Patrimonialism
Description
Pat Kane:
"What is being established in Trump 2.0, according to the academics Stephen E Hanson and Jeffrey S Kopstein, is often misrecognised as authoritarianism or fascism.
Instead, Hanson and Kopstein suggest we should see it as “patrimonialism”.
The term was first coined by the great social theorist Max Weber. Patrimonialist leaders “pose as ‘fathers’ of their nations, running the state as a sort of ‘family business’, and doling out state assets and protection to loyalists”, says Hanson in a recent interview.
“As Weber pointed out a century ago, this mode of state-building is one of the oldest political forms in human history”, Hanson continues. “But most analysts never thought patrimonialism would make such a powerful comeback in the contemporary era.”
What patrimonialists hate most of all, Hanson implies, are the values of an independent, reliable, universal civil service. A good bureaucracy truly gets in the way of The Grift.
“Whether we realise it or not, we all depend on bureaucracies staffed by qualified experts to live what we now consider to be ‘normal’ lives”, Hanson explains. “Prior to the invention of the modern state, rulers facing famines, wars and natural disasters frequently consulted oracles and soothsayers and relied on the advice of unqualified cronies, leading to terrible, unnecessary human suffering.
“If we destroy the modern state bureaucracy in the United States and the rest of the world, replacing it with personalistic rule, we can expect similar results.”
It is noticeable that Donald Trump’s patrimonialism comes along with a denial of climate crisis, caused by fossil fuel use. The very effects of this – extreme weather, increasing migration, crop failure, viral proliferation – are exactly why you might want a functional bureaucracy, according to Hanson’s vision. Bureaucracy is the “gyroscope of state”, as scholar Bernardo Zacka put it. Going by recent months in the American republic, it’s about to topple from its stand.
However, it doesn’t seem – at least so far – that patrimonialism underlies the anti-bureaucratic chainsaws in the Starmer project. What drives his ministers seems to be something very tangible – the many millions of physical letters and human-conducted calls that are done each week, between civil servants and citizens.
Is the assumption that much of this administration could be done by AIs?"
(https://patkane.substack.com/p/pk-in-the-national-good-bureaucracy)
Characteristics
Stephen E. Hanson and Jeffrey S. Kopstein:
"To understand Trump’s political order, then, we need to familiarize ourselves with the standard operating procedures of patrimonialism. While this regime type may be novel for the United States, it is quite common in human history. In the 21st century, patrimonial regimes have been consolidated in countries as diverse as Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, Narendra Modi’s India, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel. Drawing lessons from regimes of this type, we can help get our bearings in what, for most Americans, is an unfamiliar new political environment.
First, in patrimonial regimes there is simply no way to distinguish between the parts of the leader’s speeches that matter politically from empty rhetoric not meant to be taken seriously. The cumulative effect of the daily storm of Trump’s announcements, social media posts, news conferences, and executive orders can be exhausting, and it’s tempting to listen to Ezra Klein when he reassures us about Trump’s statements: “Don’t Believe Him.”
But while Trump’s powers may (or may not) ultimately be limited by the courts, his stated intentions will not magically cease to matter. There are certain rules of the game in patrimonial politics. Hanging on every word of the leader is one of them. Unfortunately, then, we need to follow Trump’s communications in their entirety in order to understand where he is taking the country.
In a leader-centered political order, whatever the boss says, no matter how outlandish, sets the agenda for every underling. In fact, the willingness of subordinates to parrot and defend even the most extreme parts of his stated agenda is one of the most important signs of regime loyalty, used by the leader to decide on promotions, demotions, and in cases of open criticism, retribution. Those opposed to President Trump cannot decide, say, to ignore his social media posts about making Canada the 51st state, nor can they claim that his tariff threats are just a “bargaining chip” while focusing on his efforts to subordinate the federal bureaucracy to his will. All of these stated priorities matter, precisely because the essence of patrimonialism is the leader’s arbitrary right to treat the state as his personal property. That doesn’t mean that opponents of Trump’s regime shouldn’t pick their fights carefully, of course. But it is impossible to say in advance which of the leader’s many words merely reflect ephemeral musings, and which reveal his reasoned intentions.
Second, bitter fights among rival loyalists and their “clans” are a normal part of patrimonialism. It is a mistake to think that when such struggles are aired in public, this is necessarily a sign of regime weakness. Nor is it an indication that one faction is somehow becoming the true “power behind the throne.” In fact, patrimonial leaders benefit from internal court rivalries, as long as all sides remember who the ultimate boss is. Putin’s crony Yevgeny Prigozhin could post videos calling out the incompetence of the Russian Ministry of Defense and General Staff for months—until he organized an open mutiny against the leadership in June 2023, after which his helicopter mysteriously crashed.
Similarly, Steve Bannon can tell a journalist that he hates Elon Musk and his “technofeudalist” associates at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), as long as he concludes his interview with fulsome praise for the leader:
President Trump balances everything. He’s a common-sense conservative and a common-sense populist nationalist. In our movement, the core base of MAGA is hard-welded to Donald Trump because they admire his moral clarity. I put him at the level of President Washington and President Lincoln in this regard. This is the age of Trump.
In patrimonial regimes, that’s how disagreement is done: the children fight while deferring to the wisdom of the “good father.”
Third, the idea that various officials in a patrimonial state administration might have conflicts of interest is little more than a quaint anachronism. The phrase “conflict of interest” itself assumes that state officials are supposed to uphold the public good rather than pursue their personal self-interest. Under patrimonial rule, however, the interests of the “people” are equated with the personal interests of the ruler and his extended household, so in principle no conflict can ever arise between the two.
...
Fourth, Trump’s otherwise inexplicable threats to purchase Greenland, retake the Panama Canal, own Gaza, and even annex Canada begin to make sense in the context of the patrimonial regime he is creating. Borders for patrimonial states tend to be historical rather than legal, based on notions of patrimony rather than law. Trump’s evident acceptance of Putin’s vision of Ukraine as part of the “Russian world” should not be surprising, as Putin’s territorial claims are entirely consistent with Trump’s own view of how relations between states should work: the bosses of great powers, like the “five families” in Mario Puzo’s The Godfather, should negotiate among themselves to divvy up the territories and economic resources of weaker states."