The concept of the deep state is one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international relations. It refers to informal networks of influence that operate behind the scenes and possess the ability to affect decision-making, whether through security and military institutions or through networks of economic and administrative interests.
The term deep state is often used to describe parallel powers to the official state or the known ruling systems. These powers control the trajectory of public policy and obstruct any change that does not serve their interests, using a variety of tools and methods over both the short and long term.
Historically, the concept of the deep state has been linked to authoritarian regimes, where it is embodied in the security and military apparatus that preserves the system’s survival and prevents political opposition. However, modern debates have broadened its application to include democratic systems as well, though in a different form, operating through lobbying groups, networks of interests, and bureaucracy.
Syrian writer and political activist Mouaffaq Nyrabia states that the deep state can exist in both democratic and authoritarian systems, though in different ways. Its essence, he argues, lies in being a hidden network that seeks to protect the prevailing order and ensure its effectiveness, relying on similar tools such as corruption, pressure, and control of information flow.
Speaking to +963, Nyrabia explains that the difference lies in the means. While in authoritarian systems the deep state may resort to arrests, direct threats, and the use of security forces, in democratic systems it exerts influence through more subtle mechanisms, such as shaping public opinion with refined and discreet methods.
He adds that electoral pressures constitute the central focus of deep state activities in democratic countries, whereas in authoritarian regimes these activities revolve around protecting the system and reinforcing the direct interests of ruling elites. This explains why the concept of the deep state has been historically tied to authoritarianism, even though networks of deep interests sometimes emerge within the institutions of democracies.
Read also: The Deep State in the Arab World: How Regimes Survive Revolutions
Tools of the Deep State
Nyrabia emphasizes that the most prominent tools of the deep state include corruption, various forms of pressure, and control of information reaching the public, in addition to exploiting interest networks, security services, and the threat of scandals. He notes that such networks may interfere in markets and economic policies to weaken elected authorities, and they often exploit crises to strengthen their position or weaken rivals.
He stresses that countering the influence of the deep state requires civil society, the media, and legitimate authorities to enhance transparency and accountability. This can be done through awareness campaigns and pressure to open government processes to oversight, along with strengthening parliamentary monitoring, creating independent anti-corruption committees, protecting media freedom, and supporting investigative journalism to expose abuses.
Mustafa Hani Idris, a member of the Ro’a Center for Political Studies and Research in Latakia, also highlights in an interview with +963 the dimensions of the deep state concept, its tools, the ways to confront it, and the fundamental differences between its existence in authoritarian and democratic systems.
Idris argues that the deep state exists in both systems but differs in nature and objectives. In authoritarian regimes, it is usually a clearly defined network dominated by military or security elements, with its main mission being to protect the regime’s authority and suppress opposition.
In democratic systems, however, it is less visible and more complex, taking the form of hidden interest networks such as senior bureaucrats or lobbying groups. These do not exercise direct power but influence policymaking from within, exploiting the complexities of democratic institutions, according to Idris.
He explains that the most prominent tools these networks use include control of information by managing the data provided to decision-makers and influencing the media to shape public opinion. They also infiltrate key institutions by placing loyal figures in sensitive and permanent positions such as the military, security services, and bureaucracy to ensure the advancement of their agendas.
He considers economic power one of the most important tools of the deep state, as funds and major corporations are employed to finance political campaigns or apply direct pressure on governments. In addition, laws are exploited by manipulating legal interpretations or obstructing legislation that threatens their interests.
As for confronting this phenomenon, Idris insists that the solution begins with enacting laws that enhance transparency and oblige governments to disclose information, while activating the role of oversight bodies. Equally vital is the presence of a free and strong press and the support of investigative journalism capable of exposing corruption and influence networks. He points out the crucial role of civil society in monitoring government performance and raising public awareness, as well as the necessity of having an independent and impartial judiciary able to hold all parties accountable without exception.
Read also: From Trauma to Illusion: Why Syrians Cling to ‘Saviours’
Roots and Experiences of the Deep State
The roots of the deep state can be traced back to the emergence of modern states in seventeenth-century Europe, when standing armies and security agencies began to expand and gradually gain independence from civilian authorities. The term, however, rose to prominence in the twentieth century, particularly with the Turkish experience after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, when the military became the guardian of Kemalist secularism and assumed the role of overseer of political life.
Turkey remains one of the clearest examples of the deep state phenomenon. Since the founding of the republic by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1923, the army played a decisive role in politics, considering itself the sole guarantor of secularism and national unity. The country witnessed a series of military coups in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997, in which the army ousted elected governments under the pretext of “protecting the republic.”
In Turkey, intelligence, security, and judicial institutions became tied to vast economic, financial, and media networks accused of political assassinations, election manipulation, and the elimination of opponents. Their influence only receded partially under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, particularly after the failed coup attempt of 2016, when he reasserted control over the military and security institutions.
In Egypt, the deep state took shape through an alliance between the military, bureaucracy, media, and security services. After the revolution of July 1952, the army entrenched itself as a central player in politics and the economy, extending its influence over production and services sectors until it established a vast economic empire beyond civilian oversight.
After the January 2011 revolution, the deep state sought to obstruct political change by dismantling opposition, using the judiciary and media to weaken revolutionary forces. The 2013 military coup reaffirmed the dominance of this network, turning security services, judiciary, and media into instruments for preserving the political system, while strengthening the army’s role in the economy and consolidating its grip on public life.
In the United States, discussions about the deep state have surfaced despite the country’s established democratic institutions. The debate intensified during Donald Trump’s presidency, when networks within the Department of Defense, intelligence agencies, and Wall Street institutions were seen as playing an indirect role in guiding policies, particularly in national security and foreign affairs.
In Russia, the deep state is represented by the extensive influence of intelligence agencies. Since the Soviet era, these agencies played a central role in safeguarding the system and controlling society. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, revived the deep state by consolidating an alliance between security services and businessmen tied to the Kremlin. This gave rise to the “security oligarchy” that dominates the economy, media, and politics while reinforcing the regime’s grip on society.
The deep state is also evident in countries such as Pakistan, Iran, and those of Latin America. In Pakistan, the army is the true power that controls politics, having toppled several civilian governments and monopolizing decision-making in foreign and security policy. In Iran, the Revolutionary Guard epitomizes the deep state, controlling vast economic sectors and wielding direct influence over politics, media, and judiciary. In Latin America, countries like Chile and Argentina endured harsh experiences with the deep state, when the military allied with economic elites to suppress opposition and committed severe human rights violations.
Looking at these varied experiences, one can identify some common features of the deep state phenomenon, such as the dominance of security and military apparatuses over state institutions, reliance on strong economic and media networks to safeguard their power, and the use of the judiciary to eliminate opponents and legitimize authority. These networks often intervene directly or indirectly in public policy under the pretext of preserving “stability.”
These experiences demonstrate that the deep state is not exclusive to authoritarian systems. It can also emerge in democratic systems, albeit in different forms and to varying degrees. Ultimately, it reveals the perpetual struggle between official authority and invisible networks that hold the real levers of power. While such networks may sometimes contribute to regime stability, they can just as easily become an obstacle to genuine democratic transformation or meaningful political reform.
