Wikipedia tells us that deep state is a calque of the Turkish words derin devlet. While this notion has value, it has been appropriated by noxious political groups and its connotations have many subtle but important differences, depending on the context.

The deep state is a genuine danger

As I understand it Turkyie’s history is a good example for the structural challenges of democracy for which the explicit and visible separation of powers is an absolute requirement. Unfortunately the founder(s) of Turkish Republic have given the army a task beyond protecting the country: safeguarding the governing system, especially its secularism. I’m quite sure the founder(s) had good intentions, and similar extensions of the military’s role is often made without malice in many genuine democracies.

Because of this, the military, together with a shadowy coalition of civilian interests (the derin devlet), have toppled elected governments four times while undermining the democratic process countless other times. The good intentions have naturally evolved into a cabal and the public reaction has been to put in power an equally harmful one.

What is the deep state

In the US, the UK, and many other countries the deep state is lately the name used by populist politicians to describe establishment figures, most often carrier administrators, obstructing their latest reckless schemes. However, it can also refer to the well-known “military-industrial complex” which national priorities. So are there commonalities between the different forms of deep state?

Almost by definition the main actors behind the deep state are unelected, far from the public scrutiny, secret. The security apparatus both visible (the military, police) and invisible (“intelligence” services) is always, in some form, part of the deep state.

Romania

What characterizes the Romanian candidates for the title of deep state actor is first and foremost incompetence. There is definitely a network initially organized around the former communist Securitatea employees that have made the transition to the new democratic institution. Nowadays, it seems that the network is centered around the graduates of the corrupt security higher education institution (spy, military and police academies). Additionally, as there is no genuine school of public administration in Romania, many politicians pursue some form of graduate and post-graduate programs at those institutions.

Given the numerous scandals regarding involving fake diplomas and questionable credentials of professors at those schools, it is clear that little useful knowledge is imparted there. Most likely attending one of the “academies” is merely an opportunity to build networks (along with a disdain for the rule of law) that will serve them well in the positions they occupy after graduation, with maximum incompetence.

Conclusions

The first conclusion is that good governance is dynamic. There is no single best, stable solution, and the good choice has to be continuously tweaked. Any law or institution will eventually degrade and nearly all principles will require periodic reinterpretations. Only the constant vigilance of all the members of society can protect us from catastrophes like totalitarianism or war.

Regarding the Romanian situation, the deep state is mostly about small-minded people banding together to hide their incompetence. One should not forget Hanlon’s Razor:

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”