‘Deep’ Thoughts on the State

The concept of the ‘deep state’ is frequently used in political, academic, and media circles. Depending on the context in which it is used, the concept can evoke positive or negative connotations. According to some, it refers to a structure controlled by shadowy power centres outside the legitimate state apparatus; according to others, it points to traditional bureaucratic, elitist structures embedded within the state apparatus. In both cases, the concept is skilfully used by politicians to gain the support of large segments of the population. This is because in democratic systems, the people can be very jealous when their will is used by those who have not been authorised by them.

During the Cold War years, when ideological polarisation prevailed, the state saw the need to protect itself by fighting against opposing ideologies in order to preserve its own ideology. During these years, alongside espionage and counter-espionage activities, deep structures within the state operated to keep society within certain boundaries. Defending the ideology that formed the basis of the state's political power constituted the main source of legitimacy for these deep structures, as well as giving their struggles a sense of spirituality and sanctity. With the end of political polarisation, a period dominated by liberal thought and movements began. After the decline of communist ideology, liberalism based on a capitalist economic order gained dominance in the political arena. During this period, concepts such as civil society, political and individual freedoms, the rule of law, and transparency in governance came to the fore, while the role of the state in the political arena diminished and marginal ideas and movements gained popularity.

The rise of the individual and individual freedoms brought with it a reaction against deep state structures. This reaction, which mostly took the form of reckoning with the past, manifested itself in investigations, trials and prosecutions against illegal organisations. In our country, the ‘Susurluk Accident,’ which revealed the illegal relations between certain elements within the state and criminal organisations, was one of the symbolic events of this period. The ‘Clean Hands’ operation in Italy exposed the illegal activities of an organisation known as ‘Gladio,’ which was formed during the Cold War to fight communism under the control of secret services. The exposure of the relationship between secret services, which operated to protect the political and ideological identity of the state, and criminal organisations naturally led to widespread suspicion of the state structure among the general public. This general atmosphere, which developed in parallel with the growing demands for democratisation, led to the rise of liberal parties that emphasised individual rights and freedoms, which gained more voter support against state-oriented parties representing elitist/bureaucratic structures in the elections. Those years were also marked by the triumph of liberal democracy, led by the United States, as the best form of government in the world, as argued in Fukuyama's book ‘The End of History and the Last Man.’ Approximately 35 years later, amid discussions about the ‘crisis of the liberal order,’ criticism of the ‘deep state’ is once again being used as a tool to pave the way for those in power.

The current president of the United States developed a discourse against the ‘deep state’ during the election campaign, portraying himself as a victim of the established order and successfully winning the votes of broad segments of the population opposed to the current system. In Trump's rhetoric, the owners of the established order represented an elitist, liberal ideology that served the international system; surrendered the country to immigrants through policies of diversity, equality and inclusiveness; created inequality through social support policies; and worked against the people by collapsing the economy through green energy, tax and customs policies. Thus, Trump was able to gain the support of broad segments of the population by combining his slogan ‘Make America Great Again’ with the perception of a struggle against the establishment representing the ‘deep state.’ After taking office, he implemented policies that were consistent with his campaign rhetoric, virtually dismantling the traditions of the state bureaucracy. Some of Trump's unusual practices include dismissing the Chief of Staff and appointing a retired lieutenant general in his place; appointing a television producer and former officer as Secretary of Defence; appointing a businessman to head the newly established Office of Government Efficiency; and arguing with other heads of state in front of the press.

In democratic systems where the will of the people is manifested through majority vote, it is only natural for the party that has won the people's favour to implement its policies. The problem arises when the party that has gained the support of the people uses the power it has received from the voters to implement changes in the established structure, bureaucracy and traditions of the state. Furthermore, political parties that come to power with rhetoric opposing ‘bureaucracy and the established order,’ such as reducing the size of the state and opening it up to individual freedoms and civil society, weaken the fundamental structures and pillars of the established order while attempting to establish their own ‘order’ contrary to their promises to the people. Here, we encounter a fundamental dilemma of democracies based on the majority system. Should political parties that come to power by winning the majority vote be able to make any changes they want in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches? Of course, there must be limits to this, and in constitutional regimes, these limits are set by the constitution. Another limit is the programmes that the parties in power present to the public during election campaigns. It is contrary to the spirit of democracy to implement fundamental policies and structural changes that have not been presented to the people or discussed in public, using the majority power in parliament and the administration. There are examples of such de facto situations in history. However, these are limited to extraordinary periods such as war and internal turmoil.

State traditions and bureaucracy are formed over years as a result of accumulated experience. In fact, the structure of the state is the concrete manifestation of the will of the people to live together for thousands of years, filtered through history; the state's traditions embody the people's centuries-old experience of governance. In elective democracies, it is debatable how much it is in line with the spirit of democracy for ruling parties to eliminate the will of the people that has come down from history by citing the temporary will of the people. It is evident that even the world's most established democracies possess a strong state tradition without even having a constitution. Therefore, the survival of the state should not be considered separate from the survival of the nation; rather, it should be institutionalised and deepened in a transparent, accountable, and scrutinizable manner, rather than being a ‘deep state’ detached from the values and oversight of the nation.