Who has more power in a society depends on so many things, and I'm afraid my 'big picture' of the question is thoroughly intersectional. And while we're at it, 'power', to me, is about the ability to affect change or maintain a status quo, so 'agency' would be an equally appropriate word.
Those with greater agency/power/privilege are more able to choose decisions and opportunities without concern for consequences and threats to their well-being or how they move through the world because the world is already shaped to accomodate them, because they either belong to sufficient dominant demographics or have the resources or environment to live a relatively untouchable existence. Free from the consideration of consequence, their collective decision-making power often erases their ability to find empathy with those who suffer for their comfort, so social equity becomes an ideal that they defend against through an unhealthy guilt-reflex rather than actually strive for. They are also highly vulnerable to identity-based manipulation and take dopamine-like comfort in being spoon-fed justifications for their self-protection no matter how unjust or irrational, and countless studies and successful media and advertising campaigns reflect this. Those with lesser agency are impacted by collective decisions that don't take their needs into account, and so the lack of equity is prolonged.
There definitely are changing power dynamics occuring, and the desperate scrabblings of those whose identities and senses of self depend on the oppression of others through legislation, political campaigns and misinformation, is evidence that they have already lost, because the tsunami of social acceptance and diversity has already begun and grown and grown and does not require the approval of those who feel threatened by liberation.