Kleptocremainskakistocracy, deep state networks, and how these terms relate to perceptions of governance, like those expressed about Ethiopia today.
1.Understanding the Concepts
1.1. Kleptocracy
Kleptocracy comes from the Greek kleptēs (thief) and kratos (power or rule). It literally means “rule by thieves.”
In a kleptocracy, political leaders and their networks systematically use public office for personal enrichment. This form of government prioritises:
- Looting of public resources – diverting national wealth into private hands.
- Institutional capture – ensuring that courts, police, tax offices, and state companies are staffed by loyalists who enable or cover up corruption.
- State–business collusion – where political elites hold stakes in companies that benefit from state contracts and licenses.
Kleptocracy is not merely corruption on a small scale; it is structural. The entire political system is geared toward extraction rather than service delivery.
Common signs include:
- Sudden enrichment of officials after assuming office.
- State contracts are consistently awarded to politically connected individuals or companies.
- Public funds are disappearing with little to no accounting.
1.2. Kakistocracy
Kakistocracy combines the Greek kakistos (worst) with kratos (rule). It means “rule by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.”
While kleptocracy focuses on self-enrichment, kakistocracy emphasises incompetence. In a kakistocracy:
- Leaders lack the skills, education, or ethical foundation to govern effectively.
- Public appointments are based on loyalty, ethnicity, or personal loyalty rather than merit.
- Policy failures are frequent because decision-makers cannot understand or manage complex systems.
- Critical institutions—education, health, economy, and justice—deteriorate under poor leadership.
Kakistocracy often overlaps with kleptocracy: the worst leaders may be the most corrupt. However, a state can be incompetent without being systematically looted (or vice versa).
1.3. Deep State
The “deep state” refers to informal, hidden networks of power within a country that operate beyond the control of formal democratic or constitutional institutions.
While the term is sometimes used conspiratorially, in political science, it describes:
- Security and intelligence agencies, or parts of them, act independently of elected officials.
- Elite economic or political networks that manipulate policy outcomes regardless of official procedures.
- Military factions or foreign intelligence assets with long-term influence on state decisions.
The deep state is not necessarily a single conspiracy; rather, it can be a set of overlapping power centres:
- Influential generals with loyal armed units.
- Intelligence officers with compromising files on politicians.
- Business elites who fund and direct key ministries.
- Foreign governments leverage aid, loans, or covert operations to shape domestic politics.
2. How These Concepts Intersect in Practice
These three forms of governance failure often reinforce one another:
- A kleptocratic elite needs to remain in power to continue looting, so they fill government posts with loyal but often incompetent (kakistocratic) officials who will not challenge them.
- Incompetence leads to public discontent, so the elite depends on deep state security and intelligence networks to suppress dissent and control narratives.
- The profound state benefits from kleptocracy because it can siphon resources without oversight, and it benefits from kakistocracy because weak leaders are easier to manipulate.
This creates a self-sustaining system:
- Corruption drains public resources.
- Incompetence prevents effective governance.
- Hidden networks protect the corrupt and incompetent from accountability.
3. Why People Apply These Terms to Ethiopia
When people say Ethiopia today is run by kleptocracy, kakistocracy, and a deep state, they are expressing a perception that:
- The formal government institutions—parliament, ministries, courts—do not genuinely exercise power.
- Real decision-making happens in informal networks of security officials, ethnic-political elites, and business tycoons.
- Many leaders in public office are unqualified or indifferent to public welfare.
- Public resources—from state enterprises to foreign aid—are diverted into private accounts or used to reward political loyalty.
3.1. The Kleptocratic Dimension
Ethiopia’s political economy is highly centralised in terms of power but fragmented in terms of loyalty. In such a system:
- State-owned enterprises can be used as cash cows for ruling elites.
- Foreign investment contracts (mining, telecom, agriculture) may be negotiated secretly, with rents flowing to a few insiders.
- Aid and loans from international donors can be misused when monitoring is weak, often funnelled into patronage systems.
Historical precedents exist—from the imperial era through the Derg and into the EPRDF and Prosperity Party era—of elites enriching themselves while the public struggles.
3.2. The Kakistocratic Dimension
Kakistocracy manifests when:
- Political appointments are based on ethnic affiliation or personal loyalty rather than competence.
- Ministers and agency heads have little technical expertise in their areas.
- Critical institutions (health, education, infrastructure) are mismanaged, leading to crises despite available resources.
- Policies are reactive and short-term, driven by political survival rather than national development.
Incompetence often deepens ethnic and regional inequalities, fuels conflict, and erodes state legitimacy.
3.3. The Deep State Dimension
In Ethiopia, the concept of the “deep state” is linked to:
- Security and intelligence structures built up over decades that retain influence regardless of political transitions.
- Factions within the military and police with autonomous agendas.
- Networks of diaspora financiers, foreign lobbyists, and business elites who shape domestic politics from behind the scenes.
- Ethno-political militias aligned with parts of the security apparatus.
This perception is strengthened when:
- Key decisions are made without public debate.
- Military operations, security deals, or political settlements occur outside the formal legislative process.
