The State and democracy

It’s not easy to write a book about THE STATE that grabs the readers’ attention. I know because I’ve tried it – with The Search for Democracy (2024) which is actually about the various reform methods which have been attempted since that became fashionable in the 1970s (for more on this see the reading recommended below)

The State is all around us  - everywhere and, these days, nowhere. It’s 

not something we like to be reminded of – but it does spend, in most european 

countries, approaching half of a country’s GNP. But journalistic comment is 

relatively rare – save as rants about the amount of money being wasted by 

the public sector on which subject they are flooded with material from right-wing 

Think Tanks funded by the corporate sector. 

Most academic books about THE STATE are, frankly, boring and, well, academic! 

I wish someone would produce a comic/graphic guide to the State – just a question 

of extracting the essential ideas and illustrating them with some graphics. 

In the absence of such a book, I recommend  Geoff Mulgan’s 

”Good and Bad Power – the ideals and betrayals of government” (2006) – not least because he is one of the very few writers who gives us a short SUMMARY OF THE book’s ARGUMENT at the end of the book. Reduced to basic essentials, these can be summarised as

• Human needs translate into a set of consistent demands – whether on 

family, tribe or state 

• These are

  • security from aggression, 

  • food, 

  • fair treatment and 

  • truthful information

• the advent of large communities led to a need for a social contract

• states emerged as they became valuable – but have been captured by 

small groups.

• violent revolt was the only way to challenge power but gradually new 

• tools were invented eg elections, division of power, rule of law, free speech and open media

• this has helped the moral character of states develop – but active 

citizenry is still needed

• Power corrupts – characteristic features of power are oppression, 

arrogance, deceit and theft but also the use of abstraction.

• The enabling state is a new development

• as is the realisation that the future needs to be serviced

An extremely rare study of how to make public services more democratic is Hilary Wainwright’s Public Sector Reform – but not as we know it (Unison and TNI 2009)

Recommended Reading about “the State”

- The Sociology of the State; Bertrand Badie and Pierre Birnbaum (1983). An interesting non-Anglo-saxon view of the subject

- The Sources of social power – vol I history from the beginning to 1760AD; Michael Mann (1986). The first of what turned out to be a 4 volume study, reminding us that “the State” is a modern construct and only one of four types of power (political) – the other three being ideological, military and economic. Not an easy read…

- The State – its nature, development and prospects G. Poggi 1990. A highly readable 

introduction although needing some updating after the Fukuyama and Mann volumes

- The Modern State; Christopher Pierson (1996); one book I would recommend since, unlike most books with such titles, it is actually readable - if a bit boring - but seems to touch base with all relevant issues.…

- The Retreat of the State; Susan Strange (1996) who talked the most sense about the contours of the modern state – identifying, for example, the importance of multi-national companies including the global consultancies; the Mafia; the technocrats of global institutions, let alone the private protection sector. She also authored Casino Capitalism (1986); States and Markets (1988) and, her last book, Mad Money (1998)

- The State in a Changing World (World Bank 1997) – the report that indicated the powerful World Bank had had to eat some its scathing words about the role of the state. Goes on a bit!

- Globalisation and the State (UN Public Sector Report 2001); a more balanced analysis of the role of public administration than the World Bank is capable of

- Governance in the 21st century (2001 OECD) rather geeky overview

- The State - theories and issues; ed Hay, Lister and Marsh (2006). Probably the best read on the subject with chapters from a variety of authors on the various issues

- You and the State – a short introduction to political philosophy Jan Narveson (2008) an excellent introductory text

- Those who want a more detailed historical treatment can now dip into Francis Fukuyama’s marvellous 2 volumes which he introduces here. I never imagined that 700 page books with titles such as The Origins of Political Order – from prehuman times to the French Revolution (2011); and Political Order and Political Decay – from the industrial revolution to the Globalisation of Democracy (2014) could be so engrossing....

