In Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”, both the native Burmese and the British officers have power, but neither group has complete power. It is the partial power held by each group that limits the power of the other.
By virtue of his position in the colonial hierarchy, Orwell has power over the native Burmese. As a police officer, he enforces the rules and punishes those who break them. The Burmese also hold power over Orwell and the other colonial officials. The ‘everyday acts’ that Scott describe such as spitting betel juice on British women in the market and tripping Orwell in football games erode Orwell’s power. The acts check Orwell’s power but fall short of full rebellion because Orwell’s power in turn checks the power of the natives.
Ironically, the same partial power also reinforces the power of the other. The natives resent British power, which motivates the small acts of defiance that erode the colonial power. To Orwell, the shooting of the elephant demonstrated the passive power of the natives, but to the natives the incident reinforced the image of Orwell as a powerful, armed colonial authority. In this way the partial power dynamic is self-enforcing.
The question regarding who has the power to change the system is an interesting one. In this case, I would say that no one group can change the system alone. Instead, if the system were to be changed, the Burmese and the enforcers of the British rule (in this case, Orwell and others in his position) would have to join together against the British controllers. It is for this reason, however, why the system continues to cycle through; the British purposely put those two groups against each other in order to help maintain their power and control.
I like your main argument that “the partial power dynamic is self-enforcing”. This is an accurate way of describing a situation that can be applied to a range of other contexts. In this case, who has the power to change this system?