction in concentrated power. It may simply redistribute influence within a similar structural pattern.

A network can change its shape while preserving its logic.

In fact, reconfiguration can sometimes reinforce accumulation. New connections can consolidate existing advantages. Disruptions can create opportunities for already well-positioned actors to extend their reach.

Thus, while reconfiguration introduces movement, it does not ensure balance.

Taken together, these mechanisms suggest a simple but powerful framework:

The state of power in a system at any moment reflects the interaction of accumulation, decay, and reconfiguration.

If accumulation dominates and decay is weak or absent, power concentrates and solidifies.

If reconfiguration is frequent but decay remains limited, power circulates without truly dispersing.

Only when accumulation is counterbalanced by effective forms of decay does the system avoid long-term concentration.

This balance does not imply equality or uniformity. Rather, it allows for a form of dynamic stability: a condition in which patterns of power remain fluid enough to prevent permanent capture, yet structured enough to sustain coordination.

This reframes the concept of stability.

Stability is often understood as the absence of change—a system that holds its form over time. But such stability is fragile. Systems that resist change entirely tend to accumulate hidden tensions. When these tensions exceed a threshold, the result is not gradual adaptation but abrupt breakdown.

An alternative understanding is possible:

Stability is the capacity to maintain recognizable order through controlled change.

In this view, change is not the enemy of stability; it is its condition. Systems endure not by preventing movement, but by channeling it—by ensuring that accumulation does not outpace decay, and that reconfiguration does not become chaotic.

The absence of visible conflict may signal not harmony, but suppressed dynamics.

If the persistence of power stems from insufficient decay, then the durability of systems depends less on their ability to accumulate authority and more on their capacity to limit it.

This shifts the focus of analysis.

Instead of asking how to build stronger institutions, we might ask how to design systems in which authority cannot detach from the conditions that sustain it. Instead of emphasizing control, we might examine the conditions under which influence dissipates, resets, or returns to a broader base.

The challenge is not simply to constrain power externally, but to embed within the system processes that prevent its indefinite accumulation.

This is not a call for constant disruption. Unchecked reconfiguration can produce instability just as surely as unchecked accumulation produces rigidity. The aim is not to eliminate structure, but to ensure that structure remains contingent—dependent on ongoing interaction rather than insulated from it.

Understanding power as dynamic has broader consequences.

It suggests that many of the categories used to analyze political life—state, institution, authority—are less like fixed objects and more like temporarily stabilized patterns within a moving field of relations.

What appears solid is, in fact, sustained.

What appears stable is, in fact, maintained.

And what appears permanent may simply lack the mechanisms that would allow it to change gradually, rather than abruptly.

The enduring question is not whether power exists—it always does—but whether it can settle.

When power is allowed to accumulate without decay, it hardens into structure. When it reconfigures without constraint, it dissolves into volatility. Between these extremes lies a narrow but critical space: a condition in which power remains in motion, neither fixed nor chaotic.

To understand this condition is to move beyond viewing political life as a struggle over who holds power, and toward a deeper question:

Under what conditions does power remain accountable to the relationships that produce it?

Systems that answer this question effectively do not eliminate conflict or inequality. But they avoid a more fundamental failure—the transformation of dynamic relations into static hierarchies.

In such systems, power does not sit still.

And it is precisely this restlessness that allows them to endure.

To the extent possible under law, this work has been waived of copyright and dedicated to the public domain. For details, see the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.