- Governance for Health (2012 WHO) A good overview of health indicators and coverage (if that's what turns you on)

- The State – past, present, future Bob Jessop 2016 This is the classic text on the subject from the go-to expert – but is very heavy going

- Government at a Glance 2017; A recent and very handy analysis of the scope and impact of public services. Only for the 35 member states of OECD (so the Baltic States, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia are included – but not Bulgaria or Romania)

- State Formations – global histories and cultures of statehood J Brooke et al (2018)

REFORM

Dismembered – the ideological attack on the state; Polly Toynbee and D Walker (2017) a clear analysis by two british journalists

“The 21^st century public manager – challenges, people and strategies”; Z van der Wal (2017) An interesting-looking book written by a Dutch academic and consultant who has spent the past 7 years as a Prof at the University of Singapore

Reclaiming Public Services – how cities and citizens are turning back privatisation; TNI (2017) An excellent overview by the radical international think tank of this very welcome trend

How to Run a Government so that Citizens Benefit and Taxpayers don’t go Crazy; Michael Barber (2015). A clearly written and rare book about the approaches favoured by a consultant who became Tony Blair’s favourite "go-to" fixer

The Fourth Revolution – the global race to reinvent the state; J Micklewaithe and A Woolridge (2015) Editors of no less a journal than The Economist give us a breathless neoliberal analysis

The Tragedy of the Private – the potential of the public; Hilary Wainwright (PSI 2014) an important little pamphlet

Public Sector Reform – but not as we know it; Hilary Wainwright (Unison and TNI 2009) A rare readable case study (Newcastle) of a bottom-up approach to reform. We need much more of this..…

Leadership for the Common Good; Crosby and Bryson (2^nd edition 2005) Probably the most comprehensive of the practical guides to getting the public services working well. Clicking the title gives the entire 500 pages!

The Essential Public Manager; Chris Pollitt (2003) A great and very practical analysis of the political and technical aspects of the search for effective public services

“The Values of Bureaucracy”; Paul du Gay (2003) Proceedings of an academic conference on du Gay's 2000 book which was a rare attempt to rescue aspects od this all-too-easilymaligned institution. You should be able to access the full book by googling the title

“The Captive State – the corporate takeover of Britain; George Monbiot” (2000) A powerful critique of the nature and scale of corporate involvement in our public services which first alerted me to the nature of public-private partnerships

In Praise of Bureaucracy; weber, organisation, ethics; Paul du Gay (2000) It may be academic, but is clearly written and has become a classic defence of a much maligned institution. Well reviewed here

Change the World; Robert Quinn (2000) Simply the best analysis of the process of social and organizational change

Creating Public Value – strategic management in government; Mark Moore (1995) One of the few books which actually looks at examples of effective leaders in the public sector. Started a wave of (in-house) discussion which led to what could be the third stage of public admin

Reinventing Government; David Osborne and Graeber (1992) The book which started the New Public Management revolution.

More specialist recommended reads

Supporting small steps – a rough guide for developmental professionals (Manning; OECD 2015)

A Governance Practitioner’s Notebook – alternative ideas and approaches (Whaites et al OECD 2015)

Rethinking policy and politics – reflections on contemporary debates in policy studies ed C Ayres (2014)

Reinventing Organisations; Frederic Laloux (2014)

People, Politics and Change - building communications strategy for governance reform (World Bank 2011)

Governance Reform under Real-World Conditions – citizens, stakeholders and Voice (World Bank 2008)

The 21^st Century Public Servant; C Needham and Mangham (undated) Results of a British research project

The Blacksburg Manifesto and the postmodern debate about PA; Marshall and White (1990)

Capitalist Democracy - another failing God

Krishnan Nayar has just produced a challenging read in his Liberal Capitalist Democracy – the God that failed (2023) which argues that

the pre-consumerist, pre-welfare capitalism of a penurious working class and severe precarity was far more likely to lead countries to right-wing, aristocratic autocracy than to democracy.

Branko Milanovic honoured it with an extensive review which made three points -

First, he argues that bourgeois revolutions frequently failed to lead to democracy, a view strongly embedded in the Anglo-American Whiggish history and in simplified Marxism. Rather they provoked aristocratic reaction and the authoritarian economic developments which in many respects were more successful than those of bourgeois democracy. In other words, democracy does not come with capitalism and, as we shall see, capitalism often destroys it. The authoritarian modernizers (Nayar studies four: post-1848 Germany, Louis Napoleon’s France, Bismarck’s Germany, and Stolypin’s Russia) enjoyed wide support among the bourgeoisie who, fearful for its property, preferred to take the side of the reforming aristocracy than to throw in its lot with the proletariat.

Second, Nayar argues that the unbridled Darwinian capitalism always leads to social instability and anomie, and that social instability empowers right-wing parties. He thus argues that Hitler's rise to power was made possible, or was even caused, by the 1928-32 Depression, and not as some historians think by either the fear of communism or bad tactics of the Communist Party which instead of allying itself with Social Democrats fought them.

