Deep State and Attuned Democracy: Political Affairs vs Political Psychology Volume 4 - Issue 3

Saeed Shoja Shafti MD*

• Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, New York, USA

Received:April 23, 2022;   Published: May 26, 2022

Corresponding author: Saeed Shoja Shafti MD, Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, New York, USA

DOI: 10.32474/JCCM.2022.04.000190

Abstract PDF

Lexically, deep state means an alleged underground network of mainly unelected government bureaucrats, or powerful members of government organizations, services or secret agencies, and sometimes private units (as in the defense industries and economic services), who are operating covertly or extra-legally to influence, manipulate, and enact government strategy [1,2]. The power of the deep state originates from traditions, insight, special skills, experience, knowledge, craft, relationships, and communal principles. Together, these supposed characteristics make anonymous officeholders into a super-government that is answerable to no one [1]. In general usage, the term “deep state” conveys evil implications. “State within a state” and “shadow government” are other parallel conceptions. The aim of a deep state can consist of stability of the government itself, business security, greater authority and power, and the pursuit of programmatic or ideological purposes. It can maneuver opposed to the program of voted officials, by subverting, resisting and obstructing their conditions, policies and commands to turn, compulsorily or cunningly, “what is” into “what should be” [3].

In the 17^th and 18^th centuries, political disputes about the separation of church and government often turned around the opinion that, if left unchecked, the church might turn into a kind of government within a government, an unlawful violation of the government’s natural political power [4]. Therefore, while different countries are usually classified as developed vs. developing, first world vs. second or third world, high-income vs. middle or lowincome, modern vs. traditional, or democratic vs. dictatorial kingdoms, and the said categories are based on international measurements, another categorization, as well, exists, at a national scale, which consists of an in-house, out of sight, and leading network of imperative elites that have not been picked by election but may influence, directly or indirectly, the mindset or diplomacy of political figures, who have been carefully chosen by polling. Such a set-up, which is occasionally labeled as deep state, which may include an assortment of kinsfolk and advice-givers in addition to the said officials, is approximately present in all systems around the world, though with different extent of authority or influence. The important point with respect to such a covered network is that while it may, meaningfully, influence or inspire the main political, social or economic policies, it is rather exempt from liability.

So, it may enact its purposes through the intermediation of a number of answerable administrators, who are concurrently both guiltless and responsible with regard to probable faults or collapses. The deep state is, politically, an analogous assembly that exists in democratic systems and autocratic regimes, though they act according to their own diplomacy. Now, a question arises; if the deep state is responsible for a series of important decisions and happenings, then what is the meaning of democracy, balloting and accountability? If chosen representatives are executors of the ideas of unelected officials, then what is the worth of voting? Theoretically, Marxian theories believe that in a capitalist system, elected representatives are, knowingly or involuntarily, brokers of financiers, not the general population, and the struggle is basically between financial bands, not the populace’s livelihood, which is a less important or negligible issue. Critics of the Marxist system, as well, believe that proletarian dictatorship and its hostility to the free-market is nothing more than guaranteeing of state capitalism and party-political supremacy, though its announcement is emblematic with respect to the populace’s livelihood.

Likewise, while imperialism has generally been reproached due to its expansionistic goals, the evidence shows that colonialism is an occurrence due to industrial development, whether in a capitalist system or in a collectivist regime, and is usually handled by the deep state, though accompanied by pleasing rationalizations and propaganda. So, though in line with the humanistic outlooks of Carl Marx, human is the creator of history, it seems that the deep state is the real maker of its context. Evolutionarily, natural selection will not ignore any helpful tactic if it assists in some way to enhance an organism’s survival. So, optimistically, deep state is necessary for making a balance between inept office-bearers and adept statesmen.

But pessimistically, the deep state is a barrier against democratic policies, because it counterbalances self-determination. The main question here is that may a deep state break the rules? May it reinforce itself indefinitely with respect to monetary assets or managerial controls? Is the deep state comparable to the mafia or secret circles? Deep state drives from the remnants of preceding circles of power, including officials, who are now out of the current administration but have retained their administrative influence. While such a result is dependent on a series of factors like knowledge, experience and property, “national security” and “national welfare” are the major determinants, which define which one of the said executives may be assimilated into the assemblage. Any influential cause except the said bases can be the signal of the mafia, instead of the deep state. The deep state may have various subdivisions with different intentions, which are determined by earlier proficiency or philosophies. So, it may act on a national scale, locally, or with respect to a specific group of people, dissidents, rivals, etc. Any movement that is not in harmony with the recognized customs or lawful rubrics and lacks a rational motive or explanation may have been thrilled by the influence of the deep state or its offshoots. Serialized equivocal events that distract public attention, untimely enactment of confusing programs, despite likely disparaging outcomes, recurrent tricks that may restrict civil liberties, in the face of ongoing constitutional rights, are more examples that may result from the activity of the deep state or the related subdivisions.

