Digital sovereignty and political and administrative regimes

Abstract

Continuing the cycle of publications on the socio-political aspects of digitalization, the authors note that digital transformation, aimed primarily at social and anthropological changes, at expanding opportunities in managing society and the individual, has exacerbated the extremely fundamental issue of managing the Internet space and the problem of developing political and administrative modes. Based on the model of power organization proposed by M. Mann, the authors focus on the ability of the state authorities of the USA, EU, China, and Russia to combine collective and distributive, extensive and intensive, authoritative and diffuse power. State control in the conditions of total hybrid war and deepening uncertainty in the world, as it seems to many researchers, can be supported by the active implementation of digital transformation tools by modern states as a single “language” of coordination. Incomplete institutional viability forces governments to seek support in supranational and international structures. Financial and economic limitations, the lack of critical technical, technological and managerial competencies bind the possibility of implementing an independent policy of the country’s digital transformation, forcing it to maneuver between those who have the most advanced competencies in these areas. The non-obviousness and weak articulation of national values, ethical norms, the assimilation of alien ideals by the mass consciousness deprive the motivation of those employed in the digital sphere, who are looking for applications for their talents in other states. The authors conclude that involvement in publicity in the context of the rapid development of digitalization should be based on the principle of openness of the unconditional public good offered by the authorities, the public goal, which implies transparency, accountability, and controllability of the authorities. Responsibility of both the authorities and society for the present and future, which generate trust, are the foundations of solidarity in the face of external and internal challenges, providing both formal and informal types of coordination.