How to define political power. My definition is this: I have power when someone comes to me, needs something from me, is forced to ask me, and I am free to decide whether or not to provide it. I can make that decision without it having any consequences for me. Or I can equally freely choose to take something away from him or force him to do something.
We live in a society where such situations are rare. It is usually the case that if I refuse someone something, there will be consequences for me. But it depends on how significant the results are. If I have 100% of the power in that situation, I can deny it without any consequences (like not giving a dime to a homeless person). If I have 80% power, for example, I can refuse, but there will be some consequences, albeit insignificant. If I have, for example, 20% of the power, refusing it would have such consequences that I’d rather give it to him, even if I don’t feel twice about it.
It is also typical of Western societies that each of us is in a power relationship with a lot of people. Someone is in such a position that they usually have the upper hand. Someone else is in such a position that they almost never have the upper hand.
If we could add up all these individual relationships, we would see the distribution of political power. The groups whose members have more power will get their way. They will enforce it through economic channels or through political channels or through the media or whatever. The path doesn’t really matter. They always win.
Therefore, every political change is preceded by a shift of power in society. Some groups and social classes gain a stronger position relative to others. The position of others is weakened. New alliances are forged. This is the crucial point. Not election campaigns.