Absolutism Reimagined: ‘L’État, C’est Moi’ in Modern Global Politics

Adediran Babajide, President/CEO
Carlsron Initiative for Peace and Human Rights (CIPEHR)

 

 

 

Keywords: Absolutism; Personalized Power; Sovereignty; Global Governance; Rule of Law; Authoritarianism

 

Abstract

The phrase L’État, c’est moi symbolizes the personalization of political power and the fusion of state authority with individual rule. While historically associated with absolutist monarchies, its underlying logic has re-emerged in modern global politics in new and complex forms. This article argues that contemporary expressions of personalized power represent a reimagining rather than a simple return of absolutism. Drawing on political theory, constitutionalism, and global governance perspectives, the study examines how leader-centric rule undermines institutions, accountability, and the rule of law within modern political systems. It further explores the domestic and international consequences of personalized authority. The article concludes that the persistence of this governance model poses significant risks to democratic order, multilateral cooperation, and global stability in the modern international system.

 

1. Introduction: The Return of Personal Rule

L’État, c’est moi—“I am the state”—is commonly attributed to Louis XIV of France and has long symbolized absolutist rule, where sovereignty resides in the person of the ruler rather than in institutions. Traditionally treated as a relic of pre-modern governance, this logic has resurfaced in contemporary politics across diverse political systems. Today, political leaders increasingly present themselves as the embodiment of national will, marginalizing institutions, weakening checks and balances, and personalizing state authority.

This article argues that contemporary manifestations of personalized rule constitute a reimagined form of absolutism, adapted to modern constitutional, electoral, and international environments. Unlike classical absolutism, modern personalized power often coexists with constitutions, elections, and formal democratic institutions, while hollowing them out in practice. The result is not the absence of institutions, but their subordination to individual authority.

By combining political theory and policy analysis, this article examines how the logic of L’État, c’est moi operates in global politics today and why it poses profound challenges to governance, democracy, and international cooperation.

 

2. Absolutism as a Political Concept: From Monarchs to Modern Leaders

Classical absolutism emerged in early modern Europe as a response to fragmented authority, religious conflict, and weak state structures. Thinkers such as Jean Bodin conceptualized sovereignty as indivisible and supreme, vested in the ruler to ensure order and stability (Bodin, 1992). The absolutist state centralized power, subordinated law to sovereign will, and treated political authority as personal rather than institutional.

Modern political thought, however, sought to dismantle this model. Constitutionalism, separation of powers, and the rule of law were designed precisely to prevent the fusion of ruler and state. Sovereignty was redefined as residing in the people, exercised through institutions rather than individuals (Weber, 1978).

Yet absolutism did not disappear; it evolved. In contemporary politics, personalized power often emerges not through hereditary monarchy but through charismatic leadership, populist legitimacy, or security-based exceptionalism. The ruler no longer claims divine right but asserts exclusive representation of “the people,” thereby reviving the absolutist logic in a new ideological form.

 

3. Personalized Power and the Erosion of Institutions

One of the defining features of modern L’État, c’est moi politics is the gradual erosion of institutional autonomy. Executives dominate legislatures, courts are politicized, and independent agencies are brought under direct political control. Formal institutions remain in place, but their function is reduced to legitimizing decisions already made by the leader (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018).

This process is often incremental. Emergency powers, national security threats, or economic crises are used to justify executive expansion. Over time, governance becomes increasingly centralized, and political loyalty replaces institutional competence. The state is no longer governed through impersonal rules but through personal discretion.

Such systems blur the distinction between public office and personal authority. State resources, security apparatuses, and legal mechanisms are deployed to protect the ruler’s position rather than the public interest. This institutional decay weakens accountability and creates governance systems that are highly vulnerable to abuse.

 

4. Democracy Without Restraint: Electoral Absolutism

A key difference between classical and contemporary absolutism is the presence of elections. Many modern leaders who embody L’État, c’est moi attain power through democratic processes. However, electoral victory is often interpreted as an unlimited mandate, justifying the concentration of power and the marginalization of opposition (Zakaria, 2003).

