Fear of Losing Power: Column Examines Why Established Players Resist New Rivals

An opinion column published by SunOnline on 13 October 2026 argues that the fear of losing power and influence is a major reason why established figures resist or hesitate to face new competitors. The column, titled 'Fear of losing power and influence: reluctance to face new rivals,' is written by Mohamed Aasif (Mondhu). It says human power and influence have many different faces. The more power and influence a person has, the harder it becomes for that person to accept the emergence of someone equal or stronger. At first glance, wealth can look like freedom and influence can look like respect, but beneath these benefits lies deep insecurity: the fear of what will happen if someone else takes the position tomorrow. For an ordinary person, another person's success can be a source of encouragement. But for someone whose identity, business and honor are built on being the strongest, another person's success appears as a great danger. A new rival may not directly attack or criticize the established figure, or may remain silent. Yet the rival's mere presence in society can bring major changes to the existing order: attention shifts, new avenues for resources open, and a new voice begins to be heard. People start to feel that the old power structure is not permanent. At that point, the effort to gain power becomes less a race for money and position and more a battle to defend personal identity. The column says power and influence are not only the authority to make decisions. They are also the power to shape what others believe, whom they respect, and what they pay attention to. A wealthy person who spends on social causes, creates job opportunities and builds ties with influential people can become indispensable to a society. That is not necessarily bad. The problem begins when influence is seen as a right rather than a responsibility. A person who sees influence as a responsibility thinks about how to help others; a person who sees it as a right thinks about how to keep the position from being taken by someone else. Citing psychological research, the column notes that experts have conducted many studies on the relationship between social hierarchy and human behavior. A 2008 study published in the Academy of Management Annals by Joe C. Magee and Adam D. Galinsky showed that power and rank are linked and both work to maintain themselves, the column says. It also cites a 2010 study in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, which found that people fear losing the rank they already have more than they desire gaining a higher rank. People spend more resources and time defending their current position than trying to gain a new one. This shows how great a psychological impact a rising rival can have on a person who has extraordinary wealth and influence. The column says this is seen most clearly in the business world. In India's telecommunications and digital market, Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Jio has established enormous power and influence. When Jio entered the telecom market in 2016 and began offering cheap services, India's mobile data landscape changed completely. Ambani's influence is not limited to one company or one industry; a large part of India's economy is controlled by his companies. Elon Musk, by contrast, is described as having a different kind of influence. Through companies such as SpaceX and Tesla, he has created major technological power globally. Although the scale of the two moguls' power differs, a confrontation between them began when Musk's satellite internet service, Starlink, sought to enter the Indian market. In March 2025, Starlink signed an agreement with Bharti Airtel, India's second-largest telecom company, to provide satellite internet. This further heated competition in India's already competitive telecom market. The column says this is not merely a rivalry between two moguls; it is a major issue involving technology, regulations, national security and spectrum policy. As Reliance Jio's parent company prepares for a $106 billion IPO, Musk has said Starlink will provide cheap service in India. India already has one of the world's cheapest mobile data prices, with about 8 cents per gigabyte. Musk noted that Starlink would also have to lower prices to compete. He also alleged that the Indian government was delaying a licence for Starlink because of Ambani's influence, and referred to Ambani on social media as 'Big Minister.' The government denied the allegations, but the column says the incident shows how established powers work against a new competitor entering the market. The column argues that deep psychological reasons lie behind how powerful parties act in such situations. It cites a 2023 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, based on 10 studies involving 3,372 participants. That study found that people who believe social rank is zero-sum — that one person's gain comes only through another's loss — give more importance to dominance than to respect. In their view, power is maintained through fear and influence. For a powerful person with that mindset, a successful new rival appears as a direct threat to his survival, so he works to stop the rival's rise. Philosophers have also thought deeply about this issue, the column says. Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in 'The Prince' that rulers maintain power not only through resources; they also need connections, institutions and the ability to understand changing circumstances. In today's business world, companies try to influence governments and regulations to maintain monopolies for this reason. The column also refers to German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's 'Will to Power.' Contrary to what many assume, Nietzsche's philosophy is not about dominating others, it says; it is about exerting power over oneself and correcting one's own weaknesses. There is a great difference between a person trying to advance himself and a person trying to stop others from advancing. A person who tries to stop others must always live in fear, because it is possible that one day someone wealthier or more influential will emerge. The column also raises ethical considerations. If all influence in a society ends up in one person's hands, that society risks becoming a victim of that person's psychological weakness. If jobs, sponsorships and other opportunities depend on a relationship with one person, people will not dare to speak against that person. This stalls social progress and leaves no room for new ideas. A healthy society needs independent institutions, transparent principles and equal opportunities, the column says. The aim is not to punish successful people. Wealth and influence are useful if used responsibly. But one person's influence should not be allowed to override fair rules. A new businessperson must have the opportunity to rise without the permission of the previously powerful figure. Likewise, a new rival must be accountable for his actions and conduct affairs transparently. Power and wealth are temporary, the column concludes. Markets change, generations change, and new ideas and leaders emerge. The best way to face this reality is not to try to stop changes but to become someone whose value can still be recognized even with those changes. A wealthy person should be remembered not only for the money he gathered but for the opportunities he created for others. An influential leader should work to build a strong society that can stand on its own, rather than a society dependent on him. The ability to be happy about another person's success is the clearest proof that one's own success is not based only on position, the column says. The true nature of a powerful person is revealed most clearly when someone equal or better rises and the powerful person acts. Without rivals, anyone can be generous. But when the balance of power begins to shift, a person's true character is exposed. A person with self-confidence can give space to others; a person without confidence wants to control the whole field. Competition is not bad, and businesses defending their rights is not a problem either, the column says. The problem is unfairly closing opportunities for others in order to maintain one's own power. The world is changing, and someone stronger can emerge at any time. Therefore, the biggest test of a leader is not the battle to defend his position, but having the courage to accept and welcome another person who has grown capable of sitting at the same level. The emergence of a new star does not diminish the world. The world is diminished when previous stars try to dim or extinguish the new star's light, it says. The column says the events in India's telecom market show this reality, and that the decision on granting permission to Starlink will not be merely a decision about internet service. It will be a historical decision determining whether a society's progress rests on one person's grip or on fair competition.