Historian Sergey Volkov explained why the expectation that as a result of reforms and even coups d'etat completely new people will come to power in the country who will arrange "everything in justice" are in vain:
“In connection with the practice of mass and violent demonstrations in the West and the growing influence of marginal parties, the idea has spread that there is a“ rebellion against the establishment ”. Even so. But the public, arguing about the need to "change the elite", does not understand what this very "establishment" is in general. Maybe it’s right, and it would be good to shoot the current one, but, as they say, “weakly” ... He, even in authoritarian societies, where much depends on the will of the ruler, is formed for a reason.
The establishment always consists of people who have some kind of "asset" (either hereditary or acquired): real estate, money, connections, kinship, talents, intelligence, outstanding personal qualities (including those condemned by morality), etc. ... While the absolute majority of the population does not have any "assets" at all, and a significant part (drug addicts, alcoholics, etc.) - and "minus".
In any society there are real owners of power and property (whether they are landowners, "capitalists", a service hierarchy closed to an "autocrat" or a party nomenclature of totalitarian regimes) who establish one or another formal order of government and ideological norms, whose position cannot be significant changed by no votes. In general, to believe that those who do not possess any assets can command their owners, i.e. it would be ridiculous to assume the possibility of some kind of truly "democracy". Those who really have something are always in command.
Of course, a certain part of the establishment can be “co-opted” there, and randomly - from persons without any “asset” of their own, as well as a certain number of “active holders” to remain outside it. It is also constantly updated to some extent ("normal" - 20-25 percent per generation), but on the whole it is practically impossible to "change" the established establishment once (unless in the course of a total "ideological" revolution, which is happens).
Although individual strata and detachments of the establishment may have both more ancient and relatively recent origins, in some of its "traditions" it is formed mainly at one time or another: in Europe - in the middle of the 19th century. (with "reformatting" after the shocks of 1848 and the widespread establishment of the practice of parliamentarism), in the United States - at the end of the 19th century. (with the merger of the nouveau riche who became rich after the civil war with the traditional elite of the East and South), in our country - by the end of the first half of the twentieth century. etc. And in this "tradition" he is quite stable.
The establishment as a whole does not change even large-scale repressions against a part of its members (if such suddenly happen for some reason), nor does it change some "redistribution" between its different parts, when one finds itself in a more advantageous position at the expense of the other due to changes in legislation. There are no examples of any quick "change of the elite" except for the case of total revolution mentioned above. But in this case there is a “counter-elite” at the ready, which produces it and takes place.
Not a single dictator, not even the most "cool" dictator, has ever been able to replace the established establishment, and no one has ever thought of such a thing. The immediate environment (several dozen people) can be changed at least annually, the entire top (several hundred) in extreme cases can be completely changed in a few years, but nothing can be done with the establishment - with a million, hundreds and tens of thousands. Well, maybe, let's say, it may be that 1% will dispose of no more than half, and 40 percent of the national wealth, but physically it will not go anywhere anyway. This circumstance should be borne in mind..."