This phenomenon, sometimes described as electoral or plebiscitary absolutism, treats elections as a substitute for constitutional restraint rather than as one component of democratic governance. Popular support becomes a justification for overriding legal limits, weakening minority protections, and delegitimizing dissent.

In this context, democracy is reduced to periodic affirmation of personal rule. Institutions that challenge executive authority are portrayed as obstacles to the popular will, reinforcing the narrative that the leader alone represents the state.

 

5. Sovereignty, Exceptionalism, and the Rule of Law

Personalized power thrives on claims of exceptionalism. Leaders invoke national crises, external threats, or cultural uniqueness to justify departures from constitutional norms. Sovereignty is framed as incompatible with legal restraint, and international norms are dismissed as infringements on national autonomy.

This approach undermines the rule of law both domestically and internationally. Domestically, laws become instruments of power rather than constraints upon it. Internationally, commitments to human rights, multilateral agreements, and global institutions are treated as optional or conditional.

The absolutist logic thus extends beyond national borders. When leaders equate themselves with the state, international accountability mechanisms are perceived as personal threats, weakening global governance and cooperation.

 

6. Global Implications: Personalized Power and International Order

The resurgence of personalized rule has significant implications for global politics. Multilateral institutions rely on predictable state behavior, legal commitments, and institutional continuity. Personalized regimes, by contrast, produce volatility, unilateralism, and transactional diplomacy.

Foreign policy under L’État, c’est moi logic often reflects the leader’s personal interests, ideological preferences, or domestic political needs rather than long-term national strategy. This personalization complicates diplomacy, undermines trust, and weakens international norms.

Moreover, the spread of personalized power across multiple states creates systemic instability. When many leaders prioritize personal authority over institutional cooperation, global challenges—such as climate change, security, and humanitarian crises—become increasingly difficult to address collectively.

 

7. Why Personalized Power Persists

The persistence of reimagined absolutism cannot be explained solely by ambition or ideology. Structural factors also play a role. Weak institutions, economic inequality, political polarization, and public distrust of elites create conditions conducive to personal rule.

Global trends further reinforce this dynamic. The perceived decline of liberal international order, the rise of geopolitical competition, and the normalization of emergency governance have made personalized authority appear both effective and legitimate to many citizens.

However, short-term stability often masks long-term fragility. Systems built around individual authority lack resilience and are prone to crisis when leadership changes or legitimacy erodes.

 

8. Policy Implications: Restoring Institutional Authority

Addressing the resurgence of L’État, c’est moi politics requires more than electoral reform. Strengthening institutions, protecting judicial independence, and reinforcing constitutional norms are essential. Democratic systems must prioritize accountability, not just participation.

At the international level, multilateral institutions must adapt to resist personalization without abandoning engagement. Supporting institutional capacity, civil society, and rule-of-law mechanisms remains critical for global stability.

Ultimately, resisting reimagined absolutism requires reaffirming a fundamental principle: the state is larger than any individual. Governance must be rooted in institutions, laws, and shared responsibility rather than personal authority.

 

9. Conclusion: Absolutism in a Modern Guise

The return of L’État, c’est moi in global politics reflects a deep tension between institutional governance and personalized power. While modern absolutism differs from its historical predecessor, its core logic remains the same: the fusion of authority with individual rule.

This reimagined absolutism poses serious risks to democracy, constitutionalism, and international cooperation. Recognizing and confronting this trend is essential for preserving institutional integrity and global order. The challenge facing contemporary politics is not merely the rise of strong leaders, but the weakening of the idea that power must be constrained by law, institutions, and collective responsibility.

 

References 

Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace & Company.

Bodin, J. (1992). On sovereignty (J. H. Franklin, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1576)

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.

Schmitt, C. (2005). Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1922)

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. University of California Press.

Zakaria, F. (2003). The future of freedom: Illiberal democracy at home and abroad. W. W. Norton.