An 'Unstable' Top of Power cannot 'emit' Power.

The Political 'Top' cannot 'emit' Power if its Unstable. A Political Top is always a Top of Political Power. A Political Entity is stable to the extent it 'manifests stability' at the Top. That's why the Autocratic Form of Government is deemed to be a very Powerful 'Political Entity'. In an Autocracy, all the Power is at the Top. An Autocrat merely 'eliminates' the 'obstacle' creating whatever 'instability' may exist. However, a Democracy has Political Power at the Bottom when the 'Bottom' is considered 'Free and Equal' and when that Social is Institutionally established in such manner as to both, 'express and manifest' that 'Power' or 'Unity'. Of course, in a Democracy the Power of the Bottom is transferred to the Top. But, the Political Top is expected to manifest its Power in the manner in which it 'establishes', 'organizes' and 'manifests' the 'Social Stability' in the Political Entity. That requires a certain 'coherence' between the 'Top' and the 'Bottom' which 'manifests' and becomes 'evident' at the 'Top'. In such a case, the 'Top of Power' in a 'Democracy' emits 'Political Power'. The Top is always 'Institutional' and 'reflects' the 'Power of the Many' in a 'condition of togetherness', or, 'the People'( "WE The People") as a Whole. Hence, the 'Top is Powerful'. But, consider a Political Top that always 'bickers' with the Other Agencies, Departments, and Branches of Government, and is 'acting' as if he was still 'at the Bottom', and is trying to establish his own 'self-importance', and reflects his own 'instability', and 'engages' and is 'accused of engaging' in questionable activities; that is a sign of 'Personal Instability'. That does not occur often. When it does, it weakens the 'Top of Power' which should manifest Political Power at the 'Top'. An 'unstable Top' cannot emit 'Political Power' in an 'Institutional Entity'. An 'Unstable Top' does not emit 'Political Power', it emits weakness, Instability, and uncertainty. Where are the Real Politicians?