This monograph develops a comparative theory of durable power. It argues that victory is not sufficient for political durability: a tactical success must be transformed into strategic capacity, and strategic capacity must in turn be institutionalized as legitimate order. The argument is organized around a Three-Level Model of Power. At the first level, stratagem produces immediate advantage through deception, indirection, timing, or asymmetry of perception. At the second level, strategy turns local advantage into repeatable capacity through discipline, calculation, learning, and cost control. At the third level, order converts success into durable authority through institutions, credible commitments, bounded contestation, trust, and legitimacy. The monograph brings classical strategy, early modern political theory, and modern theories of power into a single analytical frame. Sun Tzu and the Chinese stratagem tradition clarify the logic of calculation, deception, and indirect action. Musashi presents strategy as disciplined perception and craft. Machiavelli's The Prince shows the instability of acquisition when power rests on fortune, appearances, fear, or arms alone, while the Discourses shifts the analysis toward law, conflict, civic habit, and institutional renewal. Hobbes explains why fear and private judgment require common authority, but also raises the danger that order may become mere security without freedom. Foucault, Lukes, and Arendt serve as structural correctives: order is not merely sovereign command; power is dispersed through knowledge and discipline; preference-shaping matters; and violence is not equivalent to legitimate collective power. The central claim is that power becomes durable only when it can survive beyond the maneuver, the leader, and the crisis. Through theoretical synthesis and selected stress tests, including Rome, post-apartheid South Africa, and Iraq after 2003, the study offers a framework for distinguishing momentary advantage from durable political order and for explaining both successful and failed transitions from victory to institutions. These cases are used as conceptual stress tests rather than exhaustive empirical proof.
Htet Ko Ko Naing (Sat,) studied this question.