Understanding How Some People Can Be So Stupid in the Face of Fascism
For months, I’ve tried to understand how so many Americans can blithely drift through everyday life as if in a coma, pretending like nothing is wrong, everything is normal. I recently stumbled across an article in Vox that may provide some clues as well as some techniques for re-framing the current situation for your MAGA family and friends. For example, for your colleague who thinks what ICEholes are doing has nothing to do with them, it might get their attention if you compare and contrast the facts against a backdrop of their own characteristics. Renee Nichole Good was a 37 year old white woman. She was a mother of three who had previously worked as a dental assistant. In her youth, she had gone on Christian youth missions. Bottom line, she could have been anyone in your colleague’s circle of acquaintances.
Uncle MAGA, the veteran, might identify with Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse at a major VA (Veterans Administration) hospital. Alex was carrying a licensed, legal handgun which he never brandished. The handgun had been taken from his waistband holster by ICEholes before they opened fire, killing him with approximately 10 shots from about 5 feet away. Uncle MAGA could meet the same fate if a bogus encounter went sideways. Perhaps Bubba MAGA isn’t prone to obeying what he feels are unjust orders from masked, unidentifiable thugs. He could object, be thrown to the ground and killed before he has a chance to defend himself.
Failing all else, you might try the “grandkids test” in which you simply ask, “What will you tell your grandkids when, someday, they ask what you did when America and Democracy was under attack? Will the grandkids beam with pride as Uncle MAGA boasts that he stood with ICEholes and sent all Black, Brown and Others to concentration camps? You can read the Vox article here. It’s a gift link so it’s possible the link will stop working in the future.
Now, my character defect is that, as a trained engineer and scientist, I like to, at least, peruse the original source document. In this case, that’s a 265 page book written in German by Ernst Fraenkel, a German political scientist and attorney who studied nazis in real time as it was happening. As a Jew, it also gave him particular insight into Hitler’s machinations. I won’t try to pretend I read the Fraenkel’s book but I have skimmed over it enough to get the gist. I certainly don’t expect viewers of this blog to read it either but I had Proton Lumo AI reduce it down to a 1000 word synopsis which I’ve included below.
The Dual State: Understanding How Dictatorships Work
synopsized by Proton Lumo – January 30 2026, edited by Nunna Urbiz, Jan 30, 2026
When we think about dictatorships, we often picture a single ruler who makes all the decisions, a police force that watches everyone, and a country where freedom seems impossible. While those images are partly true, they don’t capture the whole picture. In the early 1960s, a German‑Jewish political scientist named Ernst Fraenkel introduced a powerful idea that helps us see dictatorships in a clearer way. He called it “the dual state.”
Fraenkel’s theory explains that authoritarian regimes aren’t just one monolithic machine; they actually consist of two overlapping systems that operate side by side. One part follows ordinary legal rules, while the other exists outside—or even against—those rules. By looking at both parts together, we can better understand how dictatorships stay in power, how they treat their citizens, and why they sometimes seem to act “legally” even when they’re doing something clearly unjust.
Below, we’ll explore Fraenkel’s concept, break down its two components, examine real‑world examples, and discuss why the dual‑state model still matters today.
1. Who Was Ernst Fraenkel?
Ernst Fraenkel (1898‑1975) was a German political scientist and labor lawyer. As a Jew, he fled Nazi Germany in 1933 and spent many years in exile, first in the United Kingdom and later in the United States. His experience living under a totalitarian regime gave him a unique perspective on how dictatorships function. After World War II, Fraenkel returned to Germany and wrote several influential works, the most famous being “The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship” (originally published in German in 1960).
His book was groundbreaking because it moved beyond the simplistic view that dictatorships are merely “lawless” societies. Instead, Fraenkel argued that even the most repressive governments rely on a legal framework—though a heavily distorted one—to maintain control.
2. The Two Parts of the Dual State
Fraenkel identified two distinct but intertwined spheres within an authoritarian regime:
| Sphere | What It Is | How It Works |
|---|---|---|
| Normative State | The “regular” legal system that pretends to follow normal rules. | Laws, courts, bureaucracy, and administrative procedures exist, but they serve the interests of the ruling party. Citizens can appeal decisions, sign contracts, and conduct business, but only within limits set by the regime. |
| Prerogative State | The “extra‑legal” or “exceptional” side that operates outside ordinary law. | The government can bypass or ignore the normative rules whenever it deems necessary. This includes secret police actions, arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial killings, and other forms of repression. The prerogative state is invoked during emergencies, dissent, or when the regime feels threatened. |
2.1 The Normative State
Even dictatorships need a semblance of order. People must be able to buy groceries, pay taxes, own property, and go to school. To keep daily life running, the regime maintains a set of formal laws and institutions—courts, ministries, and civil service—that look very much like those in democratic societies.
However, the normative state in a dictatorship is biased. Judges are often appointed by the ruling party, and laws are written to protect the regime’s interests. For example:
- Property laws might allow the government to seize land from political opponents while protecting assets owned by loyal supporters.
- Labor regulations could give workers limited rights, but only if they do not organize against the state.
- Media licensing may require a permit, which the government can grant or revoke at will.
Thus, while the normative state provides a façade of legality, it ultimately serves the dictator’s agenda.
2.2 The Prerogative State
When the regime feels its grip loosening—perhaps because of protests, opposition parties, or foreign pressure—it turns to the prerogative state. This side operates outside the normal legal framework and is justified by the claim of “national emergency,” “security,” or “public order.”
