The reason changing the rules needs the old rules to allow it

A community wanted to reform its governance — to reduce the founder’s power, say. But the reform had to pass under the existing rules, which gave the founder enough control to block exactly that. Any change to the system required the system’s permission, and the system was configured to protect its incumbents. Rules that govern their own amendment hand a veto over reform to whoever the current rules favour. Changing the rules against the powerful needs the powerful, under those rules, to allow it.

What everyone sees

A member sees a governance process that permits amendments and reads a system capable of reform: if enough people want change, the mechanism exists to enact it. The presence of an amendment path reassures. The member does not notice that the path runs through the current power structure, and misses that those advantaged by the existing rules can use those same rules to block any change that would reduce their advantage.

What is actually happening

Research on constitutional entrenchment shows that amendment procedures determine whether reform is possible, and that rules governing their own change can lock in incumbents. If altering the system requires clearing thresholds the incumbents control, reform against them is structurally foreclosed. The existence of an amendment process is not the same as the ability to use it against those who hold power under the process itself.

Why it stays hidden

The hidden mechanism is self-referential amendment that entrenches the powerful. Changing the rules is gated by the rules, so whoever the current rules favour holds a veto over their own reform. The member sees an open path and misses that it loops back through the incumbents. The system can be changed only in ways the currently powerful permit, which excludes the changes aimed at them.