Introduction
This article analyzes contemporary mechanisms of power consolidation through the lens of the predator's hour concept and the strategy of manual override. The text examines how new leaders replace political pluralism with legitimacy based on measurable results (output legitimacy).
The reader will discover why abrupt changes in Saudi Arabia and El Salvador lead societies to accept the erosion of the rule of law in exchange for security or modernization. The analysis reveals the paradox of authoritarian modernization, where social liberalization coexists with a drastic centralization of power.
Saudi Arabia as a Model of Parallel Modernization and Centralization
The rule of Mohammed bin Salman illustrates manual override through the abrupt stripping of influence from established elites. The leader employs shock tactics to force all observers into a new calculation regarding the costs of disobedience.
A prime example is the operation at the Ritz-Carlton hotel, which served as a strategic dismantling of interest groups. This allows the center to implement economic and social reforms—such as increasing women's workforce participation—without fear of resistance from internal factions.
In this context, modernization becomes a substitute for political participation. The state offers modern infrastructure and entertainment in exchange for citizens relinquishing control over governance.
Anti-Corruption as a Tool for Elite Reconfiguration and Power Centralization
The 2017 Saudi anti-corruption campaign was not merely a fight against abuse, but a tool for elite circulation. It enabled the rapid redistribution of wealth and weakened autonomous centers of power within the dynasty.
This mechanism facilitated the transition from a collegial model of governance to a highly personalized center. The leader leveraged the asymmetry of power to neutralize competitors before they could coordinate their actions.
Modern regimes are extending this control beyond national borders. The assassination of Jamal Khashoggi illustrates the phenomenon of transnational repression, where emigration ceases to be a safe escape strategy for the elites.
Strategic Fragmentation of Elites as a Prerequisite for Modernization
Authoritarian leaders combine total control with reform, employing technocratic management instead of pluralism. In El Salvador, Nayib Bukele utilizes output legitimacy, offering a drastic reduction in homicides at the cost of suspending due process guarantees.
The mass incapacitation of gang members dismantled their structures, which for many citizens is more valuable than abstract legal procedures. Success in the realm of security creates a halo effect, facilitating the dismantling of constitutional constraints.
These systems reduce coordination costs but increase decision-making risks. The lack of independent feedback (Voice) means that errors made by the center can be catastrophic and difficult to correct.
Summary
The Borgian model is based on replacing institutional safeguards with the personal agency of the leader. Effectiveness in one domain, such as security or the economy, becomes a tool for legitimizing authoritarianism.
The question remains whether modernity purchased at the cost of eroding procedures provides a sustainable foundation for a state. There is a risk that the law will cease to be a shield for the citizen and become merely an efficient tool in the hands of an assertive center.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do the rule of Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia illustrate the concept of manual override and shock policy?
The rule of Mohammed bin Salman illustrates the concept of manual override through the sudden cutting off of previous elites from influence and the centralization of decision-making processes, as exemplified by the events at the Ritz-Carlton hotel. These actions were intended to create a demonstrative political fact, permanently altering the expectations of the ruling class.
How did the 2017 Saudi anti-corruption campaign affect the power structure in the state?
The campaign led to a rapid reconfiguration of the oligarchy, weakening autonomous centers of wealth and military power in favor of a new hierarchy centered around the crown prince. As a result, the previous, more collegial power arrangement was changed, drastically reducing the autonomy of many former decision-making centers.
How can an authoritarian leader take full control over a state while simultaneously implementing effective economic reforms?
An authoritarian leader can seize control through rapid centralization of power and by surprising the elites, which breaks their solidarity and forces conformity. At the same time, they can implement effective economic reforms because political centralization can coexist with economic liberalization, social modernization, and increased administrative efficiency of the state.
How can economic and social modernization be used to maintain power in a non-democratic system?
Yes, social modernization can serve to maintain power in a non-democratic system by acting as a substitute for political participation. By offering mobility, employment, and better public services, the authoritarian social contract encourages citizens to forgo control over the government.
What are the main risks associated with excessive centralization of power, and how do leaders exploit the asymmetry of power relative to other elites?
The main risk of excessive centralization is the limitation of the quality of feedback and the suppression of dissent, which makes it difficult to autocorrect erroneous decisions. Leaders exploit the asymmetry of power over other elites by manipulating financial, political, and personal dependencies to force a change in their behavior.