- Governments change leaders, but policies and patterns of control remain the same.
4. Consequences for Governance and Society
When these three features combine:
- Erosion of Trust – Citizens stop believing in state institutions because they see them as tools of self-enrichment and repression.
- Weak Service Delivery – Education, health care, and infrastructure suffer because funds are diverted and leadership is inept.
- Entrenched Inequality – Wealth and power concentrate in the hands of a few, deepening divisions between ethnic, regional, and class groups.
- Cycle of Instability – Public frustration leads to protests or insurgencies; the deep state responds with repression, which fuels more resistance.
5. Breaking the Cycle
To move away from a system perceived as kleptocratic, kakistocratic, and deep state–controlled, several conditions must be met:
- Institutional Reform – Strengthening independent courts, audit bodies, and media.
- Merit-Based Appointments – Depoliticising the civil service and prioritising competence.
- Transparency and Accountability – Making public procurement and contracts open to scrutiny.
- Security Sector Reform – Ensuring the military and intelligence agencies are accountable to elected authorities.
- Civic Engagement – Empowering citizens to participate in governance beyond ethnic or partisan lines.
Conclusion
When Ethiopians or observers describe the current state as one of kleptocracy, kakistocracy, and deep state control, they are pointing to a pattern in which:
- Public power is used for private enrichment.
- Leadership quality is deliberately degraded to preserve control.
- Absolute authority lies in hidden networks rather than constitutional institutions.
These dynamics are not unique to Ethiopia—they have appeared in various forms in other countries experiencing governance crises. However, Ethiopia’s situation is intensified by its ethnic federal structure, history of a centralised security apparatus, and ongoing political instability. Understanding these terms helps clarify the critiques and points the way toward reforms that could restore legitimacy, competence, and transparency to governance.
PART I
Case Study: Ethiopia’s Political Evolution Through the Lens of Kleptocracy, Kakistocracy, and Deep State
1. Imperial Era (Haile Selassie, 1930–1974)
Kleptocratic Features
The imperial court and nobility maintained vast landholdings acquired through conquest and royal grants.
Land taxes and rents enriched the elite while peasants bore heavy burdens.
Public resources often funded royal patronage—lavish palaces, elite schools for the aristocracy, and ceremonial projects—while rural infrastructure lagged.
Kakistocratic Features
Ministerial positions were frequently assigned based on loyalty to the emperor rather than administrative skill.
Many provincial governors were appointed from the nobility with little local governance training, resulting in poor public service delivery.
Centralised decision-making slowed urgent reforms, including land redistribution.
Deep State Elements
The imperial security apparatus, especially the police and military intelligence units, acted to preserve the monarchy.
Political dissent was closely monitored, and influential provincial lords operated semi-autonomously, controlling local resources and security forces.
2. The Derg / Military Socialist Era (1974–1991)
Kleptocratic Features
Officially, the Derg pursued socialism, abolishing private land ownership. But in practice, the top military and party officials enjoyed privileged access to the state housing, vehicles, and goods.
Nationalised companies often served as personal revenue streams for senior officers.
Corruption flourished in the black-market networks controlled by politically connected figures.
Kakistocratic Features
Governance was dominated by military officers with little training in economics, education, or health policy.
Ideological purity outweighed competence, leading to disastrous economic and agricultural policies, including the poorly planned villagisation program.
Central planning was rigid, ignoring local needs and expertise
Deep State Elements
The security state became all-encompassing: military intelligence, state security (Kebur Zebegna), and local surveillance committees tightly controlled the population.
Decisions were concentrated within a small group around Mengistu Haile Mariam, with minimal transparency or institutional checks.
Factional rivalries inside the military leadership meant that key policies often reflected power struggles rather than public interest.
3. EPRDF Era (1991–2018)
Kleptocratic Features
The party–state fusion allowed the ruling TPLF/EPRDF to control lucrative state enterprises in telecom, construction, and agriculture.
Corruption scandals emerged around public works, sugar projects, and dam construction contracts.
Business elites tied to party structures benefited disproportionately from privatisation and foreign investment deals.
Kakistocratic Features
Ethnic loyalty and party discipline outweighed merit in appointments.
Regional leaders were sometimes chosen for political reliability rather than technical ability, leading to uneven governance capacity across federal states.
Policy debate within the ruling coalition was often staged rather than substantive, discouraging innovative governance.
Deep State Elements
The intelligence and security network, inherited from the Derg but modernised with surveillance technology, retained outsized influence over political life.
Military procurement and operations were often opaque, run by trusted insiders.
Even after leadership reshuffles, the same security and economic elite circles remained dominant behind the scenes.
4. Prosperity Party Era (2019–Present)
Kleptocratic Features
Reports of elite capture of state contracts and aid funds persist, now involving networks tied to new political factions.
Some regional administrations have been accused of diverting humanitarian supplies and public budgets to fund militias or enrich local officials.
State-owned enterprises continue to be leveraged for patronage and political financing.
Kakistocratic Features
Political appointments are often made to satisfy ethnic alliances rather than selecting the most capable administrators.
