One by one, the great empires collapse.
Nobles who once drew power from tradition step down from their thrones.
The bourgeoisie, the organizers of labor, rise.
From Moscow to London, Istanbul to Paris, the footsteps of the modern state echo through the streets.
At the heart of this modern state lies the bureaucratic structure defined by Max Weber.
Unlike traditional governance models, the modern state is run by rationalized administrative bodies, a structured hierarchy, and professional managers bound by written rules.
Through wars, revolutions, and economic crises, this model became the global standard by the twentieth century.
Yet in the early years of the twenty-first century, the rise of international trade and intergovernmental cooperation raises a new question: "Are we moving beyond the modern state?"
The decades that followed suggest otherwise.
Today, figures like Javier Milei, Donald Trump, and their allies describe bureaucracy as a parasite clinging to the state.With slogans like "small government, big freedom," they tear at state mechanisms piece by piece. Can Weber’s model survive these attacks?
Is technology, especially artificial intelligence and big data, making bureaucracy obsolete, or are we simply hearing libertarian cries in the wind?
Was Weber Wrong?
Weber’s argument was clear.
The modern state rests on the existence of rational bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy is a systematic form of governance, independent of personal authority.The thinker from Erfurt argued that kings, dictators, and even charismatic leaders were transient, but bureaucracy would endure.
State officials, unlike feudal lords or the Ottoman timar system managers, had no private property rights over the resources they administered. For example, an Ottoman beylerbey who governed a province like Diyarbekir held wide administrative, military, financial, and judicial powers. It is true that the Ottoman Empire had a more centralized structure compared to Europe during the Middle Ages.Still, compared to a European counterpart, the authority of a Diyarbakır governor was relatively limited.
Yet if we compare the power of a beylerbey with a modern-day governor or mayor of Diyarbakır, the historical figure appears far stronger.
Naturally, different eras bring different needs.Technological and logistical advancements reshape governance and power dynamics over time.
In Europe's golden age, Weber emerged, loudly proclaiming that modern state leaders had become salaried officials, mere cogs ensuring the system’s continuity. Years passed.
Today, Weber’s Europe struggles to keep pace with China and the United States. In the West, figures like Trump and Milei wage war on bureaucracy, using technology as an ideological tool, framing it as the enemy. With neoliberal slogans, they promise to shrink the state.
The question remains:
Are Weber’s ideas about the state still valid?
Or are we stepping into a new era altogether?
Weber’s model emphasizes not only bureaucracy but also the state's monopoly on violence and the idea of rational, professional management. There is little debate about the state's monopoly on violence, it remains firmly in place. However, the meritocratic bureaucratic class is showing signs of erosion.
In Argentina, for instance, "gnocchis" state employees who exist only to collect salaries were widespread. One of Milei’s main election promises was to sweep away this inefficient class, and he has largely succeeded.
The question then becomes:
Who will fill the vacuum?
In the past, a reduction in civil servants might have weakened state capacity.
Today, however, much of bureaucracy’s machinery can be replaced by AI agents.Tasks that require no creativity and involve repetitive operations increasingly no longer need humans.
Yet this shift presents a new dilemma for states.As bureaucracy shrinks, internal networks of political patronage become more exposed. In the short term, ruling parties may strengthen their base by appointing loyalists to state positions. In the long term, the system risks becoming unsustainably heavy and inefficient.
Eventually, we witness the rise of interest groups surviving not through meaningful work but through political networks, living off the taxes of working citizens.
Imagine you are Milei or Trump.You have found a way to eliminate inefficient bureaucrats and enjoy popular support. What is your next move?
The real battle begins here.
Milei, Trump, Musk — all attempt to answer this question.
Whether their answers represent real solutions or mere noise remains to be seen.
Institutions, like the private sector, are not immune to technological change. Transformation is inevitable. The real issue is who benefits and who loses from this transformation.
Does the new system proposed by anti-bureaucracy leaders truly offer freedom?
Is Elon Musk fighting for American taxpayers, or is he preparing the ground for a new age where a few individuals hold unprecedented power?
