* Trump Attacks the Modern State

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

The Resurrection of Max Weber’s “Patrimonialism”

For the great German sociologist Max Weber, patrimonialism is a form of traditional political domination in which a royal household exercises arbitrary power through a bureaucratic apparatus.

In patrimonial systems, administration and political force are under the direct, personal control of the ruler.

The support for patrimonial power is provided, not by forces recruited from a landowning aristocracy, but by slaves, conscripts and mercenaries.

Weber regarded patrimonialism as:

• Political unstable
• A barrier to the development of rational capitalism.

Patrimonialism was thus an aspect of Weber’s explanation of the absence of capitalist development in oriental societies in which personal rulership was dominant, and thus the concept of Oriental Despotism.

Oriental despotism was a society in which the state dominated civil society in the absence of individualism, rights of representation or personal freedoms. Oriental despotisms were arbitrary, stagnant and backward. (Penguin Dictionary of Sociology, pp. 250, 258).

In an op-ed in The New York Times, two American professors make the case for applying Weber’s theory to the new Trump administration (Jan. 3).

Stephen E. Hanson, a professor in the department of government at William & Mary, and Jeffry S. Kopstein, a professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine, write that for the incoming president, “fealty is the new order” and similarities with Weber’s patrimonialism are unmistakable.

For Hanson and Kopstein, Donald Trump’s very choices for many of the top cabinet positions in his upcoming administration are unorthodox, to say the least.

In some cases, it would even be hard to think of people less qualified for their proposed jobs.

They cite the cases of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defence (ministerial rank), Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, Kash Patel as FBI Director, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as overseer of the nation’s health care policies.

Each lack “the relevant experience and has an array of troubling biases that should be disqualifying”.

Then come his choices for ambassadors and senior advisers, who have been identified as sycophants, cronies and even his children’s in-laws and romantic partners!

The US professors clearly think that this is a clear break with a century of precedent in American politics.

However, Hanson and Kopstein write that this trend is not only an American phenomenon. It echoes what is happening all over the world.

It is nothing less than a major assault on the modern state as we known it.

In countries including Hungary, Poland, Israel, the civil service, judiciary and law enforcement have been attacked by the very leaders elected to manage them.

Or these state institutions have been co-opted in the service of the ruling party or parties, like in India and Nepal [and previously in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh].

These attacks/co-option cause serious damage to the state institutions, since they:

• Merely enrich loyalists
• Weaken independent sources of expertise, and
• Erode vital public services.

Trump will achieve the same in America, and much more. He will open the floodgates of anarchy!  

The professors conclude: “Eviscerating modern state institutions almost always clears a path for a different type of political order, one built on personal loyalties and connections to the ruler” (NYT).

[In Nepal, the main political parties and the Maoists unilaterally abolished the age-old monarchy and established what they ideally thought was Loktantra or people’s democracy in the new Himalayan Republic.

Loktantra quickly descended into something else].

Hanson and Kopstein cite Max Weber for describing the type of regime which will evolve under Trump and the MAGA-crowd (‘Make America Great Again’), and which is already functioning in the Himalayan Republic.

[As The People’s Revue wrote last week, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli likes sycophants and slaves only].

For the new type of regime, Weber coined the term “Patrimonialism” based on “the arbitrary rule of leaders who view themselves as traditional ‘fathers’ of their nations and who run the state as a family business of sorts, staffed by relatives, friends and other members of the ruler’s ‘extended family’ “ (Hanson & Kopstein).

Social scientists were of the opinion that Patrimonialism had been relegated to the dustbin of history.

There was a good reason for this: After all, such regimes couldn’t compete militarily or economically with states led by the expert civil services that helped make modern societies rich, powerful and relatively secure.

What observers of modern history failed to predict was that the sliding of self-aggrandizing leaders took advantage of rising inequality, cultural conflicts and changing demography to grab power.

The result has been a steep decline in the government’s ability to provide essential services such as health care, education and security.

Thus, compared with the weak feudal states that preceded them, patrimonial regimes such as the Dutch Empire in the 17^th century and Czarist Russia in the 18^th and 19^th centuries were good at extracting revenue and waging war, but otherwise inept.

They were capable of coercion, but they could not provide the predictable enforcement of laws essential to modern capitalism.

The arbitrary decision-making that is typical of patrimonialism sometimes resulted in the disintegration of the state itself.

The Case of Imperial Russia

Czar Nicholas II of Russia decided unilaterally in the middle of World War I to take over direct command of Russian troops, leaving his capital city in the hands of the Empress and her confidant, the faith healer Grigori Rasputin.

Within a year and a half, the Russian Empire collapsed in defeat and revolution, leaving a power vacuum that was ultimately filled by Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevik Party.

[In Nepal, K.P. Sharma Oli is playing a very dangerous game with the nation’s national security, so much so, that it is slowly but certainly becoming an existential threat].

America at the Crossroads

Hanson and Kopstein write: “Americans love to hate the state”!