Critical ministries, including health, education, and infrastructure, have faced management crises due to inexperienced or politically beholden leadership.
Policy implementation is inconsistent, hampered by poor coordination between federal and regional levels.
Deep State Elements
The security sector remains a powerful political actor, with military, police, and intelligence services deeply involved in political decisions.
Informal networks—linking parts of the diaspora, military officers, and business elites—shape strategic policies without public debate.
Parallel power structures, including ethnic militias and politically connected business cartels, sometimes override official state authority.
Patterns Across the Eras
Looking at these four periods, some commentators stand out:
1. Continuity of Informal Power – Regardless of ideology (monarchist, socialist, federalist), Ethiopia’s political order has consistently featured hidden networks that shape governance outside formal institutions.
2. Resource Capture – State resources have often been treated as spoils for the ruling coalition, whether aristocrats, military officers, or party elites.
3. Weak Institutional Checks—Courts, legislatures, and the media have rarely been fully independent, allowing kleptocratic and deep state practices to flourish.
4. Meritocracy Undermined – Across eras, loyalty—whether to the emperor, the party, or an ethnic coalition—has outweighed competence in public appointments.
Implications for the Present
When Ethiopians today describe the government as kleptocratic, kakistocratic, and controlled by a deep state, they are drawing on this long history:
The kleptocracy label reflects the entrenched habit of resource diversion for elite benefit.
The kakistocracy label reflects decades of prioritising loyalty over skill in public service.
The deep state label reflects the persistence of hidden, informal networks that can outlast formal leadership changes.
These perceptions are not only about the last few years—they tap into a political legacy that spans the imperial court, revolutionary militarism, one-party dominance, and today’s fragile federal order.
PART III
Enemies of Good Governance and Democracy: Kleptocracy, Kakistocracy, and Deep State Networks
Good governance and democracy rest on transparency, accountability, merit-based leadership, and the supremacy of formal institutions over informal power. When these foundations are compromised, governance becomes significant and disconnected from the public interest. Three forces—kleptocracy, kakistocracy, and deep state networks—are particularly corrosive, and in countries like Ethiopia, their perceived presence has become a major obstacle to democratic progress.
Kleptocracy: Rule by Theft
Kleptocracy occurs when those in power use state institutions to enrich themselves and their networks rather than serve the public. It goes beyond petty corruption; it is a system in which resource extraction is the primary function of government. Public contracts, aid, and state-owned enterprises are diverted to benefit elites, leaving essential services underfunded and infrastructure neglected. In Ethiopia, perceptions of kleptocracy stem from allegations of elite capture of state resources, opaque foreign investment deals, and the diversion of humanitarian aid into patronage systems. Such practices erode public trust, distort economic priorities, and hollow out institutions based on the public interest.
Kakistocracy: Rule by the Worst
Kakistocracy describes governance by the least qualified or most unscrupulous leaders. It thrives when political appointments are made on the basis of loyalty, ethnic affiliation, or personal allegiance rather than competence and integrity. In Ethiopia’s current political climate, critics point to unqualified individuals holding senior positions in ministerial and regional administrations and public enterprises. This results in poor policy design, weak service delivery, and inability to manage crises effectively. Kakistocracy not only undermines efficiency—it normalizes mediocrity and erodes the principle that leadership should be earned through merit and capability.
Deep State Networks: Rule from the Shadows
The term “deep state” refers to entrenched, informal networks of power—often involving military, intelligence, and economic elites—that operate beyond the control of elected or constitutional bodies. In Ethiopia, perceptions of a deep state are linked to the continuing influence of security institutions, politically connected business cartels, and diaspora-linked financiers who can shape policy and security decisions without public scrutiny. These networks can bypass formal checks and balances, undermine civilian authority, and perpetuate elite interests regardless of who holds office. The deep state thrives in secrecy, making it exceptionally resistant to reform.
How They Interact to Undermine Democracy
When kleptocracy, kakistocracy, and deep state power overlap, they form a self-reinforcing system:
Kleptocracy requires protection from oversight, which deep state networks provide.
Deep state actors prefer weak, loyal leaders, which perpetuates kakistocracy.
Kakistocracy’s incompetence creates crises that kleptocrats and deep state operatives exploit to consolidate control.
The result is a vicious cycle where democratic institutions are hollowed out, public participation is reduced to ritual, and governance becomes a tool for elite survival rather than national development.
Breaking, depoliticising, and fronting these enemies of good governance requires:
Strengthening independent institutions, especially the judiciary and media.
Enforcing transparency in state contracts and public spending.
Depoliticizing the civil service and adopting merit-based appointments.
Reforming the security sector to ensure full civilian oversight.
Empowering civic movements to hold leaders accountable beyond ethnic or partisan lines.
Conclusion
Kleptocracy, kakistocracy, and deep state networks represent not just flaws in governance—they are systemic threats to democracy itself. In Ethiopia, their perceived influence explains much of the public’s disillusionment with formal politics. Unless these forces are dismantled through institutional reform and civic empowerment, Ethiopia’s path toward genuine democracy will remain blocked by the enemies within.
