Towards a Working Definition of the Deep State

After “Fake News,” one of the terms that is being increasingly being thrown around by the non-mainstream media is that of a “Deep State.” In this blog, I shall try to lay out a contribution to the understanding of that concept, which should help towards developing a working definition thereof.

The term, as used by non-mainstream media, President Trump and his supporters has, usually, a rather negative connotation. It seems to refer mainly to an alleged “cabal” of American left-wing operatives, as well as men and women in power, who support Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Democrat policies. These operatives are normally found to be in the US intelligence community and the US Department of State.

In television and film dramatizations, usage of the term “Deep State” is mainly limited to intelligence agencies, in the US and other countries. In that sense, the “Deep State” are those members of the intelligence community that have real power. As they are “deep,” they are, as a rule, not accountable to the democratic process.

I would submit that both these usages are too limited and do not reflect the complexity of the “Deep State.” The two main shortcomings are the following: first, a member of the Deep State need not be employed by an intelligence agency or any government agency; second, there may be two different and opposing strands of the Deep State or, indeed, two or more Deep States within one country.

In practical terms, who could be said to be a member of the Deep State, in any country that has one?

The first characteristic is that the individual must be privy to information that is hidden from the public. These are most commonly state secrets but may also be secrets regarding the history of a nation, or the life habits or business practices of other influential people in that country. A good example is knowing a secret about a country’s military capabilities, or the hidden sexual orientations of famous personalities. Another is being privy to an illicit method of accumulation of wealth by the country’s current business elite. Unlike the general public, a member of the Deep State does not just suspect or believe these things. He or she knows them, from a reliable source or, preferably, first-hand. This is a key difference.

The second characteristic is that the individual must yield a not insignificant amount of personal influence over the country’s affairs. The most common type of influence is influence exercised via public office, as in the case of the intelligence or diplomatic communities. Yet, an often overlooked but equally important form of influence is informal and has no legal basis, nor any method of physical enforcement. Such influence is influence over public opinion and/or the opinion of the elected or otherwise visible political leadership. The most common types of informal influence are through the media (journalism), academic scholarship (TV expertise), and providing advisory services to the “Shallow State” as it were. Most common examples are influential journalists, university professors of politics, law, economics, international relations but also, increasingly, biology and medicine. A member of the “Deep State” may also be an influential writer or artist, who influences public opinion in a certain direction. In many countries, the “Deep State” could encompass parts of organized religion, in the form of high clergy. These groups are particularly sensitive to keeping a social and moral balance and keeping secrets and they have been explored in works of fiction (e.g. The Da Vinci Code).

Third, the individual must be in the “Deep” as opposed to the “Shallow” or “Visible” State. What does that mean? He or she may not hold high public office, especially not elected office, except occasionally. If one is seen, on a daily basis, to exercise official powers, then he or she is not in the “Deep.” Typically, if holding public office, a “Deep Stater” will be in a position one or two levels below the elected officials. He or she will be a Chief of Staff, a Permanent Secretary or similar but not higher rank. The deeper the better. Ideally, the “Deep Stater” will be known to the people working around him but will rarely show his power to the general public. To the general public, he or she will remain a faceless bureaucrat. Alternatively, he or she will be an “independent” artist, writer or journalist, the head of a NGO or charity, or a high clergyman, professing his/her religion, or other "sincerely held beliefs."  

Fourth, depth is usually, although not always, achieved through family connections. A proper “Deep Stater” will usually come from a lineage of “Deep Staters” or otherwise loyal, dependable people. A typical example is a head of sector in a government department, whose father was, e.g. a colonel in the armed forces. The “Deep State” needs to vet its members and trust is vital in this regard. If we are, as they say, “50% nature and 50% nurture,” the “Deep State” is usually very keen on getting the “nature” part right. Seldom will one find an individual who meets the criteria above who does not also fulfil the criterion of genetics. So, when looking out for a “Deep Stater,” one should pay special attention to the individual’s heritage. Did his/her parents have access to sensitive information? A soft but highly formalized and legal way of applying genetic selection to sensitive positions is the US concept of "Yankee White" officials and servants. The background of these men and women is checked generations into the past, before they are granted immediate, unfettered access to the US President.