About half of American citizens now believe that there is really a “deep state” of shadowy power brokers who pull the strings of US government behind the scenes.

But as annoying and inefficient as bureaucracies sometimes are --- all over the world, all of us depend on them to live what we consider normal lives.

[In the Himalayan Republic, efficient service providing bureaucracy has remained a pipe dream. Moreover, rampant corruption is filtering from top to bottom, making dealing with the bureaucracy a nightmare for most Nepalese].

Normally, government agencies with staff who are recruited by merit play a vital role ensuring the safety of our food, air and water; maintaining the value of our currency; resolving legal disputes peacefully; and defending our national security.

We rarely pay attention to the everyday work of government bureaucrats, but without them, we would be in grave danger.

Trump’s Nefarious Designs

Hanson and Kopstein maintain that when Trump and his cronies declare that they will destroy the so-called ‘deep state’, it’s really the modern state – the state that supports the foundations of both public and private life that they will demolish.

From this perspective, we can understand why Trump invited Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to drastically downsize the American state.

In reality, though government will not be downsized; it will be repurposed.

It is indeed a diabolical scheme: there is method in Trump’s madness!

Russia, Hungary, Israel

Like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu,Trump aims not to streamline modern state bureaucracies, but rather to replace them with a much older form of rule based on personal loyalty to the ruler, namely patrimonialism.

Hungary and Israel provide a glimpse into the future.

Orban built his family a palace rivaling Versailles while he attacked Hungary’s educational and health systems, and his friends became fabulously wealthy as they took advantage of their connections to the ‘leader’.

Netanyahu worked to weaken the Israeli civil service and judiciary to stave off corruption charges and reward loyalists.

The occasional defeat of patrimonial leaders in democratic elections has not halted these dangerous global trends.

Trump’s return to the White House is an example of patrimonial resurgence.

Poland

In Poland, the patrimonial administration of Jaroslav Kaczynski was unexpectedly defeated in a parliamentary election by Donald Tusk’s pro-European Union party Civic Platform in 2023.

However, it has proven to be extraordinarily difficult to repair the damage done to state agencies and the judiciary.

Test Case of Ukraine

If Putin – with Trump’s help – manages to replace Ukraine’s independent constitutional regime with a Russian client state – the ultimate goal of his brutal invasion – the fragile balance of power in Europe may tip decisively toward patrimonialism, according to Hanson and Kopstein.

What is to be done?

The two American professors are convinced that to reverse the global assault on modern government, then, will require much more than a simple defence of democracy.

After all, Joe Biden failed in his pursuit, and Trump won the plurality of the American votes – some would say from the ‘basket of deplorables’.

In fact, a little more than half of all Americans are comfortable with even having a convict as their president and commander-in-chief! How times have changed! O tempora! O mores!

[In the Himalayan Republic, the Nepali form of patrimonialism – “Oli-garchy” is embedded in the system, and cannot be reformed or toppled, because the electoral system itself has become thoroughly corrupted and cannot usher in change].

If the rule of law is to prevail over the rule of men, there is no single panacea – one size fitting all.

[What can succeed in the United States, may not do so in the Himalayan Republic. Given the special circumstances of the country’s domestic variables and external geo-political situation, it is too much to hope that a foreign power will be helpful in bringing about meaningful change – not even in restoring constitutional monarchy – now the aspiration of a majority of Nepalese. The movement for change must be sui generis].

U.S. Interference Abroad

Not yet in office, the Trump administration is attempting to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs.

Elon Musk Trump’s unelected ‘prime minister’ has publicly endorsed Germany’s far-right Alternative fuer Deutschland (AfD) and has the country’s top leaders worried of undue interference on German democracy ahead of snap elections next month.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has expressed concern over Elon Musk’s support for the far-right AfD party, weeks before the nation’s snap elections next month.

Scholz, in an interview to “Stern” magazine, said that while he was not fazed by the US tech billionaire’s attacks on him and other German politicians, Musk’s endorsement of the far-right party was much more worrying (DW/Deutsche Welle, Jan. 4).

But from the point of view of election dynamics, attacking Musk vigouressly for interference – and indirectly Trump – would be a smart strategy.

Musk, a top advisor to US President-elect Donald Trump, has been commenting on German politics on his social media platform X for days now.

He had the audacity to call Scholz a “fool” and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier an “undemocratic tyrant” (for no rhyme or reason).

Taking Musk’s insults lying down is not the way for established democrats.

German Deputy Chancellor Robert Habeck from the Green Party had sharper words for Musk.

“Hands off our democracy, Mr. Musk! Habeck told German newsmagazine “Der Spiegel” when asked whether Musk was a threat to Germany [which he undoubtedly is].

Habeck warned that Musk’s attempts to influence German politics should not be underestimated: “The combination of immense wealth, control over information and networks, the use of artificial intelligence and the will to ignore rules is a frontal attack on our democracy” (DW).

The writer can be reached at: [email protected]