Third, and for the present time perhaps the most interesting, Nayar argues that the success of Western capitalism in the period 1945-1980 cannot be explained without taking into account the pressure that came on capitalism both from the existence of the Soviet Union as an alternative model of society, and from strong left-wing parties linked with trade unions in major European countries. In that sense the period of “les trente glorieuses” which is now considered as the most successful period of capitalism ever occurred against the normal capitalist tendencies. It was an anomaly. It would not have happened without socialist pressure and fear of riots, nationalizations, and, yes, defenestrations. But with the rise of neoliberal economics after 1980 capitalism gladly went back to its original 19^th and early 20^th century versions which regularly produce social instability and strife. The lesson to be taken from Nayar is in some ways simple. Capitalism, if it's not embedded in society and does not accept limits on what can be commodified, has to go through recurrent slumps and prosperities.

If we look at the three main theses in Nayar’ s book none of them is new. But they are when strung together and placed in their historical context.  The authoritarian modernizations have of course been a subject of many books some of which, like Barrington Moore’s classic, are cited here. The rise of fascism was, and is, increasingly linked with austerity policies as was recently done by Mark Blyth’s Austerity: History of a Dangerous Idea (2013) and Clara Mattei’s The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism (2022).

The question which is on everybody’s mind after having read Nayar’s book is, What next? Because if capitalism continues along the current trajectory that Nayar believes almost preordained, it must again produce instability and rejection. And that would—again--play into the hands of right- wing movements. A century later we may be replaying the same story that we have seen in the 1920’s Europe. History seldom repeats itself word-by-word or drum-by-drum: but we already see parties with roots in nationalist or quasi fascist movements coming back to power and undoing globalization, fighting immigrants, celebrating nationalism, cutting access to welfare benefits to those who are not “native” enough. Is it fascism? Its light variety? This is the melancholy conclusion that can be made based on this sweeping study of western political and economic developments in the past two centuries.

Nayar’s book very much challenges the conventional thinking about the 

trajectory of present trends and I strongly recommend it – as well as the 

Blyth and Mattei books mentioned in Branko’s review

WHY HAS the notion of ‘’THE DEEP STATE” BECOME SO POPULAR?

The first book on this subject may have been The American Deep State – Wall St, Big Oil and the attack on American Democracy by Peter Dale Scott which appeared in 2015 - but I have just plotted an ngram on the subject which records that its use became exponential only in the new millennium. And that it was in use between 1880 and 1890 – presumably at the time of US populism. 

The term has spread like wildfire throughout the world since it does seem 

to represent a new phenomenon – namely the way judicial and security systems 

have combined to create new targets who, coincidentally, tend to be those 

challenging the status-quo. The concept is much-loved by those of a conspiratorial 

bent and is frequently used in ex-communist countries such as Romania whose 

infamous Securitate still very much alive – one the best articles on this aspect 

of the country is Romania Redivivus 

The tentacles of the Deep Security State. Meanwhile, beneath the surface of democratization, the authoritarian tenor of Ceauşescu’s rule persists in Romania’s powerful security forces. The Securitate, the most ruthless police force in the Warsaw Pact, has been rebranded and is now run by a generation of operatives whose average age is 35, trained at special intelligence universities. They are, in many cases, the children of the 16,000 Securitate members who provided the backbone of the Romanian state after 1989, having emerged as the undisputed winners of the ‘revolution’ of that year. At least nine of these new services exist. The predominant one, the Serviciul Român de Informaţii (SRI), monitors Romanians internally; with some 12,000 operatives, it has double the manpower of any equivalent agency in Europe and, with military-grade espionage equipment, conducts upwards of 40,000 wiretaps a year.10 The older generation of Securitate agents managed the privatization schemes of the 1990s; they are now shielded by the younger cohort from legal oversight.

This interlocking of economic influence—four out of the five richest Romanians have a Securitate background—and legal inviolability—Romania’s judiciary is too dependent on the SRI to prosecute it—allows the deep state to operate with impunity. The security services have vast stakes in telecommunications and big-data collection. They oversee their own ngos, run their own tv channels and have their people on the editorial boards of the major Romanian newspapers and across the government ministries. The permeation of the state by these networks comes to light only occasionally. In October 2015, a nightclub fire in Bucharest killed sixty-four, more than half the deaths due to infections contracted later at a local hospital. Why? The hospital’s disinfectants, concocted by a company called Hexi Pharma to which the government had granted a monopoly"

THE RULING CLASS and the STATE

The “deep state” has become, in recent years, a common term and the last post wondered whether it could actually applied to the UK – with its very different political system. 

