The Parallel State: An Enemy with the Flavor of a Friend

In a world where security and political challenges are increasing, the threats facing states are not limited to external enemies or economic crises. The greatest danger may lie in the emergence of what is known as the “parallel state”: a system of institutions, groups, or centers of influence that operate outside the constitutional and legal framework, while retaining security, military, financial, or political capabilities independent of the official institutions of the state.

The Explosive Mask of Legitimacy

The phenomenon of the parallel state often begins under slogans that appear legitimate, such as protecting national security, confronting exceptional threats, or filling a temporary vacuum that governments are unable to address. Over time, however, these entities turn into centers of power with broad influence, becoming capable of affecting sovereign decisions and perhaps even imposing their will on elected or legitimate governments.

The danger of the parallel state lies in the fact that it creates a duality of authority. Instead of one leadership governed by the constitution and the law, two authorities emerge: an official authority that bears responsibility before the citizens, and an unofficial authority that possesses the tools of power without being subject to accountability or oversight.

Reluctant Coexistence

In many cases, the official state may coexist with these entities for years, whether out of necessity, political balances, or the weakness of institutions. Yet this coexistence remains fragile, because the relationship between the two sides is usually based on overlapping interests, not on an absolute commitment to the sovereignty of the state.

When the interests of the state clash with the interests of those parallel forces, the disagreement turns into a struggle for influence. The parallel state may use its security, political, or economic power to obstruct state institutions, influence their decisions, or pressure the executive, legislative, and judicial authorities. In the worst-case scenario, it may become a direct adversary of the very state that once tolerated or embraced its existence.

A Terrifying Octopus-Like Threat

The impact of the parallel state is not limited to the security sphere. It extends to the economy, investment, the judiciary, and public administration. Local and foreign investors seek a state governed by one institution, one law, and one decision-making authority. Dual authority, by contrast, undermines confidence, increases risks, drives capital away, and obstructs development.

The continued existence of security, military, or intelligence institutions outside the official chain of command weakens the prestige of the state and undermines its legitimate monopoly over the use of force, one of the most important foundations of the modern state.

Experiences That Must Be Heeded

Many experiences around the world have proven that the most stable states are not necessarily those with the largest armies or the most powerful security agencies, but those that ensure all instruments of power are subject to one constitutional authority and that the law is applied to everyone without exception.

This does not mean excluding social, political, or security forces that played national roles under exceptional circumstances. Rather, the success of any state lies in its ability to integrate all energies within official institutions, so that loyalty is directed toward the constitution and the state, not toward individuals, organizations, or private interests.

The Challenge of Building a Strong State

Building a strong state begins with consolidating a simple but fundamental principle: no authority stands above the authority of the law, no force competes with the force of the state, and no sovereign decision is issued outside constitutional institutions.

The existence of one state with unified institutions is not merely a political option. It is an essential condition for stability, the protection of sovereignty, and the safeguarding of future generations.

In the end, history proves that states do not always collapse because of foreign invasion. They may weaken gradually when centers of decision-making multiply within them and when power is shared by actors that are not subject to accountability. At that point, the real danger comes from within, as the parallel state transforms from a temporary partner into a permanent competitor, and then into the greatest challenge to the survival of the state itself.