Authoritarian leaders attack bureaucracy not to enhance democracy, but to replace institutional competence with personal loyalty. Experts loyal to professional standards are a threat. Destroying bureaucratic competence through patrimonialism (treating the state as personal property) is a distinct, earlier stage before an organized, ideological fascist takeover.
Related Insights
After deposing a leader, the success of a foreign intervention hinges on whether the nation retains enough competent bureaucrats, engineers, and judges with experience in a functioning, democratic society to rebuild. Without this institutional memory, the state will likely collapse into chaos.
A bureaucracy can function like a tumor. It disguises itself from the "immune system" of public accountability by using noble language ("it's for the kids"). It then redirects resources (funding) to ensure its own growth, even if it's harming the larger organism of society.
Unlike historical fascism which co-opted business, today's authoritarianism is arguably a product of finance capitalism. The concentration of wealth creates oligarchs who merge with the state, trading democratic norms for deregulation and profit in a speculative, symbol-driven economy.
AI provides a structural advantage to those in power by automating government systems. This allows leaders to bypass the traditional unwieldiness of human bureaucracy, making it trivial for an executive to change AI parameters and instantly exert their will across all levels of government, thereby concentrating power.
Authoritarian leaders like Hugo Chavez systematically dismantle democracy from within after winning elections. They replace competent individuals in the military and government with those who are absolutely loyal, destroying meritocracy to ensure the state apparatus serves the regime, not the people.
The Trump administration's influence over who leads the massive Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac IPO is a classic autocratic move. While punishing enemies is well-understood, just as crucial is over-rewarding allies, which consolidates power and creates an ecosystem of cronyism.
Directly attacking a charismatic leader can backfire due to personal loyalty. A more effective political strategy is to target their key advisors. Removing controversial figures can weaken the leader's power structure, as it is easier to build consensus against "bad actors" than the principal.
The US has historically benefited from a baseline level of high competence in its government officials, regardless of party. This tradition is now eroding, being replaced by a focus on loyalty over expertise. This degradation from competence to acolytes poses a significant, underrecognized threat to national stability and global standing.
Stalin's purge of his officer corps before WWII wasn't just paranoia; it was enabled by a Soviet belief that people are interchangeable and hierarchies of expertise are meaningless. This ideological lens allowed him to rationalize destroying his military's most valuable human capital, revealing the danger of combining paranoia with "blank slate" theories.
A dictator's attempts to consolidate power by purging potential rivals are counterproductive. This strategy creates a culture of fear where subordinates are too afraid to deliver bad news, isolating the leader from ground truth. This lack of accurate information increases the risk of catastrophic miscalculation and eventual downfall.