Fifth, any “Deep State” must be united by a common intellectual or ideological bond. Since one is talking about the State here, and not, say, business or sports, that bond must be a common vision of what the State should be like. Here, one can distinguish two types or, rather, two functions of the “Deep State”: conservation and reform. One type or group may aim at maintaining the State’s status quo: preservation of the power structure, social norms and prevailing ideology. Another may aim at changing or reversing these structures and ideologies. The same group may be switching between these two roles, depending on historical circumstances. This is why one State may have two or more “Deep States,” or, at least, two or more opposing branches thereof. It is the conflict between these branches that we often perceive as social and political struggle. Here, the US provide an excellent example. On the one side, there is what Donald Trump calls the “Deep State”: a group favouring Hillary Clinton and the status quo ante. Equally, however, Trump has surrounded himself by a parallel and opposite “Deep State,” of right-wing thinkers military (and paramilitary) men, who dislike and want to change the Clintonian status quo. They are no less “deep” than their opponents. It is just that their agenda happened to be holding the reins of official, legal power at the time of writing of this post.

Sixth and perhaps the most important, a proper member of the “Deep State” must remain influential regardless of the political party in power. He or she may rise to prominence under one political party but must remain influential after a change of formal political power. That is another aspect of the word “deep” in “Deep State.” After such a change of power, the “Deep Stater” will inevitably lose some of his or her influence but will remain influential, ideally keeping a lower level post. At the very least, he or she will be influencing one part, a large part of the nation that agrees with the agenda of his group. He or she cannot be deprived of all power and influence, otherwise there will be adverse consequences for the political party that tries to deprive him or her of it. Such consequences may include but are not limited to the release of compromising information or the creation of smaller or larger political upheavals (e.g. street violence). Thus, while formally “out of power,” “Deep Staters” stay in the loop and remain the custodians of the country’s secrets. Commonly but not always, a “Deep State” organization has physical “enforcers” that may be called upon, if methods of persuasion do not work. These can be on the state payroll but may also be common thugs, football hooligans and the like.

Seventh, a proper “Deep Stater” is not after money, or at least not primarily. He or she will want to enjoy a comfortable but not lavish lifestyle. These individuals are motivated by ideology, not cash. That is not to say that the “Deep State” in some countries has not used its power to enrich itself. So long as such enrichment is reinvested in acquiring more power, this is still in accordance with “Deep State” principles. When a “Deep State” becomes a money-grubbing apparatus of personal enrichment, this is where the group usually fails and becomes nothing more than organized crime. Dishonestly or illegally acquired personal wealth always gives leverage to the opposing group or groups and harms the integrity of the “Deep State” group. Money can always be traced back, sooner or later and this is a stain that cannot be washed off. Such a member or group within the “Deep State” is no longer reliable and should be cut out of the loop, as he/she/it represents a security risk, being exposed to blackmail by opposing groups or even foreign powers.

Eighth, one must always keep in mind that a “Deep State” is hardly ever a monolithic group. As these are normally highly intelligent and highly educated individuals, they tend to have their own, personal views of what is good for their country. A certain level of discipline can be maintained through membership of secret societies, or classical secret service/military hierarchy but, inevitably, ideas will diverge, and members will switch sides. This is why the “Deep State” is always a dynamic, changing body. This is also what makes it notoriously hard to track in real time.

Ninth, one should not consider the “Deep State” to be a negative phenomenon per se. What one must avoid are “Deep State” groups working for another, foreign State (this does not include constructive cooperation with foreign “Deep States” on common objectives). One must also avoid groups that have become machines for corruption and extortion, because this is where the “Deep State” degenerates into a criminal organization. If a “Deep State” is pure, then it will fulfil an important function: keeping a social and political balance and preventing the political class from making rash, harmful decisions that endanger the stability of the State. Examples of such harmful decisions are starting wars that cannot be won quickly, selling State assets to potentially hostile foreign actors, or allowing potentially hostile foreign actors from exercising any real influence inside the State. Ideally, these are the tasks of a proper “Deep State.”

Returning to the Trumpian view of the "Deep State," to summarize, Trump and his supporters make three key errors regarding this phenomenon. First, they assume that there is only a left-wing "Deep State" in America, perhaps deliberately. Steve Bannon, the NRA, certain Evangelical groups are no less of a "Deep State" than CNN or the Democrats leading the State Department. Second, a negative portrayal of the "Deep State" demoralizes and reduces the effectiveness of legitimate "Deep State" members, who carry out important work for the country, behind the scenes. Last but certainly not least, if one should target the "Deep State," one should not focus on its ideology but, rather, whether they are greedy and corrupt. This is where Conservatives confuse the "Military Industrial Complex" with the "Deep State." The former is, to some extent, a malevolent part of the latter. whenever the justified goal of defence of the nation is perverted and exploited for personal gain, through excessively expensive military contracts. Therefore, defending the nation is one thing; plundering its wealth under the guise of defending it is quite another. By the same token, there must also be a legitimate "Deep State," on the one hand, and an illegitimate criminal organization that pretends to be one, on the other.