Why “Don’t Challenge the Powerful” Is a Dangerous Power Frame

Studio microphone with sound waves symbolizing media power and influence
Studio microphone with sound waves symbolizing media power and influence.

A few days ago, jour­na­list Bledi Fevziu com­men­ted on a video from Venezuela recor­ded befo­re the abduc­tion of Nicolás Maduro. Maduro’s ori­gi­nal state­ment, spo­ken in Spanish, was “Te espe­ro aquí en Miraflores. No tar­des, cobar­de.” (“I’m wai­ting for you here in Miraflores. Don’t be late, you coward.”)

Fevziu para­phra­sed this for his Albanian audi­ence as,“Te pres këtu në Miraflores. Mos u vono, o frikacak.”

After show­ing this, Fevziu added, “Prandaj ajo shpreh­ja ‘mos u zi e mos u për­plas me të mad­hin’ vlen edhe sot.” (“That’s why the say­ing ‘don’t clash with the powerful’ still appli­es today.”)

The impli­cit mes­sa­ge is clear: “Look what hap­pens when you con­front someone more powerful—you will suf­fer the con­se­quen­ces.” This is not an ana­ly­sis of events but a war­ning. It frames cou­ra­ge as self‑destructive and fear as wis­dom, tur­ning a poli­ti­cal situa­ti­on into a les­son in submission.

Why This Sentence Is Dangerous

It sounds like a pro­verb, but it car­ri­es a deep­ly nor­ma­ti­ve message:

Power mat­ters more than principle.

It sug­gests that cou­ra­ge is reck­less, that resis­tance is futi­le, and that size or sta­tus con­fers moral aut­ho­ri­ty. A sen­tence like this dis­cou­ra­ges legi­ti­ma­te self‑defense, sup­pres­ses cri­ti­cism, and wea­k­ens accountability.

The Power Logic Behind It

The under­ly­ing frame is simp­le: “Power decides—not law, not justice.”

But in any func­tio­ning legal sys­tem, the prin­ci­ple is the oppo­si­te: if an attack is unlawful, the right to defend yours­elf remains intact—regardless of the attacker’s size or influence.

Power is not a moral argument.

The phra­se func­tions as a shield for tho­se with influence, ensu­ring that the powerful remain uncha­l­len­ged and unac­coun­ta­ble. It rein­forces the posi­ti­on of tho­se who thri­ve on domi­nan­ce and inti­mi­da­ti­on, sus­tai­ning sys­tems built on fear and the quiet sur­ren­der of the many. Those who acquiesce—resigned to the pre­vai­ling order—become, often unkno­wing­ly, com­pli­cit in main­tai­ning this structure.

Conversely, the same dic­tum ero­des the resol­ve of indi­vi­du­als stri­ving for jus­ti­ce. It under­mi­nes the efforts of the less powerful, who must defend their rights against over­whel­ming odds. Most gra­ve­ly, it dimi­nis­hes the spi­rit of anyo­ne wil­ling to act with cou­ra­ge, cas­ting bra­very as reck­less­ness and rein­for­cing the noti­on that resis­tance is both dan­ge­rous and futi­le. In doing so, it drains the moral strength of tho­se who might other­wi­se chall­enge inju­s­ti­ce, lea­ving socie­ty wea­k­en­ed in its essen­ti­al capa­ci­ty for self‑defense and renewal.

In the end, the sen­tence crea­tes a cli­ma­te in which cou­ra­ge is framed as “dan­ge­rous” and com­pli­ance as “wise.”

Journalists, in par­ti­cu­lar, car­ry respon­si­bi­li­ty for the frames they intro­du­ce into public dis­cour­se. Those who repeat such sen­ten­ces uncri­ti­cal­ly rein­force a logic that deva­lues cou­ra­ge and legi­ti­mi­zes power—and that runs coun­ter to the core of jour­na­li­stic responsibility.

Historical or Contemporary Examples

If we appli­ed this logic con­sis­t­ent­ly, a small coun­try like Greenland would be forced to con­clude, “We are too small to defend our inte­rests.” Absurd—and yet the exam­p­le reve­als how des­truc­ti­ve the frame tru­ly is.

History con­tra­dicts the pro­verb enti­re­ly.
Small nati­ons have defen­ded their sove­reig­n­ty against empires; civil rights move­ments have chal­len­ged ent­ren­ched power; indi­vi­du­als like Gandhi, Mandela, or Václav Havel con­fron­ted sys­tems far lar­ger than them­sel­ves. Progress has never come from obe­dience to the powerful but from tho­se who refu­sed to accept the ine­vi­ta­bi­li­ty of domi­na­ti­on. Even Albania, a small nati­on, once resis­ted the vast Ottoman Empire under Skanderbeg—a remin­der that cou­ra­ge, not size, deter­mi­nes the cour­se of histo­ry. Had they fol­lo­wed the logic of yiel­ding to the stron­ger, their sto­ry would never have been written.

A Simple Moral Truth

A tru­ly equi­ta­ble socie­ty rests on a simp­le truth, mode­st in form yet pro­found in consequence:

Rights are not mea­su­red by might or multitude.

Genuine moral aut­ho­ri­ty ari­ses from the inte­gri­ty of one’s prin­ci­ples, the legi­ti­ma­cy of one’s actions, and the digni­ty with which one con­ducts oneself—never from the mere pos­ses­si­on of power.

Courage must not be mista­ken for fol­ly or rash­ness. On the con­tra­ry, cou­ra­ge is the vital force that pro­pels huma­ni­ty for­ward, the living spark that illu­mi­na­tes the path of progress.