Key characteristics of the prerogative state include:
- Arbitrary Power: Officials can detain people without trial, censor media instantly, or dissolve organizations without warning.
- Secret Police: Agencies such as the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, the KGB in the Soviet Union, or the Stasi in East Germany acted as the eyes and hands of the prerogative state.
- Extra‑Legal Punishments: Torture, forced disappearances, and summary executions are tools used when the regime wants to eliminate threats quickly.
Importantly, the prerogative state does not replace the normative state; it coexists with it. The two sides often overlap, creating a confusing environment where citizens never know whether they’re dealing with “normal” law or an arbitrary decree.
3. Why Does the Dual State Matter?
Understanding the dual‑state model helps us answer several puzzling questions about dictatorships:
3.1 Why Do Some Authoritarian Regimes Appear “Legal”?
Because the normative state handles everyday affairs, a dictatorship can claim it respects the rule of law. This claim is useful for:
- International Relations: Appeasing foreign powers that demand “legal” governance.
- Domestic Legitimacy: Convincing citizens that the regime isn’t completely chaotic.
- Economic Stability: Allowing businesses to operate under predictable (if biased) rules.
3.2 How Do Regimes Control Opposition?
The prerogative state provides a swift, ruthless toolkit for silencing dissent. By threatening arbitrary punishment, the regime creates a climate of fear that discourages protest, even when the normative legal system offers limited protections.
3.3 Why Do Some Dictatorships Collapse While Others Persist?
If the prerogative state becomes too dominant—overusing terror and ignoring the normative system—the economy and social fabric can crumble, leading to rebellion or external intervention. Conversely, a balanced dual state can sustain itself for decades by keeping enough normalcy to maintain productivity while using the prerogative side sparingly to eliminate threats.
4. Real‑World Examples
4.1 Nazi Germany (1933‑1945)
- Normative State: Courts continued to hear civil cases, property transactions were recorded, and schools operated under a curriculum.
- Prerogative State: The Gestapo could arrest anyone without a warrant; the SS ran concentration camps; the Nuremberg Laws stripped Jews of citizenship, bypassing ordinary legal procedures.
4.2 Soviet Union (1917‑1991)
- Normative State: The Soviet legal code regulated contracts, labor relations, and taxation.
- Prerogative State: The NKVD/KGB conducted purges, secret trials, and forced labor camps (Gulags). During the Great Terror (1937‑1938), the prerogative state overrode the normative system entirely.
4.3 Modern Authoritarian Regimes
Even today, many countries exhibit a dual state:
- Turkey (post‑2016 coup attempt): Formal courts still process civil cases, but the government has used emergency decrees to dismiss judges, imprison journalists, and close media outlets without trial.
- Russia (under Vladimir Putin): Civil courts handle property disputes, yet the security services can detain opposition figures on vague “extremism” charges, effectively sidestepping normal judicial review.
These examples show that the dual‑state model remains a useful lens for analyzing contemporary politics.
5. Critiques and Limitations
While Fraenkel’s theory is influential, scholars have raised some criticisms:
- Over‑Simplification: Not all dictatorships fit neatly into two categories. Some regimes blend the two more fluidly, making the line blurry.
- Historical Context: Fraenkel wrote his book after observing Nazi Germany and early Cold‑War states. New forms of digital surveillance and cyber‑control may require updated concepts.
- Agency of Citizens: The model focuses on state structures, sometimes overlooking how ordinary people resist, negotiate, or exploit the dual system.
Despite these critiques, the dual‑state framework remains a cornerstone for studying authoritarianism because it captures the paradox of “lawful tyranny.”
6. Why the Dual State Still Resonates Today
In the age of social media, big data, and globalized economies, authoritarian governments have new tools to manage the dual state:
- Digital Surveillance (normative): Governments require internet service providers to retain user data, creating a legal basis for monitoring.
- Online Censorship (prerogative): Platforms can be shut down instantly during protests, bypassing any court order.
Understanding Fraenkel’s insight helps citizens, journalists, and policymakers recognize when a regime is merely pretending to follow the law and when it is actually violating fundamental rights. It also guides international actors in crafting responses—whether to pressure a government through diplomatic channels (targeting the normative side) or to condemn human‑rights abuses (addressing the prerogative side).
7. Key Takeaways
- Dual State = Two Overlapping Systems: A “normative” legal framework that looks ordinary, and a “prerogative” apparatus that operates outside the law.
- Both Are Essential for Dictatorship Survival: The normative side keeps daily life functional; the prerogative side enforces obedience and eliminates threats.
- Real‑World Evidence: From Nazi Germany to modern Turkey, the dual‑state model explains how authoritarian regimes balance order and oppression.
- Modern Relevance: Digital tools have reshaped how the two sides interact, but the core idea still helps us analyze contemporary authoritarianism.
- Critical Lens: Recognizing the dual state empowers citizens to spot when a government is abusing its prerogative powers and to demand accountability.
Final Thought
Ernst Fraenkel’s “dual state” theory reminds us that law and terror can coexist under a single regime. By learning to see both sides, we become better equipped to recognize the warning signs of authoritarian drift, defend democratic institutions, and support those living under oppressive systems. Whether you’re a student, a journalist, or just a curious reader, keeping Fraenkel’s insight in mind can sharpen your understanding of the world’s political landscape—and perhaps inspire actions that promote justice and liberty.