Patrimonialism

Stephen Hanson and Jeffrey Kopstein argue that to understand President Trump, we must see him as part of a worldwide return to clientist and patrimonial authority. Max Weber distinguished three forms of governmental authority based in charismatic leadership, traditional deference, and rational legality. While rational authority is the most fair and efficient, it is also cold, bureaucratic, and often inhuman. It can also lead to the “iron cage of bureaucracy” that sacrifices individuality and creativity to the efficiency of rationalist rule. Much of President Trump’s appeal is his claim of common sense opposition to the extreme examples of bureaucratic bloat. Hanson and Kopstein write: 

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….

President Trump’s new patrimonial regime, if he is able to consolidate it, will amount to nothing less than a revolutionary change in the American political system, as well as a paradigm shift in the global order. For those who prefer a different future—one in which leaders are constrained by the law, officials are judged by their competence and expertise rather than personal loyalty, the use of public office for private gain is prosecuted systematically, and norms of international law still matter—the years ahead will be intensely challenging. Understanding the way patrimonialism works will be vital for those who wish to resist its triumph in the United States.