What We Should Fear: Patrimonialism

 

I am not afraid that Trump will be Hitler -- either in the sense of gas chambers or of men in trench coats sitting in the hallway keeping track of visitors.  

But I am very much afraid that he is a mortal danger to democracy.  What do I fear?

Alas, I don't have anything very original to say.  In fact, I can't really think of anything to add to these three articles, so I will let them speak for me.

The first one makes the same point that I have made in the past.  Trump is a patrimonialist.  The author distinguishes patrimonialism from "classic authoritarianism," or from autocracy, oligarchy, or monarchy.  

Patrimonialism is less a form of government than a style of governing. It is not defined by institutions or rules; rather, it can infect all forms of government by replacing impersonal, formal lines of authority with personalized, informal ones. Based on individual loyalty and connections, and on rewarding friends and punishing enemies (real or perceived), it can be found not just in states but also among tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations.  In its governmental guise, patrimonialism is distinguished by running the state as if it were the leader’s personal property or family business.

Historically, most governments have been patrimonial, so in very real sense patrimonialism is classical authoritarianism.  Latter-day forms of authoritarianism are the ones that are not "classical."  Russia under Putin, Hungary under Orban, Turkey under Erdogan, India under Narendra Modi, and Poland under the Law and Justice Party are all examples.

The opposite is "bureaucratic proceduralism."  Bureaucratic proceduralism means government by a bureaucracy following formal rules.  Bureaucratic proceduralism can be democratic or dictatorial.  Communist governments were notorious for their bureaucratic proceduralism.  So, too, patrimonialism is not immediately opposed to democracy.  In fact, elected patrimonialists are noted for their populist rhetoric, setting themselves up as champions of the people against unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.  But treating government instead as the leader's personal fiefdom -- even an elected leader with a popular mandate -- is ultimately corrosive of both government competence and the rule of law.

The author suggests that patrimonial governments will inevitably lose popular support due to their corruption and incompetence.  I am not sure I share his confidence.  The US in unique in its deep-seated hostility to all government.  I have little doubt that Trump and company can use the government incompetence they create to their advantage to turn at least the party faithful ever more against government altogether.  As for corruption, the author ruefully admits:

[B]ecause he [Trump] seems so unfiltered, he benefits from a perception that he is authentic in a way that other politicians are not, and because he infuriates elites, he enjoys a reputation for being on the side of the common person. Breaking those perceptions can determine whether his approval rating is above 50 percent or below 40 percent, and politically speaking, that is all the difference in the world.

The question, of course, is how.  Thus far Trump appeals to people who are utterly cynical about the system.  He has mastered a sort of political jiujitsu that allows him to turn all attacks against the attacker.  He has convinced his supporters that the worse his character is, the better, because he will deploy all those worst traits on their behalf.  If he is corrupt, he is no worse than anyone else, and besides, it shows he has mastered the system and knows how to use it for his supporters.  

Scandals will matter with Trump supporters only when they are convinced that he has hurt them in some more tangible way.  Remember:

When a president is popular, nothing sticks and nothing matters. When a president is unpopular, every stupid, random thing is a catastrophe they have to answer for.