Accordingly, while an elected state can be comparable to consciousness, which depends on a secondary process of thinking with logical, considerate and adaptive characteristics, an underground deep state is comparable to unconsciousness, which depends on primary process thinking with aspirational, selfish and satisfying aspects. Furthermore, while the designated administration requires legislation, rationalization, and tuning to the surroundings, the covert government is free from all formal and civic restrictions. So, the deep state may get around rules provisionally or relentlessly, may take advantage of various profits in advance, may distort facts or control the public opinion by media and may falsify subjective inferences or inclinations into objective realities or agendas, may make everything stress-free or distressing based on secretive intentions, may create simulated or factual struggles, and etc. Nevertheless, if the abovementioned maneuvers are on behalf of national safety or prosperity, then maybe they are by some means justifiable, even if they are hassling; otherwise, they are only a series of illegitimate and egotistical actions.

Now another question arises. How may the deep state disturb the public’s well-being? When there is an unanticipated encounter between ordinary expectations that had been promised by the overt state and current happenings, which are under the influence of the deep state, then the said struggle provokes internal conflicts, nasty feelings and uncertainties in the general public; consequences that seem to be uncorrectable, inexplicable, and endless. The outcome of such a process is nothing except desperateness and extra worries and may be the beginning of a series of instinctive misconducts by sufferers. On the other hand, the deep state is not shaped abruptly or purposely; it is formed gradually and reflexively due to a series of patriotic concerns, hegemonic alarms or commercial distresses. A devoted deep state may prevent collapse or destabilization of a system if it is met with unanticipated uproars, terrible calamities, outsider’s assaults or domestic sabotage, especially if the current administration is unqualified, inexpert or unduly optimistic.

Oppositely, an egocentric deep state may endanger civil rights, restrict legitimate trade or interfere with the free market, produce monopoly and oligarchy, neutralize balloting or carefully chosen representatives, and finally engender despotism, totalitarianism, fascism or single-party rule. Nonetheless, deep state and legal state are generally interweaved establishments and maybe they are not divisible, because many of their components are former and present administrators, who may possibly be future officeholders, too. So, the deep state seems to be an unavoidable appendix of every regime, which had enough time for the production of different generations of politicians and bureaucrats. Like every workplace, where the daily activities are not supposed to be clogged totally thanks to the temporary absence of a supervisor or arrival of a new manager, because there are a number of professionals that can manage everything and fix likely problems, or as like as internal body parts, which work exactly disregard to unawareness of human being, or dynamism of unconsciousness in spite of ignorance of consciousness, every governmental organization, too, is supposed to work properly till arrival of new guidelines or change of former rules.

Moreover, every political alteration demands time for filling the gap between earlier policies and fresher plans; a process that is not accomplished robotically and may meet a series of soluble or insoluble problems. The insoluble troubles, as well, prepare the milieu for the budding of competitors. Repetitions of the said circle, which can revolve through polling in democratic systems or via appointment in despotic regimes, produce the eventual sentiment, which is configured as deep state. The power of the formed deep state, as well, depends on the sturdiness of the existent administration; sociopolitical confusion, radicalism, puppet government and financial disarray may increase its authority, and economic steadiness, political solidity or proper party-political competitions, sovereign juridical system and responsible media may decline its influence, though such a relationship in despotic systems is not always unswervingly and it may act reversely by way of suppressing and formation of oligarchic bands. Therefore, the deep state seems to be a supplementary part of every system that plans, mediates, nominates, appoints and dismisses underhandedly, nonetheless, by means of unconcealed executives, controlled voting, prearranged slogans, schematized messages, organized media and, last but not least, unmindful masses. Its action may result in both well-intentioned outcomes and / or malicious results, which depend on its central configuration and short-term or long-term purposes. While it is not eradicable, it is manageable. The rule of law is the only tranquilizer that may weaken it.

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deep%20state
2. https://www.lexico.com/definition/deep_state
3. Johnson Janet Buttolph (2005) Political science research methods. Reynolds HT (Henry T) (5th ed.) CQ Press, Washington DC, USA pp. 28-29.
4. Scott PD (2014) The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld. The Asia-Pacific Journal 12(5): 1-27.