Deep state
From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Etymology and historical usage
The modern concept of a deep state is associated with Turkey, a presumed secret network of military officers and their civilian allies trying to preserve the secular order based on the ideas of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk from 1923.[1] Similar ideas are older. The Greek language κράτος ἐν κράτει, (kratos en kratei) was later adopted into Latin as imperium in imperio[2] or status in statu).In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries political debate surrounding the separation of church and state often revolved around the perception that if left unchecked the Church might turn into a kind of State within a State, an illegitimate encroachment of the State's natural civil power.[3]
At the beginning of the 20th century, the deep state was also used to refer to government-owned corporations or private companies that act independently of regulatory or governmental control.[4]
Scholarly understanding
See also: State (polity)
Within
social science in general and political science specifically, scholars
distinguish between positivism ("what
is") and normativism
("what should be").[5] Because political
science deals with topics which are inherently political and often
controversial, this distinction between "what is" (positive) and
"what should be" (normative) is critical because it allows diverse
people with different preferred worlds to discuss the causes, workings, and
effects of policies and social structures.[5] Thus, while readers
may disagree on the normative qualities of the "deep state" (i.e.
whether it is good or bad), it is still possible to study the positive
qualities (i.e. its origins and effects) without requiring a normative
judgement.[5] In the field of political science, the normative pop culture concept of the deep state is studied within the literature on the state. Current literature on the state generally traces a lineage to Bringing the State Back In (1985)[6] and remains an active body of scholarly research as of 2020.[citation needed] Within this literature, the state is understood as both venue (a set of rules under which others act and interact) as well as actor (with its own agenda). An example of a non-conspiratorial version of the 'state as actor' from the empirical scholarly literature would be "doing truth to power" (as a play on speaking truth to power, which is what journalists often aspire to do) as studied by Todd La Porte.[7] Under this dual understanding, the conspiratorial version of the deep state concept would be one version of the 'state as actor' while the non-conspiratorial version would be another version of the 'state as actor.'
The fundamental takeaway from the scholarly literature on the dual nature of the state is that the 'state as actor' (deep state) is a functional characteristic of all states which has effects that may be normatively judged as "good" or "bad" in different times, places, and contexts. From a positivist scientific perspective, the state-as-venue, colloquially known as the "deep state," simply "is" and should not be assumed”bad" by default.
Intellectual history of concept
While the state has been one of the longest-studied topics in political science, sociology, and economics, the rise of new institutionalism(s) in the 1970s brought to the forefront the dual nature of the state as both venue (a set of rules under which others act and interact) as well as actor (with its own agenda).[8] This new institutionalism stands in contrast to the immediately prior behavioral revolution which focused on society-centered explanations for political outcomes where the state was primarily or solely seen as an arena where interest groups vied for political power.[9]State-as-venue
To distinguish the traditional, formal processes of the state from the state-as-actor, the state-as-venue view reflects the state serving as an arena in which actors act. Under this concept, the state is seen as a passive organizational structure within which societal actors (e.g. interest groups, classes) compete for power, influence, and resources.[9]State-as-actor
The state-as-actor concept subsumes the activities described by the pop culture concept of the deep state by focusing on all forms of state goal formation and pursuit which are independent of external societal actors (e.g. interest groups, classes).[10]Positivist political science and sociology further break this concept down into state autonomy and state capacity. State autonomy refers to a state's ability to pursue interests insulated from external social and economic influence.[11] State capacity reflects the state's skills, knowledge, tools, equipment, and other resources needed to do their jobs competently. Together, autonomy and capacity are necessary for states to implement all policy including that delegated by political leaders, court decisions, and agency or ministry programmatic[12] as well as the subversive or clandestine ends suggested by the popular usage of the "deep state" concept.
Popular understanding
In the United States after the 2016 United States presidential election, the term "deep state" has become much more widely used as pejorative term with an overwhelmingly negative definition by both the new Donald Trump administration as well as the wider news media.[13] In the United States news media and social media usage during the Donald Trump administration, the term deep state has come to be an all-purpose scapegoat for elements of the United States federal civil service which the administration opposes.[14]Differences from scholarly understanding
In the field of political science, the normative pop culture concept of the deep state is studied within the literature on the state. Within this literature, the state is understood as both venue (a set of rules under which others act and interact) as well as actor (with its own agenda).[15] Under this dual understanding, the conspiratorial version of the deep state concept would be one version of the 'state as actor' while the non-conspiratorial version would be another version of the 'state as actor.' The fundamental takeaway from the scholarly literature on the dual nature of the state is that the 'state as actor' (deep state) is a functional characteristic of all states which has effects that may be normatively judged as "good" or "bad" in different times, places, and contexts. From a positivist scientific perspective, the state-as-venue, colloquially known as the "deep state," simply "is" and should not be assumed to be "bad" by default.Cases
Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia
The Soviet secret police have been frequently described by historians as a "state within a state". According to Yevgenia Albats, most KGB leaders, including Lavrenty Beria, Yuri Andropov, and Vladimir Kryuchkov, always competed for power with the Communist Party and manipulated communist leaders.[16]According to Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov in 1991, "It is not true that the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is a supreme power. The Political Bureau is only a shadow of the real supreme power that stands behind the chair of every Bureau member ... The real power thinks, acts and dictates for all of us. The name of the power is NKVD—MVD—MGB. The Stalin regime is based not on the Soviets, Party ideals, the power of the Political Bureau or Stalin's personality, but on the organization and the techniques of the Soviet political police where Stalin plays the role of the first policeman."[17] However, he also noted that "To say that NKVD is ‘a state within the state’ means to belittle the importance of the NKVD because this question allows two forces – a normal state and a supernormal NKVD – whereas the only force is Chekism".
