State Power Legitimacy Crisis in the Era of Globalization
Keywords:
Ш. Муфф, Legitimacy Loss, Power, Deliberative Democracy, Communicative Consensus, Agonistic Pluralism, Power Creative Potential, J. Habermas, C. MouffeAbstract
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.Downloads
References
Арендт Х. Истоки тоталитаризма. М.: ЦентрКом, 1996.
Беляев М. А. Делиберативная модель демократии: базовые принципы и проблемы реализации // Труды Института государства и права РАН. 2019. Т. 14. № 3. С. 79-95. DOI: 10.35427/2073-4522-2019-14-3-belyaev.
Бергер П., Лукман Т. Социальное конструирование реальности. Трактат по социологии знания. М.: Медиум, 1995.
Богатуров А. Д. Понятие мировой политики в теоретическом дискурсе // Международные процессы. 2004. Т. 2. № 1 (4). С. 16-33.
Бурдье П. Социальное пространство и символическая власть / П. Бурдье. Начала / пер. с фр. М. А. Шматко. М.: Socio-Logos, 1994.
Витгенштейн Л. Философские работы. Ч. I. М.: Гнозис, 1994.
Дзоло Д. Демократия и сложность: реалистический подход. М.: Изд. дом Гос. ун-та - Высшей школы экономики, 2010.
Лебедева М. М. Мировая политика. М.: Аспект Пресс, 2006.
Линде А. Н. Значение концепции делиберативной демократии Ю. Хабермаса для теории политической коммуникации // Русская политология. № 2, 2017. С. 73-81.
Малахов В. С. Государство в условиях глобализации. М.: КДУ, 2007.
Муфф Ш. К агонистической модели демократии // Логос. 2004. № 2 (12). С. 180-197.
Осветимская И. И. Государственный суверенитет: содержание и преобразование в условиях глобализации // Известия высших учебных заведений. Правоведение. 2017. № 2. С. 150-168.
Осветимская И. И. Государство в условиях глобализации: теоретико-правовое исследование. Дис. … канд. юрид. наук. Санкт-Петербург, 2017.
Поляков А. В. Верховенство права, глобализация и проблемы модернизации философии и теории права // Известия высших учебных заведений. Правоведение. № 4. 2013. С. 18-30.
Ролз Дж. Теория справедливости. Новосибирск: Изд-во Новосиб. ун-та, 1995.
Фуко М. Власть и знание // Фуко М. Интеллектуал и власть: Избранные политически статьи, выступления и интервью / Пер. с франц. С. Ч. Офертаса под общей ред. В. П. Визгина и Б. М. Скуратова. М.: Праксис, 2002.
Хабермас Ю. Вовлечение другого. Очерки политической теории. СПб.: Наука, 2001.
Хабермас Ю. Расколотый Запад / Пер. с нем. О. М. Величко, Е. Л. Петренко. М.: Весь Мир, 2008.
Цыганков П. А. Мировая политика и ее содержание // Международные процессы. 2005. № 1. С. 53-65.
Шумпетер Й. А. Капитализм, социализм и демократия. М.: Экономика, 1995.
Benhabib S. Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy, in Seyla Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press,1996.
Cohen J. Democracy and Liberty / J. Elster (ed.), Deliberation Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Downs A. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: The University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Goodwin G. L. The Erosion of External Sovereignty? // Government and Opposition. Vol. 9. No. 1 (WINTER 1974). Pp. 61-78.
Guehenno J. The End of the Nation State. University of Minnesota Press, 2000.
Habermas J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Massachusets: The MIT Press, 1991.
Habermas J. Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1998.
Held D., McGrew A., Goldblatt D., Perraton J. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. New York, 1999.
Laclau E., Mouffe С. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985.
Loughlin M. The Erosion of Sovereignty // Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy. 2016 (2). Pp. 57-81.
Ohmae K. The End of the Nation State. New York, 1996.
Raz J. The Future of State Sovereignty // Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 61/2017. URL: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2069 (дата обращения: 01.07.2020).