Better to neutralise ‘deep state’ power than simply to balance it

Eddie Hobbs’ exposé of the ‘deep state’ (March 18) missed the point in three significant ways.

Firstly, his definition of the deep state is too broad to be useful or true — it includes, he says, “unelected government bureaucrats, bank executives, public trade union brass, top accountancy firms, multinational corporations, Ibec, agencies like RTÉ, regulators and quangos”.

But for a deep state to function, the circle needs to be much tighter than that, yet would also include politicians, judges, and senior soldiers and policemen/women (none of whom Hobbs thinks to include).

Secondly, Hobbs suggests that the purpose of the deep state is in controlling “decision-making, upholding the status quo, and protecting their own interests at the expense of the general public, social progress, and the effective functioning of democracy”.

But some of those he identifies as comprising the deep state have interests that are, in the main, in opposition to one another — eg Ibec and trade union officials.

Hobbs, I think, fails to recognise that the deep state is very clear about its interests — the preservation and control of capitalism in the interests of a small minority — and its membership could not possibly include individuals and groupings who in any way might threaten this.

Finally, Hobbs asserts that “The answer to balancing Deep State power is deep access, transparency, and accountability. Government in the sunshine, led by a fully modernised public sector energised by fresh leaders running teams driven by performance”.

This managerial solution is to miss the point about the deep state. Its members would not be in the least bit troubled by a “fully modernised public sector” or “fresh leaders running teams driven by performance”.

No doubt they’d welcome it. What the deep state will never countenance is a deepening of democracy to the point where power is captured from the elites, widely diffused and exercised in a genuine spirit of egalitarianism.

Hobbs writes of the need to “balance” deep-state power. I’d argue that it would be far more ambitious to seek to neutralise it.

Dominic Carroll

Ardfield

Clonakilty

Co Cork