How does the case of Jamal Khashoggi's murder illustrate the evolution of methods used by modern authoritarian regimes to control citizens?
The case of Jamal Khashoggi illustrates the phenomenon of transnational repression, in which authoritarian regimes use surveillance technologies and security apparatuses to control citizens outside their own country's borders. Such actions undermine the traditional function of emigration as an escape strategy, extending the cost of disobedience to dissidents living abroad.
How do shock policy and technocratic management allow for the consolidation of power without the need to maintain pluralism?
Shock policy forces a change in citizens' calculations and creates a chilling effect, causing people to restrict their own behavior out of fear of risk. Meanwhile, technocratic management allows political pluralism as a source of information to be replaced by measurements, data analysis, and behavioral monitoring.
Does an authoritarian system of government automatically translate into greater economic efficiency than a democratic system?
No, an authoritarian system of government does not automatically translate into greater economic efficiency, as outcomes in such regimes are highly varied. Although autocracies can implement reforms faster due to fewer veto points, this comes with higher decision-making risk and a limited ability to challenge the decisions of the center.
Must social and economic liberalization in authoritarian systems lead to democratization?
No, social and economic liberalization does not have to lead to democratization. Social emancipation can coexist with political centralization, and modern systems can combine a digital economy and consumerist modernity with technocratic management and a lack of political pluralism.
How does the case of Nayib Bukele in El Salvador illustrate the conflict between state effectiveness in providing security and adherence to human rights and legal procedures?
Nayib Bukele's policies have led to a spectacular drop in homicides and gang violence, serving as an example of a state effective in ensuring security. However, this occurred at the cost of suspending procedural guarantees, introducing a prolonged state of emergency, and mass detentions involving arbitrary arrests and the mistreatment of prisoners.
Why might a real improvement in security be more important to citizens than adherence to rule-of-law procedures?
A real improvement in security is crucial because the absence of this good paralyzes almost all other freedoms and prevents the practical exercise of formally held rights. Restoring security increases the actual capabilities of citizens, making the system's legitimacy through results potentially more important than abstract procedural disputes.
How has the prolonged state of emergency in El Salvador affected the structure of gangs and the functioning of the state?
The prolonged state of emergency has led to the integration of extraordinary instruments into the permanent functioning of the state. In the area of security, mass incapacitation was applied—the physical removal of a vast number of gang members—which caused the collapse of their organizational infrastructure and the fragmentation of networks, significantly limiting the ability of groups such as MS-13 and Barrio 18 to return to their previous scale of activity.
Why are legal procedures and the presumption of innocence important if mass arrests yield rapid results in the fight against crime?
Legal procedures and the presumption of innocence serve as a mechanism for controlling state error, reducing the number of innocently detained persons (so-called false positives). They ensure procedural justice, which builds the legitimacy of government bodies and increases voluntary compliance with the law by citizens.
How does the imagery of prisons and anti-gang operations in El Salvador serve to build Nayib Bukele's power?
Images of prisons and anti-gang operations serve as a media spectacle intended to deter potential criminals and demonstrate the state's agency. By consciously designing policy in a visual manner, Nayib Bukele builds his charismatic authority, presenting himself as the personal guarantor of security.
How does success in one area (e.g., security) allow a leader to change the constitutional rules of a state?
Success in one area, such as security, becomes legitimizing capital and triggers the so-called halo effect, causing the positive assessment of the leader to extend to unrelated areas. Consequently, efficiency in one domain serves as an argument for unlimited trust in the leader, paving the way for reforming electoral law, the judiciary, or administration.
Why do citizens often prioritize rapid governance results over constitutional and procedural guarantees?
Citizens prioritize rapid results over constitutional guarantees because the benefits derived from them are tangible and immediately visible, whereas the costs of institutional erosion only reveal themselves in the future. This mechanism stems from the discounting of the future, where the present sense of security outweighs the abstract risk of later abuses.
Does effectiveness in restoring security justify a permanent departure from democratic procedures, and is this mechanism universal?
Effectiveness in restoring security does not necessarily justify a permanent departure from procedures, as it is possible to transition from extraordinary measures back to the normal justice system. However, if effectiveness becomes the sole criterion for legality, the state shifts from the principle of the rule of law to ruling by law. This mechanism is not universal across every system, which necessitates verifying whether similar processes occur in different constitutional structures.
