The terms "deep state" and "parallel state" are part of the lexicon of contemporary political analysis and are often used in media discourse in an overlapping or loose manner. However, differentiating between them is necessary to understand the nature of power, how it is exercised, and where it is located inside or outside the state. Both concepts are related to the idea of a power beyond the formal form of the state, but the fundamental difference lies in the structure, location of influence, and mechanisms of action.
The concept of the "deep state" usually refers to a network of actors within formal state institutions-such as the security services, the upper bureaucracy, and some parts of the military or judiciary-that operate invisibly or semi-secretly to influence the course of political decision-making. These networks do not declare themselves as an independent entity, nor do they create alternative institutions, but rather exert their influence from within existing structures. The deep state, in this sense, is not another state, but rather a "class within the state" that maintains interests or balances it deems essential, and may resist the decisions of elected governments if they are perceived as threatening those interests.
Historically, the term has been associated with contexts that have seen conflicts between elected governments and entrenched security or bureaucratic apparatuses, where this "institutionalized depth" is accused of directing policies from behind the scenes. In some political discourses, especially populist ones, the term is sometimes used as an explanatory tool to rationalize political failure by blaming "hidden networks" that disrupt the popular will. This is where the concept becomes problematic: It can be an analytical characterization of a real phenomenon related to bureaucracy and power, or it can turn into an accusatory narrative that is difficult to verify.
On the other hand, the concept of "parallel state" is used to refer to an entity or organizational structure that operates outside formal institutions, but performs functions that resemble or compete with those of the state. A parallel state can be a political, security, or social organization with service networks, financial resources, and institutional discipline that creates a kind of "state within a state" or "alternative governance." The difference here is that the parallel state does not only operate by accessing state institutions, but may build its own institutions-educational, judicial, economic, or security-in parallel to official structures.
This structural difference is important: The deep state operates from within and derives its power from its positions in existing institutions, while the parallel state creates or operates relatively autonomous structures that may coexist with or clash with the official state. In some authoritarian contexts, the ruling authority may encourage the existence of parallel organs or organizations to strengthen its control, while in other contexts it may see these structures as a threat to its monopoly on legitimate violence.
The difference also manifests itself in the question of legitimacy. The deep state, by virtue of operating within institutions, is nominally based on the legitimacy of the state itself, but is accused of exceeding the limits of democratic authorization. A parallel state, on the other hand, may have no clear constitutional legitimacy and rely on organizational or ideological loyalty, or undeclared political support. Thus, the debate about the deep state often revolves around transparency and accountability within the existing system, while the debate about the parallel state is about the duplication of power and the threat to the state's monopoly on decision-making.
In terms of mechanisms of operation, the deep state relies on relatively "soft" tools: Controlling information, influencing investigations, slowing down the implementation of decisions, or favoring certain options through bureaucratic expertise. Its strength lies in experience and continuity, as the apparatus remains while governments change. The parallel state relies on building alternative networks, whether through disciplined party organizations or groups with economic and social reach, which gives it the ability to mobilize resources outside official channels.
In practice, however, the two concepts may overlap. A network may start as a parallel movement outside the state and then infiltrate its institutions to become a deep structure. Or conversely, organs within the state may be accused of operating as a "parallel state" because of their degree of de facto independence from political oversight. It is this overlap that makes the two concepts susceptible to confusion in public discourse.
Finally, the importance of distinguishing between the two terms lies in avoiding simplification. The deep state is not necessarily an all-encompassing conspiracy, but may reflect the complexity of modern governance and the balance of power within institutions. The parallel state is not always a fully secretive entity, but may be an overt organizational structure that competes with the state in its functions. In essence, the difference between them is the difference between a hidden influence operating from within the state and a parallel structure operating alongside or in opposition to it.
Understanding this difference not only helps in analyzing political crises, but also in reading the nature of power itself: Is the defect in the depth of the institutions, or in the existence of alternative institutions that challenge the state's role? This is where the real analysis begins.
Comments