Is Technology Destroying Bureaucracy?
Let us quickly review bureaucracy’s basic functions.
Tax collection? An AI model can now perform this task far more efficiently and accurately than any human officer. Law and judiciary? Most routine cases could theoretically be resolved by AI.Internal security? Big data and facial recognition technologies can work faster and more effectively than traditional police forces.
In theory, the core organs of the state no longer need to rely entirely on human bureaucrats.
To be clear, I am speaking about feasibility. Technologically, the cumbersome bureaucratic structures run by humans can be transformed by AI. However, implementing these changes raises serious ethical and political questions. Such decisions come with costs.
Savvy politicians must persuade the masses while quietly orchestrating this transformation.
From where I stand, I can envision only one likely future emerging from the alliance between cunning politicians and tech oligarchs. The traditional functions of the state are slowly fading under the shadow of technology giants. Power no longer stems from laws and bureaucracy but from corporations controlling data.
As public services are outsourced to private companies under the guise of "public-private partnerships," the state continues to exist formally, but sovereignty gradually shifts into the hands of a few oligarchs.
Infrastructure projects like the Pentagon’s JEDI program, built by Microsoft, are early signs.
Healthcare, education, security, and even justice are increasingly shaped by the private sector.
The state apparatus has always been controlled by elite groups, but in this new scenario, the state becomes dependent on powerful corporations.
A corporatocracy emerges, with democracy reduced to little more than a mask.
Yet this shift should not simply be read as authoritarianism or the collapse of the state.
The state remains a useful tool.
We are likely heading toward a hybrid system where the old and the new intertwine.
In this new structure, bureaucracy loses its classic Weberian hierarchy. It is replaced by algorithms, big data systems, and AI-assisted decision-making. The state no longer needs traditional clerks and officers. Instead, data managers, software engineers, and AI-driven decision systems take their place.
Citizens interact not with bureaucrats but with AI agents.Cities are managed through social credit systems. Legal processes are guided by predictive algorithms. Tax collection is optimized according to individual consumption habits. The state still exists, but it no longer has walls, offices, or pen-wielding clerks. It is replaced by a constantly running, observing, and deciding digital organism.
Technology does not destroy the state. It reshapes it into a new form — from an authoritarian past to a data-centered, flexible, yet perhaps far more intrusive administration.
Techno-Oligarchy: A New Version of the Old Oligarchy?
If classical oligarchy meant a handful of wealthy elites influencing political decisions, techno-oligarchy means a handful of tech leaders controlling state functions through data, algorithms, AI, and digital infrastructure.
As traditional state institutions weaken, who fills the void?
Figures like Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg now manage infrastructures that can rival traditional governance. Twitter (now X) replaces traditional media. Amazon’s cloud services dominate national IT infrastructures. Technology giants aggressively lobby to weaken data security regulations. This is not necessarily an evil plot. But it is a sophisticated and strategic game.
Is this a revolution or merely a transformation of capitalism?
From a Weberian perspective, bureaucracy’s collapse does not automatically transfer power to tech corporations. State legitimacy, rooted in law and public trust, does not vanish overnight.
However, as data management and public services fall increasingly under private control, technology companies will gain capacity to substitute parts of the public sector.
Bureaucracy and Societies
Regardless, the human-driven bureaucratic structure could never withstand the relentless advance of technology.
Even without populist leaders waging war on inefficiency, AI and automation would have swept away the old systems. Civil servant salaries would have dropped. The public sector would have lost its appeal.
I do not believe that technology will destroy bureaucracy completely. Rather, it will transform its appearance. The future likely belongs to a state where bloated human bureaucracy is replaced by algorithms and automated decision-making mechanisms.
As an optimist, I recognize the strong thread of determinism in my arguments.I intentionally embraced certain reductionist ideas for the sake of this reflection. As human beings, we have proven for generations that we exist not to keep up with machines but, in Sartre’s words, to transcend ourselves.
I believe the days are not far when we will need to debate not just how to manage technology, but how to remove the human-imposed limits on human potential itself.