Like a landing in a flight, the transfer of power is the riskiest moment in the life of states. Liberal democracies remain stable because of existing conventions that power will be transferred in an orderly fashion, in which the stability of the system will be put above the

the individual wants of a leader. However, when the transfer is contested the drama moves to the essential supporters that keep the leader in power. One of the great myths is of the all-powerful leader commanding everyone from the top. In reality, even dictators are kept in power

by a small coalition of essential backers who benefit from the rule of the leader. Without these backers' support, the leader falls. This is true in most political systems regardless of ideology. The backers back the leader because they get something from the leader. Once a

transfer of power becomes contested, the backers must make a decision. Will they get want they want from backing the incumbent who is contesting the transfer of power, or should they back a new leader who can give them what they want? Thus the real action happens not on TV

or in public protests but behind closed doors as the essential backers pick which horse they will bet on to deliver what they want. When things get really sticky and the incumbent digs their toes in, the most powerful essential backer becomes the security forces who have the

ability to use the deterrent of force to ensure the transfer of power. Having said all of that my read of the current situation in the US is that it is not heading towards this kind of situation, but rather is about competing sides establishing narratives which then can be

weaponized in the next phase of battle in the information war - the next term of office.