Why would a politician from a party in power in a democratic country put the blame on the so called “parallel state”?

Question

The main party in power has just adopted a "resolution" against the so called "parallel state" (source in Romanian, could not find an international source) [translated by me]:

The National Committee [...] adopted a resolution which refers to "the parallel and illegitimate state" which tries to gain political control [...]

This not exactly new in Romania, as there several declarations in the past against the "parallel state", "the system" etc. (e.g.)

Also, "the parallel state" is not used as defined by Robert Paxton, but having the meaning "state within a state" (source):

The "parallel state" is a term coined by American historian Robert Paxton to describe a collection of organizations or institutions that are state-like in their organization, management and structure, but they are not officially part of the legitimate state or government. They serve primarily to promote the prevailing political and social ideology of the state.

The parallel state differs from the more commonly used "state within a state" in that they are usually endorsed by the prevailing political elite of a country, while the "state within a state" is a pejorative term to describe state-like institutions that operate without the consent of and even to the detriment to the authority of an established state (such as churches and religious institutions or secret societies with their own laws and court systems).

Also, another example of "parallel state" comes from Turkey:

Turkey's former Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has used the term "parallel state" (or "parallel structure") to describe followers of Fethullah Gülen who occupy senior bureaucratic and judicial positions, which have been accused of attempting to bring down Erdoğan's government.

Question: why would a politician from the political party in power rely on such rhetoric?

I think that people tend to support politicians that seem to have power to change things for the better (more prosperity, less corruption etc.) and this message makes them look exactly the opposite: weak and powerless.

Answer 1

why would a politician from the political party in power rely on such rhetoric?

1. In order to use power against individuals who they feel may take actions that oppose them. I won't try to diagnose Romania, but Turkey has been in the news enough that I think I follow the highlights.

   Recep Tayyip Erdoğan says that people in the system are supporters of Fethullah Gülen so as to remove those people from power or limit their ability to oppose him.

2. In order to explain why the politician has not been successful.

   As you say, the best argument for future elections is that the politician is effective. But what if the politician is not effective at meeting the campaign goals? By reducing expectations, the politician can seem to perform well against the newly lowered expectations. Also, the politician can say things like "if you give me a supermajority" or "if we change the constitution" then things would be better. They could remove the parallel state or work around them.

In the United States, Donald Trump promised to close off the border, end trade deals, bring jobs back from overseas, reduce crime, throw Hillary Clinton in jail, stop foreign adventurism, and stand up for US interests worldwide. If he fails in doing those things, then he has to explain why. The "deep state" (the US version of a parallel state) preventing him is better than saying "I have no government experience and promised a bunch of things that I could not deliver, either at all or without ruinous consequences."

The basic strategy is simple. Politicians in power either want to argue that things are great or that what's not great is not their fault. They'd prefer to argue that things are great, but sometimes that's just not true. Rhetoric works best when it amplifies or redirects reality, not when it attempts to deny reality. Rhetoric can't turn night to day. It may encourage people to view twilight as half day rather than half night. Or in this case, "OK, it's night, but that's the sun's fault. How about some streetlamps?"

I don't know how that applies to the current Romanian government. I'd guess that there is something that they said they would do that they did not actually accomplish. Usually there is some kind of plan to resolve it. Perhaps they need more power. Perhaps they need the "parallel state" to have less power. Perhaps they want to fire people. They may not have made statements about that solution yet. Note that it is all right for the solution to be difficult to accomplish or to require voter assistance. In fact, such things may make it better. "It's not us; it's those other idiots."