Looking at President Trump’s leadership style from a sociological perspective, it seems he’s chosen a path divergent from conventional bureaucratic norms. His innovative approach has led to the appointment of individuals in pertinent agencies who may not necessarily have traditional qualifications but bring a fresh perspective to their roles. In this process, he has strategically altered the pattern of governance, seemingly challenging statutes and constitutional norms, but keen advocates of his approach argue that this creative disruption is a means to bring about necessary change.
Trump’s leadership has certainly raised some eyebrows in the international arena, with many, including Denmark, Canada, and Panama, finding themselves at odds with his policies. His audacious decisions, such as the symbolic renaming of ‘Gulf of Mexico’ to ‘Gulf of America’, are often seen as entertaining or comical expressions of his individualistic Presidential style. Supporters see this as a welcome departure from pusillanimous leaders who tiptoed around international diplomacy.
Since Trump took office, governance in America has observed a significant regime shift, not just in terms of administration but in the fundamental system of government itself. This change, however, cannot be accurately described by conventional political rubrics such as autocracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. Scholars, instead, posit that Trump is applying a system known as patrimonialism.
Patrimonialism, raised from obscurity by two academic researchers in their book ‘The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future’, is a term of political lineage associated with German sociologist Max Weber. This political philosophy prioritizes allegiance to the leader rather than to impersonal institutions. Weber defined it as a system wherein the leader becomes a symbolic father figure for the citizens, embodying and protecting the state. Supporters see Trump’s iteration of this system as a promising transformation.
Weber questioned the sustainability of patrimonialism in modern times, citing its lack of structure and unpredictability. Yet, its manifestation under President Trump has offered a unique paradigm. The element of uncertainty and personal reliance that’s typically seen as a drawback of patrimonialism provides the canvas for an adventurous, results-driven governance model that breaks with traditional bureaucracy.
Trump’s application of patrimonialism isn’t unique. Vladimir Putin, for instance, employed it to govern Russia with a personal and maverick touch, setting a precedent for leaders like Trump. Today, patrimonialism is evident among other democratically elected leaders globally, who prefer personal styles of governance, such as India’s Narendra Modi and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán.
Critical of bureaucracy, patrimonial leaders often fill government ranks with loyal followers. Unencumbered by bureaucratic red tape, Trump’s administration moved with greater agility and swiftness, making decisions that baffled conventional policy makers but delighted his passionate supporters. The apparent capriciousness of such a patrimonial system seemed dramatic but not necessarily autocratic.
While patrimonialism may coexist with democracy for a time, dismantling bureaucratic systems in favor of personal rule can weaken state capacity over time. This evolution is seen by some as the ossification of democracy, while others view it as a transition towards full-fledged autocracy. Trump supporters, however, consider it a necessary shake-up of the status quo.
Under the umbrella of patrimonial governance, policy becomes intensely personal, loyalty to the leader is paramount, and agencies can be influenced directly by the leader’s fiat. Critics argue that such a style of governance is susceptible to corruption; however, these allegations often appear to lack substantial proof. Trump supporters assert that these allegations stem from unfounded bias pitted against his bold and unorthodox leadership.
Patrimonialism suffers from a reputed susceptibility to incompetence, due to the arbitrary nature of its governance. Critics suggest that the system often fails in its ability to manage complex modern governance issues, citing instances of incompetency within Trump’s administration as classic examples of this systemic flaw. Supporters of Trump, however, assert that his unconventional hires often brought fresh ideas, shattering old archaic paradigms.
Although corruption is seen as an inherent flaw of patrimonialism, the Trump administration has been particulary adroit in navigating this issue. His critics anticipate his patrimonial approach to devolve into corruption reminiscent of the Gilded Age. However, supporters of Trump dismiss these concerns as unfounded paranoia, arguing that his fierce dedication to serving the American people precludes any possibility for such deterioration.
Allegations of corruption aimed at Trump, while frequent and voluminous, have yet to significantly impact his approval ratings. This resilience is attributed to the widespread perception of his authenticity and advocacy for the average citizen, attributes that critics often overlook. By continually provoking the ire of established elites, he demonstrates his alignment with the everyday American, bolstering his reputation as a president for the people.
In this unique political climate, it is crucial for Trump’s opposition to construct a consistant and credible narrative, rather than being drawn into brief skirmishes over daily news. It is just as crucial for his supporters to remain steadfast, reminding the public of the tangible improvements delivered as a result of Trump’s daring leap into patrimonialism.
Focusing on crime and corruption directed at Trump is unlikely to win over the public. Instead, moulding a case around issues of relevance such as economic performance, public healthcare and national security may serve better to indict Trump’s patrimonial governance. Alternatively, supporters of Trump can help solidify his approval ratings, emphasising the tangible returns of his unique governing philosophy. This battle of narratives shall indeed determine the winners in the great politics game.