State Power Legitimacy Crisis in the Era of Globalization

One of the urgent problems requiring special research is the comprehensive crisis of legitimacy that accompanies globalization, and one of the manifestations of which is the fragmentation of the phenomenon of legitimacy due to the fragmentation of the mechanisms of legitimation associated with different aspects of legitimacy being: power legitimacy, religion legitimacy, moral legitimacy, etc. State power legitimacy crisis has political and communicative grounds, such as: problematization of state sovereignty existence and state power existence; expanding political and non-political actors will to power; partial or complete lack of political will among citizens, which in turn is caused by a low level of public involvement in politics, which in turn is due to the usual functioning of political communication. The rules of language games (political, legal, cultural) are not created by the participants themselves in the result of a consensus-communicative discourse, but are set from the outside and are no longer shared by all members of a particular communicative community. The shaking of habitual traditions and norms of behavior leads to the imposed rules rejection and disruption of the consensus-communicative public discourse mechanisms functioning. These circumstances require a rethinking of the very phenomenon of power and the development of strategies for overcoming the crisis. From the point of view of a deliberative strategy (J. Rawls, J. Cohen, J. Habermas, S. Benhabib), the organization of a communicative power could become a way out of the crisis. This process requires all interested in the decision parties consensus expression. According to the agonistic strategy (C. Mouff), power is not interpreted as a purely external relation that develops between two given identities, but as something that establishes these identities themselves. According to J. Rawls and J. Habermas, it is necessary to find a way to eliminate power, because the more democratic a society is, the less power is present in its social relations. But according to C. Mouff, power relations are the basis of social relations, and the main issue of democratic politics is not how to eliminate power, but how to create such forms of power that could be more compatible with democratic values. Both approaches have the ability to bring the legitimacy of power out of the crisis, as long as the authorities will demonstrate its creative potential , which consists in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens; harmonious combination of public and private spheres; freedom realization.

Political Communication, Legitimacy Loss, Power, Deliberative Democracy, Communicative Consensus, Agonistic Pluralism, Power Creative Potential, J. Habermas, C. Mouffe

1. Arendt, H. Origins of totalitarianism [Istoki totalitarizma]. Moscow : CenterCom [TsentRKom], 1996. (transl. from English)

2. Belyaev, М. А. Deliberative Model of Democracy: Basic Priciples and Practical Difficulties [Deliberativnaya model’ demokratii: bazovye printsipy i problemy realizatsii] // Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the RAS [Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava RAN]. 2019. Т. 14. No. 3. Pp. 79–95. DOI: 10.35427/2073-4522-2019-14-3-be lyaev.

3. Benhabib, S. Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy, in Seyla Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference, Princeton, N. J. : Princeton University Press,1996.

4. Berger, P., Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise on Sociology of Knowledge [Sotsial’noe konstruirovanie real’nosti. Traktat po sotsiologii znaniya]. M. : Medium [Medium], 1995. (transl. from English)

5. Bogaturov, A. D. The Concept of World Politics in Theoretical Discourse [Ponyatie mirovoi politiki v teoreticheskom diskurse] // International processes [Mezhdunarodnye protsessy]. 2004. Vol. 2 No. 1 (4). Pp. 16–33.

6. Bourdieu, P. Social Space and Symbolic Power. [Sotsial’noe prostranstvo i simvolicheskaya vlast’] // Bourdieu P. Beginnings [Nachala] / trans. from fr. M. A. Shmatko. М. : Socio-Logos, 1994. (transl. from French)

7. Cohen, J. Democracy and Liberty / J. Elster (ed.), Deliberation Democracy, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1988.

8. Downs, A. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York : The University of Chicago Press, 1957.

9. Foucault, M. Power and Knowledge [Vlast’ i znanie] // Foucault M. Intellectual and Power: Selected politically articles, speeches and interviews [Intellektual i vlast’: Izbrannye politicheski stat’i, vystupleniya i interv’yu] / transl. from French. S. Ch. Ofertas, ed. V. P. Vizgin and B. M. Skuratov. M.: Praxis [Praksis], 2002. (transl. from French)

10. Goodwin, G. L. The Erosion of External Sovereignty? // Government and Opposition. Vol. 9. No. 1 (WINTER 1974). Pp. 61–78.