The term to which Brits are more used has been “The Establishment” coined 

by Henry Fairlie in 1955 and whose provenance was explored recently in 

this fascinating long article. The concept was explored in a book edited by 

Hugh Thomas in 1959 - The Establishment 
But it was a journalist who kept the public interest in the country’s elite alive 

from the 1960s through to the new millennium, namely Anthony Sampson 

whose first effort was the subject of a rather jaundiced review in NLR. 

By 2004 Sampson’s work produced Who Runs this place?  the anatomy of Britain 

in the 21st Century 

Owen Jones’ The Establishment (2014) didn’t so much assess the UK’s power 

structure as describe its prevailing ideology of neoliberalism. As one reviewer 

put it -

Jones sees a glaring contradiction and hypocrisy in neoliberalism’s simultaneous 

rejection of the state (sclerotic, bureaucratic, unable to ‘wash the pots’, let alone 

build houses) and embrace of the state (for bailouts, for ‘security’ and for violent 

action where necessary). ‘Despite shades of moderation and radicalism, the British 

establishment’s governing ideology is consistent. The state is a bad thing, and gets 

in the way of entrepreneurial flair. Free markets are responsible for growth and 

progress. Businesspeople are the real wealth creators.’ This, as Philip Mirowski and 

Richard Seymour among others have recently argued, was a ‘contradiction’ that 

didn’t trouble Hayek and his colleagues one iota: it was always part of the totality 

of their theory. However, it was not and is not how neoliberalism is sold to the British 

or American public, and The Establishment is at its strongest when it is detailing 

how vulgar neoliberalism works in practice.

By 2018 Aaron Daviews was wondering in Reckless Opportunists whether the 

term had outlived its usefulness. 

It might be time to question whether the British Establishment still functions. Yes, some members of the elite have become very rich. They are united in their fear and loathing of left-wing ideas and ordinary publics. Their decisions have powerful consequences that are widely felt. But they are also rather less able to exert control or predict what those consequences will be. As a body, they have reached a tipping point. They are no longer coherent or collective or competent. These failings are not only causing larger schisms, inequalities and precariousness in Britain; they also threaten the very foundations of Establishment rule itself.

DOES “THE DEEP STATE” EXIST?

A recent post explored whether the US notion of the deep state makes any sense in the UK – and comes up with a broadly negative answer. It argues that -

• the UK ex-PM who took this line was herself the product of the very 

NGO system she attributed to the deep state

• the US is a federal system – the UK a parliamentary one. Very different!

• Brexit has required a larger civil service - to produce new regulations

• which contradicts the libertarian agenda of the New Right

• indicating the total ideological confusion of the Brexit crew

There haven’t so far been many books on the subject – just four that I’ve 

been  able to unearth - and all focussed on the US where, of course, 

President Eisenhower famously warned of the “industrial-military complex”

The American Deep State – Wall St, Big Oil and the attack on American Democracy 

by Peter Dale Scott 2015
The Deep State – the fall of the constitution and the rise of a shadow government 

by Mike Lofgren 2016
History of the Deep State by Jeremy Stone (2018) 
The Deep State – a history of secret agendas and shadow governments Ian Fitzgerald (2021)

Perhaps that reflects the dubious nature of the term – it smacks so much of 

conspiracy (which is indeed the focus of the third book)

Other countries, of course, have these “shadow governments” – particularly
 ex-communist ones. Romania is perhaps the prime example with its 
infamous Securitate still very much alive – one the best articles on this 
aspect of the country is Romania Redivivus 

The tentacles of the Deep Security State. Meanwhile, beneath the surface 
of democratization, the authoritarian tenor of Ceauşescu’s rule persists in 
Romania’s powerful security forces. The Securitate, the most ruthless police 
force in the Warsaw Pact, has been rebranded and is now run by a generation 
of operatives whose average age is 35, trained at special intelligence universities. 
They are, in many cases, the children of the 16,000 Securitate members who 
provided the backbone of the Romanian state after 1989, having emerged as 
the undisputed winners of the ‘revolution’ of that year. At least nine of these 
new services exist. The predominant one, the Serviciul Român de Informaţii (sri), 
monitors Romanians internally; with some 12,000 operatives, it has double the 
manpower of any equivalent agency in Europe and, with military-grade espionage 
equipment, conducts upwards of 40,000 wiretaps a year.10 The older generation 
of Securitate agents managed the privatization schemes of the 1990s;
they are now shielded by the younger cohort from legal oversight. 
This interlocking of economic influence—four out of the five richest
Romanians have a Securitate background—and legal inviolability—Romania’s
judiciary is too dependent on the sri to prosecute it—allows the deep state 
to operate with impunity.
The security services have vast stakes in telecommunications and
big-data collection. They oversee their own ngos, run their own tv
channels and have their people on the editorial boards of the major
Romanian newspapers and across the government ministries. The
permeation of the state by these networks comes to light only
occasionally. In October 2015, a nightclub fire in Bucharest killed
sixty-four, more than half the deaths due to infections contracted
later at a local hospital. Why? The hospital’s disinfectants,
concocted by a company called Hexi Pharma to which the government had
granted a monopoly"

