I’m in the process of reading Francis Fukuyama’s The Origins of Political Order, which I highly recommend. One recurring theme in the book is the process of repatrimonialization, which is both a cause, and a symptom, of political decay: the power of the central state is weakened or disappears entirely, and merit-based bureaucracy is replaced by local authority based on kinship groups.
For example, in the chapters on Chinese history, he describes a a cycle in which an imperial dynasty will rise by weakening/overcoming the power of large landholding families; conversely, when the dynasty falls, the power of the large landholders comes creeping back like an invasive species. And this process repeats itself over and over for millennia.
The same phenomena of repatrimonialization can be see in the history of India, the Ottoman empire, the Muslim empires, and various European states as well as Latin America. The only places where it’s not present are places like Hungary and Russia which remained patrimonial throughout their entire pre-modern history - in those countries, instead of the usual Western arrangement in which the King and the Commons were allied in opposition to the Aristocracy, instead the upper classes were unified in the effort to keep the peasants in bondage.
The question is whether this has ever been depicted in fiction. Sure, there are many stories about fallen galactic empires, but are there any stories showing how an impersonal government gives way to a kinship-based political order?
I thought I would follow up with some further examples from the Fukuyama book.
The Ottoman empire relied on a conscript military force of mamelukes, which were male slaves taken forcibly from their families at an early age and trained in the arts of war. These slaves had to be Christian, since by the Koran no Muslim could be enslaved. The mamelukes were a highly effective fighting force, and many of them rose to great prominence and wealth, second only in power and position to the Sultan himself.
The Sultans well understood the risks entailed by the growth of powerful inherited lineages which would compete with them for influence, so by law the mamelukes were not permitted to pass their wealth or position to their descendants. However, as time went by, various ways were found of gaming the system, e.g. wealthy mamelukes would establish mosques or schools, provide them with a generous financial endowment, and appoint their sons as administrators of the institution. As a result of such workarounds, patrimonialism was gradually re-introduced.
What I learned from reading the book (which I can’t recommend highly enough) is that the human instinct to pass power and wealth to one’s descendants, and to put relatives in positions of trust, is an extremely powerful one; but it’s also one that leads to corruption and incompetent government (at least, as compared to other kinds of government). Thus, the battle against nepotism and corruption is never completely won as long as we remain human.
Different societies have tackled the problem of nepotism and patrimonialism in different ways, but the need to do so is universal. For example, in Imperial China, positions in the imperial bureaucracy were theoretically open to anyone who had passed the entrance exams; however this policy was only in effect during periods where there was a strong emperor and a central state. In-between dynasties, power was held by local warlords, landowners, and their close relatives.
To visualize what this looks like in modern times, think “the Mafia”.
Could you define: repatrimonialization please? I can make an assumption, but can find this word nowhere.
Based on everything else you’ve said:
Foundation - Asimov
Herbert - Dune does this in a multitude of ways. The implied history of human culture up to this point in the book. The society et al we currently encounter. And the legacy to come pointed to in Chapterhouse Dune.
Riverworld - Farmer, does this in a way. Granted these people are plucked and placed there but they revert to a base feudal society.
Worthing Chronical - Card. From an extremely advanced POV a feudal system evolves from the tech evolving.
I think the cluster/survival instinct is inherent in the base code of evolution on this planet. No organism exists as a singularity and cannot evolve or sustain if it so chooses. Whether you pass power down as wealth, goods, sexual prowess/breeding stock, politics, intelligence, or just the good hunting ground you discovered, or the rich loam of particular field, I cannot think of an example of any flora or fauna that does not do this. I may be simplifying it, but that clustering to survive to me is simply inherent to life on Earth. Stretch it a bit and it’s inherent with the structures of molecules with Weak Nuclear Force.
The word appears to have been coined by Fukuyama, as a Google search on the term only produces links to his books.
Fukuyama uses the word “patrimonialized” to mean a society in which positions of authority within a state are assigned based on kinship relation, rather than talent, skill, knowledge, hard work, or even wealth. He gives numerous examples of strong, central leaders trying to curtail the power of aristocratic patrimony (because it rivaled their own power), only to have it come creeping back whenever the central power diminished.
talin didn’t draw a line from his inquiry to current events, and I don’t aim to ignite political threads at TASAT, but since there’s some discussion of the origin of “repatrimonialization”, I’ll cautiously share a couple of timely articles referencing “patrimonialism”…
Last year, two professors published a book that deserves wide attention. In The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future, Stephen E. Hanson, a government professor at the College of William & Mary, and Jeffrey S. Kopstein, a political scientist at UC Irvine, resurface a mostly forgotten term whose lineage dates back to Max Weber, the German sociologist best known for his seminal book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism .
Patrimonialism is less a form of government than a style of governing. It is not defined by institutions or rules; rather, it can infect all forms of government by replacing impersonal, formal lines of authority with personalized, informal ones. Based on individual loyalty and connections, and on rewarding friends and punishing enemies (real or perceived), it can be found not just in states but also among tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations.
Source article 1 (warning: US politics)
One Word Describes Trump A century ago, a German sociologist explained precisely how the president thinks about the world.
Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic (archive link), 2025-02-24:
…patrimonialism has two inherent weaknesses that make it vulnerable: incompetence and corruption. Once you chase out all the people who know how to make things run (bureaucrats) and allow corruption to supercede the needs of the people it breaks down.
Source article 2 (warning: US politics)
How much corruption can MAGA stomach? Trump and Musk test the limit Autocracy? Oligarchy? Kakistocracy? No, Trump’s Mad King behavior is a hallmark of patrimonialism
– Heather Digby Parton cites Rauch’s article in Salon, 2025-03-14