According to Ion Mihai Pacepa in 2006, "In the Soviet Union, the KGB was a state within a state. Now former KGB officers are running the state. They have custody of the country's 6,000 nuclear weapons, entrusted to the KGB in the 1950s, and they now also manage the strategic oil industry renationalized by Putin. The KGB successor, rechristened FSB, still has the right to electronically monitor the population, control political groups, search homes and businesses, infiltrate the federal government, create its own front enterprises, investigate cases, and run its own prison system. The Soviet Union had one KGB officer for every 428 citizens. Putin's Russia has one FSB-ist for every 297 citizens.[18]
Chechnya
According to Julia Ioffe, the Russian Federal Subject of Chechnya, under leadership of Ramzan Kadyrov, has become a state within a state.[19]United Kingdom
The Civil Service has been called a "deep state" by senior politicians in the United Kingdom. Tony Blair said of the Civil Service, "You cannot underestimate how much they believe it's their job to actually run the country and to resist the changes put forward by people they dismiss as 'here today, gone tomorrow' politicians. They genuinely see themselves as the true guardians of the national interest, and think that their job is simply to wear you down and wait you out."[20] The efforts of the Civil Service to frustrate elected politicians is the subject of the popular satiric BBC TV comedy, Yes Minister.United States of America
Main article: Deep
state in the United States
In
the United States of America, the "deep state" is used to describe
"a hybrid association of government elements and parts of top-level
industry and finance that is effectively able to govern the United States
without reference to the consent of the
governed as expressed through the formal political
process."[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Intelligence
agencies such as the CIA
have been accused by elements of the Donald Trump
administration of attempting to thwart its policy goals.[34] Writing for The New York Times,
the analyst Issandr El Amani warned against the "growing discord between a
president and his bureaucratic rank-and-file", while analysts of the
column The Interpreter wrote:[34] Though the deep state is sometimes discussed as a shadowy conspiracy, it helps to think of it instead as a political conflict between a nation’s leader and its governing institutions.
According to David Gergen, quoted in Time magazine, the term has been appropriated by Steve Bannon and Breitbart News and other supporters of the Trump Administration in order to delegitimize the critics of the current presidency.[35] The 'deep state' theory has been dismissed by authors for The New York Times[36] and New York Observer.[37]
Venezuela
The Cartel of the Suns, a group of high-ranking officials within the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela, has been described as "a series of often competing networks buried deep within the Chavista regime". Following the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, the Bolivarian government initially embezzled until there were no more funds to embezzle, which required them to turn to drug trafficking. President Hugo Chávez made partnerships with the Colombian leftist militia Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and his successor Nicolás Maduro continued the process, promoting officials to high-ranking positions after they were accused of drug trafficking.[38]Italy
The most famous Italian case is Propaganda Due.[39] Propaganda Due (better known as P2) was a Masonic lodge belonging to the Grand Orient of Italy (GOI). It was founded in 1877 with the name of Masonic Propaganda,[40] in the period of its management by the entrepreneur Licio Gelli assumed deviated forms with respect to the statutes of the Freemasonry and subversive towards the Italian legal order. The P2 was suspended by the GOI on 26 July 1976; subsequently, the parliamentary commission of inquiry into the P2 Masonic lodge under the presidency of Minister Tina Anselmi concluded the P2 case denouncing the lodge as a real "criminal organization"[41] and "subversive". It was dissolved with a special law, the n. 17 of 25 January 1982.Israel
In May 2020, an article in Haaretz describes how people meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "have heard lengthy speeches [...] that even though he has been elected repeatedly, in reality, the country is controlled by a 'deep state.'"[42]In November 2019, Above the Knesset stage, accused Israeli Justice Minister Amir Ohana "the prosecution of operating an illegal deep state within its walls that was meant to carry out a political change that could not be achieved at the polls".[43]
With affection,
Ruben
No comments:
Post a Comment