11. Guehenno, J. The End of the Nation State. University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

12. Habermas, J. Involvement of the Other. Essays on Political Theory. [Vovlechenie drugogo. Ocherki politicheskoi teorii.] SPb. : Nauka, 2001. (transl. from German)

13. Habermas, J. The Broken West [Raskolotyi Zapad] / Transl. from German O. M. Velichko, E. L. Petrenko. M. : Ves Mir Publishing House [Izdatel’stvo «Ves’ MiR»], 2008. (transl. from German)

14. Habermas, J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Massachusets : The MIT Press, 1991.

15. Habermas, J. Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp, 1998.

16. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., Perraton, J. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. New York, 1999.

17. Laclau, E., Mouffe, С. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London : Verso, 1985.

18. Lebedeva, M. M. Global Politics. [Mirovaya politika] M. : Aspect Press [Aspekt Press], 2006. (in rus.)

19. Linde, A. N. The Value of the Concept of Deliberative Democracy by J. Habermas for the Theory of Political Communication [Znachenie kontseptsii deliberativnoi demokratii Yu. Khabermasa dlya teorii politicheskoi kommunikatsii] // Russian Political Science. No. 2, 2017. Pp. 73–81. (in rus.)

20. Loughlin, M. The Erosion of Sovereignty // Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy. 2016 (2). Pp. 57–81.

21. Malakhov, V. S. State in the Context of Globalization [Gosudarstvo v usloviyakh globalizatsii]. M. : KDU, 2007.

22. Mouffe, Ch. Towards an Agonistic Model of Democracy [Gosudarstvo v usloviyakh globalizatsii] // The Logos. 2004. No. 2 (12). Pp. 180–197. (in rus.)

23. Ohmae, K. The End of the Nation State. New York, 1996.

24. Osvetimskaya, I. I. State Sovereignty: Content and Transformation in the Context of Globalization [Gosudarstvennyi suverenitet: soderzhanie i preobrazovanie v usloviyakh globalizatsii] // News of higher educational institutions. Jurisprudence [Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Pravovedenie]. 2017. No. 2. Pp. 150–168.

25. Osvetimskaya, I. I. State in the Context of Globalization: Theoretical and Legal Research [Gosudarstvo v usloviyakh globalizatsii: teoretiko-pravovoe issledovanie]. Thesis for a Candidate Degree in Law Sciences [Dissertatsiya kand. yurid. nauk]. St. Petersburg, 2017.

26. Polyakov, A. V. Rule of Law, Globalization and Problems of Modernization of Philosophy and Theory of Law [Verkhovenstvo prava, globalizatsiya i problemy modernizatsii fi losofi i i teorii prava] // News of higher educational institutions. Jurisprudence [Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Pravovedenie]. No. 4. 2013. Pp. 18–30.

27. Rawls, J. Theory of Justice [Teoriya spravedlivosti]. Novosibirsk : Novosibirsk Publishing House. University [Novosibirsk : Izd-vo Novosib. un-ta], 1995. (transl. from English)

28. Raz, J. The Future of State Sovereignty // Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 61/2017 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2069 (дата обращения: 01.07.2020).

29. Schumpeter, J. A. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy [Kapitalizm, sotsializm i demokratiya]. M. : Economics [Ehkonomika], 1995.

30. Tsygankov, P. A. World Politics and its Content [Mirovaya politika i ee soderzhanie] // International processes [Mezhdunarodnye protsessy]. 2005. No. 1. Pp. 53–65.

31. Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Works. Part I. [Filosofskie raboty. Ch. I.] M. : Gnosis [Gnozis], 1994. (in rus.)

32. Zolo, D. Democracy and Complexity: a Realist Approach [Demokratiya i slozhnost’: realisticheskii podkhod]. Moscow : Ed. House of the State University Higher School of Economics [M. : Izd. dom Gos. un-ta Vysshei shkoly ehkonomiki], 2010. (transl. from English)