The term deep state refers to influential and unofficial forces, groups, or individuals who operate behind the scenes. It includes actors within the military and security institutions, as well as government officials who are not necessarily in the front ranks of formal authority. This phenomenon exists in many countries around the world and has a long history.
The deep state affects public policy, often with the capacity to reshape governance and determine the state’s key internal and external strategies without open acknowledgment. This has occurred in many countries, including the United States, Turkey, Iran, and Egypt, among others in the region and globally.
In an exclusive interview with +963, legal advisor Hassan Al-Hariri spoke about the history of the deep state in Syria, its dangers, and its entrenchment within Arab states and the wider Middle East. He also reflected on the deep state’s relationship with political and democratic transition in the region.
Below is the full conversation.
What is the reality of the deep state in Syria, its history and its dangers?
If we look at the previous Syrian regime, there was indeed a deep state during the rule of Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar. There was no state in the true sense, nor constitutional institutions subject to the rule of law. Instead, a group of individuals dominated the state to the extent that it became, in practice, their private property.
This shows the danger of the situation: the collapse of a state that ought to have institutions subject to law, oversight, and accountability, but which in reality did not. This confirms the existence of a deep state in Syria prior to the uprising. The same applies to many other countries where a small group of powerful figures controls the destiny of the state; something we have witnessed in many examples worldwide over recent decades. In Syria, however, the people managed to challenge and eventually overthrow the regime through a revolution that began in 2011.
Read also: Remaking Syria’s Deep State: How Militias and Foreign Patrons Rewired the State
Is there a direct link between the deep state and the crisis of political and democratic transition in the region?
Undoubtedly. There is a close connection. The individuals who make up the deep state have no interest in democratic change or in the aspirations of the people for freedom, the rule of law, and a civil state.
When their interests clash with the goals of the people, the state is turned into a closed fiefdom, controlled by a small circle that defines national policies in line with its own private interests, not those of the wider population or the state itself.
Is the deep state confined only to authoritarian regimes?
Not necessarily. There are countries where groups of intellectuals and policy thinkers provide advice and guidance, backed by a wide horizon of political awareness. In such cases, they can play a positive role in the service of their nations.
This suggests that the deep state, in its ideal form, should not be seen only negatively. It can be understood in a positive sense, working in the public interest rather than for narrow personal or factional gain. Unfortunately, in most of the region it has taken the opposite course, functioning in destructive ways.
Are governments mere façades, with real power in the hands of secret networks of bureaucrats and soldiers?
Without doubt, especially where a deep state exists, as in many systems around the world, where it directs government officials from behind the scenes.
The international system itself often reproduces undemocratic structures. After the Second World War, the victorious powers created a global order to serve their own interests. The United Nations Security Council and its veto system, for example, have repeatedly been used to protect the interests of major powers, rather than to uphold the Council’s stated mission of maintaining global peace and security.
This is why we continue to see persistent conflict zones, particularly in the Middle East. Yet at the same time, we also observed attempts, such as under Donald Trump’s administration in the United States, to halt wars and limit conflicts, which raised hopes for greater global stability; the aspiration of all people.
How do you view the entrenchment of the deep state in Arab states and the Middle East?
The deep state is not unique to Arab regimes, which only emerged recently in the wake of the Sykes–Picot agreement. Before Arab states or Middle Eastern regimes, other countries had already experienced it, such as Britain and European states.
The concept of the deep state is therefore not an Arab invention; it predates the region. Its rise is closely linked to a society’s ability (or inability) to maintain democratic values and coexistence. Conversely, the deep state grows stronger in times of internal tension, whether economic, political, or social.
Is the deep state globally moving towards decline and disintegration?
That depends largely on the law. If laws are activated in line with constitutions and social contracts, then oversight mechanisms will exist over state institutions, whether administrative or financial. This would reduce the dominance of deep state networks over public life.
Without such checks, it becomes almost impossible to achieve political or democratic transformation, and regimes can endure for decades, as we have seen across the Arab World and the Middle East in particular.
That said, I do not believe the deep state will disappear entirely, not in the near future, nor even in the coming decades. The reason is the constant human struggle over wealth, influence, politics, trade, and economics, rivalries that only continue to intensify, both within states and between them.
