The Contemporary Political Processes Transformation in the Context of Society Digitalization: Key Scenarios

Intensive introduction into actual political practice of digital communication technologies causes the need for scientists and experts to study several important issues related to the phenomenon of digitalization at the current stage of human civilization evolution. First of all, we are interested in the question of whether the introduction of digital communications into contemporary political processes causes corresponding transformations in the spheres of the functioning of the state and society. How correct is it to talk about the digitalization of the state and society by political scientists? Another essential issue for us is the definition of influence vectors: do the emergence and widespread dissemination of new types of communication technologies affect the emergence and development  of new types of social and political systems, or the state only uses new technological capabilities to ensure the effectiveness of political governance processes in today’s environment, maintaining and supporting the potential of traditional political regimes? What is the mutual influence of new communication technologies and political power institutions at present? Finally, the extremely important for us issue is what effects in the political sphere are generated by the implementation of digital communication technologies into actual practice and what are the main scenarios for the transformation of the contemporary political space in such conditions. Consideration of these issues is the subject of this work. The author makes an attempt to show that we can talk today about real transformations in the parameters of the state and society functioning, as well as in the sphere of their interaction. At the same time, traditional political regimes, having ceased to act as a monopoly source of political information due to the emergence of alternative actors of information and communication activities and the formation of competitive political space, are actively trying to maintain political control and stability in the current environment. Most scenarios of the evolution and transformation of the political space in the context of digitalization are associated precisely with the attempts of traditional institutions of power to maintain control over the sources, channels, and content of digital communication processes. At the same time, the socio-political interaction of the state and society becomes more intense in quantitative terms. However, the content side of this interaction is not undergoing significant changes.

1. A Quarter of Russians Have Lost Confidence in Television in Ten Years (2019). RBC, August 1, 2019. Available at: https://www.rbc.ru/politics/01/08/2019/5d41c03a9a79472355ee2cca, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

2. Aalberg T., Blekesaune A., Elvestad E. (2013) Media Choice and Informed Democracy: Toward Increasing News Consumption Gaps in Europe? International Journal of Press/Politics, vol. 18, no 3, pp. 281–303. DOI: 10.1177/1940161213485990

3. Aelst P.V., Strömbäck J., Aalberg T., Esser F. et al. (2017) Political Communication in a High-Choice Media Environment: A Challenge for Democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association, vol. 41, no 1, pp. 3–27. DOI: 10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551

4. Barber B. (1998) Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy. Political Science Quarterly, Winter 1998–1999, vol. 113, no 4, pp. 573–589. DOI: 10.2307/2658245

5. Benkler Y., Faris R., Roberts H. (2018) Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

6. Bennett W.L., Pfetsch B. (2018) Rethinking Political Communication in a Time of Disrupted Public Spheres. Journal of Communication, vol. 68, no 2, pp. 243–253. DOI: 10.1093/joc/jqx017

7. Bouvier G., Machin D. (2018) Critical Discourse Analysis and the Challenge of Social Media: The Case of News Texts. Review of Communication, special issue CDS and/in Communication: Theories, Methodologies, and Pedagogies at the Intersections, vol. 18, no 3, pp. 178–192. DOI: 10.1080/15358593.2018.1479881

8. Castells M. (2007) Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society. International Journal of Communication, vol. 1, pp. 238–266. Available at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/46/35, accessed 20.05.2020.

9. Chernyshov A.G. (2017) Digitalization and Technologization of Public Life as a Socio-Political Problem: Maintaining Identity and the Role of the State in the Development of Global Networks. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, no 40, pp. 319–328. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_30779007_44951302.pdf, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

10. Engesser S., Ernst N., Esser F., Büchel F. (2017) Populism and Social Media: How Politicians Spread a Fragmented Ideology. Information, Communication and Society, vol. 20, no 8, pp. 1109–1126. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1207697

11. Freedom House: Internet Freedom Declines in World. Deutsche Welle, November 5, 2019. Available at: https://www.dw.com/ru/freedom-house-в-мире-снижается-уровень-свободы-в-интернете/a-51118270, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

12. Innis H. (1950) Empire and Communications, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

13. Internet Communications as a Virtualization Tool for the Modern Public Space of Politics: Models, Scenarios, Technologies (2019). Faculty of Political Science, Moscow State University. Available at: http://polit.msu.ru/science/research/19-011-31335/, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

14. Khosravinik M., Unger J. (2016) Critical Discourse Studies and Social Media: Power, Resistance and Critique in Changing Media Ecologies. Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (eds. Wodak R., Meyer M.), London: Sage, pp. 206–233.

15. Malysheva G.A. (2018) On the Socio- political Challenges and Risks of Digitalization of Russian Society. Vlast’, no 1, pp. 40–46. Available at: https://www.jour.isras.ru/upload/journals/2/articles/5630/submission/original/5630-10469-1-SM.pdf, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

16. Mansell R. (2017) Inequality and Digitally Mediated Communication: Divides, Contradictions and Consequences. Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, vol. 24, no 2, pp. 146–161. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23191.16805

17. Maulana I. (2018) Mutual Understanding in the Age of Vulnerable Truth. Handbook of Research on Examining Global Peacemaking in the Digital Age (ed. Cook B.L.), Hershey, PA: IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-3032-9.ch005

18. Mediascope: The Internet Has Bypassed Television in Daily Coverage in Russia (2019). Sostav, May 29, 2019. Available at: https://www.sostav.ru/publication/mediascope-internet-skoro-operedit-televidenie-po-okhvatu-auditorii-37340.html, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

19. Morozova E., Miroshnichenko I., Ryabchenko N. (2016) Frontier of the Network Society. World Economy and International Relations, vol. 60, no 2, pp. 83–97. Available at: https://www.imemo.ru/jour/meimo/index.php?page_id=1248&file=https://www.imemo.ru/files/File/magazines/meimo/02_2016/83-97_Morozova_.pdf, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

20. National Cyber Strategy of the United States of America (2018). The White House, September 2018. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/National-Cyber-Strategy.pdf, accessed 20.05.2020.

21. Papathanassopoulos S., Negrine R. (2019) Political Communication, Digital Inequality and Populism. Digital Media Inequalities: Policies against Divides, Distrust and Discrimination (ed. Trappel J.), Göteborg: Nordicom, pp. 79–94.

22. Remarks on Internet Freedom (2010). U.S. Department of State, January 21, 2010. Available at: https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2010/01/135519.htm, accessed 20.05.2020.

23. Sætra H.S. (2019) The Tyranny of Perceived Opinion: Freedom and Information in the Era of Big Data. Technology in Society, vol. 59. DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101155

24. Smorgunov L.V. (2001) Network Approach to Politics and Management. POLIS, no 3, pp. 103–112. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_5078477_48093392.pdf, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

25. Tambini D. (2015) Five Theses on Public Media and Digitization: From a 56-country Study. International Journal of Communication, vol. 9, no 1, pp. 1400–1424. Available at: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62187/1/five%20_theses%20on%20public%20media%20and%20_digitization.pdf, accessed 20.05.2020.

26. Trappel J., Steemers J., Thomass B. (eds.) (2015) European Media in Crisis, Values, Risks and Policies, New York: Routledge. Voltmer K., Sorensen L. (2016) Mediatised Transitions: Democratisation in an Age of Media Abundance. Working Paper, MeCoDEM.