The State is a strangely neglected subject to which only Bob Jessop has done 

recent justice – this is a recent slide presentation of the complexity which 

lies behind his theories.
Most of us are familiar with the classic definition of the State by Max Weber – 

“the monopoly use of violence” although Susan Strange rather punctured that 

definition with her States and Markets in 1988
Writing on the state goes back ,ore than a hundred years - Harold Laski’s 
The State in theory and practice was published in 1923

In Praise of the Bibliographical Essay

Readers are aware of the rather eccentric stress this blog puts on the importance of books having annotated bibliographies. Penguin have just published Why Politics Fails – the 5 traps of the modern world and how to escape them Ben Ansell (2023) which ends with a rare essay which covers, for each chapter, the key books the author has found essential as themes for the lens through which he examines democracy, equality, solidarity, security and prosperity. 

The only other book I’ve come across with such an essay is Peter Gay’s 680 

page magnum opus Modernism – the lure of heresy (2007) which has a stunning 

32 page  bibliographical essay which, he warned, was “highly selective”! 

Peter Gay was born in Germany in 1923 but his family came to the States via 

Havana in 1941 where he became a prolific US historian – as is evident from 

this Wikupedia entry. One of his books is My German Question: Growing Up in 

Nazi Berlin (1998), a powerful and insightful account of his teenage years in 

Berlin. Another which also has an extensive bib essay is Freud – a Life for our 

Times (1988) whose bib essay extends to 76 pages. The book does, after all, have 

1350 pages! For me, such bibliographical essays are rare gems which offer an opportunity 

to understand an author’s preferences.

  
Why Politics Fails reviews

• https://czechpolsci.eu/article/download/37409/31968/61942 

• https://www.persuasion.community/p/ansell podcast

• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/17/reith-lectures-miss-point-politics-

• fails-when-avoids-issue-of-class

British "Justice"

 The British public is so appalled at the Israeli genocide going on in Gaza that it has failed to spot the latest negation by the UK Establishment of basic judicial principles. Only Consortium News and Craig Murray have given clear reports on the implications of last week’s Supreme Court’s opaque judgement whose 66 page report can be read here.

Craig Murray’s argument is that -

• Both judges are compromised by their close association with the security 

services and by kinship (Sharp is the brother of the guy who gave a huge loan to Boris Johnson and was subsequently appointed as BBC Chairman)

• The Supreme Court accepts the evidence that the US plotted 

to kill Julian Assange

• forbids Assange’s lawyers to mention this in any future appeals

• has given the US 3 weeks to come up with a form of words which 

reassures the UK authorities that the US will not inflict the death penalty 

on Assange

• but then argues that the UK is not bound (by any of the 150 treaties it 

has signed) to respect basic human rights.

    
Judge Johnson and Judge Sharp accept that there is evidence to the required 

standard that the U.S. authorities did plot to kidnap and consider assassinating 

Julian Assange, but they reason at para. 210 that, as extradition is now going to be 

granted, there is no longer any need for the United States to kidnap or assassinate 

Julian Assange: and therefore the argument falls.
It does not seem to occur to them that a willingness to consider extrajudicial violent 

action against Julian Assange amounts to a degree of persecution which obviously 

reflects on his chances of a fair trial and treatment in the United States. 

It is simply astonishing, but the evidence of the U.S. plot to destroy Julian Assange,

 including evidence from the ongoing criminal investigation in Spain into the private 

security company involved, will never again be allowed to be mentioned in Julian’s 

case against extradition.
Similarly, we are at the end of the line for arguing that the treaty under which 

Julian is being extradited forbids extradition for political offence. The judgment 

confirms boldly that treaty obligations entered into by the United Kingdom are 

not binding in domestic law and confer no individual rights. Of over 150 extradition 

treaties entered into by the United Kingdom, all but two ban extradition for 

political offences. The judgment is absolutely clear that those clauses are redundant 

in every single one of those treaties. Every dictatorship on Earth can now come after 

political dissidents in the U.K. and they will not have the protection of those 

clauses against political extradition in the treaties. That is absolutely plain on 

the face of this ruling.