“L’état, c’est moi”:
Absolute Personal Power

A phrase that defines the state personified in a single ruler

By Andrew Burlone

Edited April 29, 2025

The saying “L’État, c’est moi” is not just a historical curiosity: it serves as a warning, reminding us how easily the state can be taken over by the will of a single individual when democratic safeguards are weakened. Long considered to encapsulate the essence of absolute monarchy, this phrase expresses the belief that all authority and power of the state are concentrated in one person-the sovereign-who alone is responsible for governing.

This political doctrine is characterized by the centralization of power, strict control over vassals, and the suppression of dissenting groups and legislative bodies. It asserts that the will of the sovereign is law, and that the state should be seen as an extension of the monarch’s own person.

The health of democracy depends on the resilience of institutions, a vigilant civil society, and a commitment to the separation of powers.

Today, the world is witnessing a deepening wave of autocratization, with democracy in retreat across continents and the number of autocracies now surpassing democracies for the first time in over two decades. According to the latest Democracy Report, the level of democracy enjoyed by the average global citizen has fallen to levels last seen in the mid-1980s, and the decline shows no sign of slowing. The erosion is not limited to fragile states or emerging democracies; even established liberal democracies are experiencing breakdowns in institutional checks, rising polarization, and attacks on civil liberties.

The fragility of our democracies is starkly apparent in the face of these trends. The centralization of power, the weakening of judicial and legislative oversight, and the growing tendency for leaders to bypass or undermine institutional constraints all echo the spirit of “L’État, c’est moi.” In recent years, we have seen the rise of leaders who, while not openly declaring themselves the embodiment of the state, act in ways that concentrate authority and diminish the role of independent institutions. This is not a theoretical threat: the 2025 V-Dem report notes that nearly three-quarters of the world’s population now lives under autocratic rule, and the loss of freedom of expression is accelerating in dozens of countries.

Europe, often seen as a bastion of democratic stability, is not immune. While Western Europe maintains relatively high standards, public discontent and the rise of anti-establishment forces have led to political turbulence and the downgrading of some democracies to “flawed” status, including France. The global picture is one of fragmentation, rising conflict, and a retreat from the principles of pluralism, accountability, and the rule of law.

In this context, the lesson is clear: the health of democracy depends on the resilience of institutions, a vigilant civil society, and an unwavering commitment to the separation of powers. Without these elements, the spectre of absolute personal power-which many believed belonged to the past-can re-emerge, undermining freedom and equality for generations to come.

‘While the ideology of “L’État, c’est moi” can sometimes be glimpsed in modern autocracies, it remains a symbol of a bygone era of absolute monarchy.’

Louis XIV embodied royal absolutism in seventeenth-century France and exercised a personal, centralized, and undivided power, making him the very model of the absolute monarch in Europe. After Mazarin’s death, he chose to govern without a prime minister, concentrating all powers in his own hands: he made the laws, enforced them, controlled the justice system, and appointed his representatives in the provinces. Louis XIV justified this concentration of power by invoking divine right, claiming that his authority came from God and that to oppose the king was to oppose God himself.

Louis XIV chose to say “L’État, c’est moi” instead of “Je suis l’État” because this formulation completely changes the impact and emphasis of the phrase. By putting “l’État” first, he draws attention to the idea of the State itself, which he then directly and unequivocally identifies with his person. This much stronger and more theatrical turn of phrase highlights that the king and the State are inseparable, and that nothing can be done without his authority.

In modern political systems, especially in democracies and constitutional states, such a statement would be widely rejected, as it contradicts the principles of separation of powers, the rule of law, and institutional governance. Today, this phrase is often used to criticize or describe situations where a leader seeks to concentrate all power or to confuse personal interests with those of the State, serving as a warning against authoritarian tendencies and the erosion of checks and balances.

This mindset can sometimes be seen in the words or actions of certain authoritarian or populist leaders, who concentrate power and blur the line between their personal authority and state institutions. Even if they don’t use the same phrase, declarations or actions that mean “I am the State” appear in regimes where the leader wants to control everything and present themselves as the sole embodiment of the nation. But today, such attitudes are generally criticized and seen as troubling, which shows just how much our understanding of power has evolved since the absolutism of Louis XIV.

‘In modern political systems, especially in democracies and constitutional states, such a claim would be widely rejected as it contradicts the principles of separation of powers, the rule of law, and institutional governance.’

However, recent actions and rhetoric from President Trump in his second term reflect a modern assertion of executive primacy that, in spirit, echoes “L’état, c’est moi.” Early in his mandate, Trump relied on an unprecedented number of executive orders and proclamations to advance his agenda, often bypassing or directly challenging congressional authority and established federal statutes. His administration prioritized centralizing power in the executive branch, including attempts to assert control over independent regulatory agencies and to suspend or override existing laws that conflicted with his policy goals.

Observers in the legal and political fields have pointed out that this strategy pushes presidential authority to new limits, with Trump claiming the right to act alone even when existing laws say otherwise. Although mechanisms like court review and congressional oversight remain in place, the extent and manner of these moves have led many to draw parallels with earlier forms of highly personalized rule.

When all governing authority is placed in the hands of a single leader, as is the case with absolutism, there are few safeguards to prevent misuse of power. In such systems, rulers are rarely held to account by other institutions, which opens the door to corruption and self-serving decisions. Without proper oversight, leaders can act according to their own interests and those of their close associates, often ignoring the needs or rights of the wider population. Over time, this unchecked control tends to deepen divisions within society, allowing those at the top to accumulate wealth and privilege while most people see their freedoms and opportunities diminish.

As these inequalities become more pronounced and instances of abuse harder to conceal, frustration among ordinary citizens tends to grow. History offers clear examples: under Louis XIV in France, for instance, the monarch enjoyed extravagant comforts and demanded loyalty, even as most people struggled under the weight of taxes and had little say in their affairs. When economic pressures mounted and voices of dissent were stifled, popular anger eventually eroded the legitimacy of those in power, threatening the very foundation of the regime.

‘Recent actions and rhetoric from President Trump in his second term reflect a modern assertion of executive primacy that echoes “L’état, c’est moi.’

When the divide between those in power and ordinary people grows too wide, and peaceful ways to bring about change are shut off, it’s not uncommon for a society to push back-sometimes through sweeping reforms, other times through outright revolution. The events leading up to the French Revolution illustrate this well: years of unchecked rule, widespread corruption, and deepening inequality eventually sparked a complete upheaval of the old order and forced a new vision of governance. In this way, systems that place all authority in the hands of one person often create the very conditions that lead to their own undoing.

So while the phrase “L’état, c’est moi” may have originated in the era of absolute monarchs, the mindset it represents – where a leader equates their own will with that of the entire state – still surfaces in modern politics. This tendency becomes especially clear when leaders try to sidestep checks on their power and act as though their authority should go unchallenged. The recent Trump administration’s actions provide a clear example of how this dynamic can re-emerge, even within modern democratic systems, and why it remains a relevant reference point in political analysis today.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of WestmountMag.ca or its publishers.

Feature image: Andrew Burlone

Other articles on politics
Other recent articles

Andrew Burlone, co-founder of WestmountMag.ca, began his media journey at NOUS magazine. Subsequently, he launched Visionnaires, holding the position of creative director for over 30 years. Andrew is passionate about culture and politics, with a keen interest in visual arts and architecture.