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”.