I think the one in power is the British government in Britain, not anyone in Burma. There is a façade that the colonial officers have power over the Burmese locals in Burma, but I think both are in control of a faraway British government. First, both sides have to act “onstage,” as Scott puts it, as if they are okay with the situation regardless of their actual belief. The locals, of course, must defer to colonial officers who wield the “legitimate force.” But the officers themselves have to act in control and dominant, even though they might hate the job, like Orwell does. These facades then perpetuate and reinforce the power structure, as Havel contends. Anyone who doesn’t act the part will be thrown out the system. This would include a local who goes against the officers but also any officers who don’t punish the local enough.

As shown, everyday plays his or her part, but there are everyday forms of resistance. The problem is that the Burmese and the white officers believe that the officers are in power, when they too are merely parts of a system. So the Burmese everyday resistance is directed mistakenly at the officers, as Orwell describes so vividly. This ultimately helps the real ones in charge in Britain, as this kind of resistance pits the officers against the locals. The officers will be frustrated and angry because they cannot put down a rebellion that isn’t really there. As a result, they will cling to the colonial system and the British government that gives them “legitimate power” over these unruly locals. This helps the government keep things the way they are.

The elephant shooting is a great example of these power dynamics. Orwell must shoot the elephant to keep the façade, but at the same time develops a resentment towards the Burmese that might unknowingly strengthen his desire to keep things the way they are.