rusworldРоссия и мир: научный диалогRussia & World: Sc. Dialogue2782-3067НИИРК10.53658/RW2026-4-1(19)-231-256rusworld-380Research ArticleВЛАСТЬ, ПОЛИТИКА, ГОСУДАРСТВО. Политические институты, процессы и технологииPOWER, POLITICS, STATE. Political institutions, processes and technologiesИндекс цифрового суверенитета GASI: выявление политизации глобальных рейтингов демократии и новые параметры сетевых режимовThe Digital Sovereignty Index (GASI): Revealing the Politicization of Global Democracy Ratings and New Parameters of Network Regimeshttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9469-3554БочаровЮ. Б.BocharovYu. B.

Юрий Борисович Бочаров.  Кандидат политических наук

г. Хайфа

Yuri B. Bocharov. CandSc. (Polit.)

Haifa

yurabig@gmail.comПолитический аналитикИзраильPolitical AnalystIsrael20263003202601231256Copyright © Бочаров Ю.Б., 20262026Бочаров Ю.Б.Bocharov Y.B.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.russia-world.ru/jour/article/view/380

В статье исследуется феномен сетевой автократии как новой формы политического режима, сохраняющего формальные демократические институты при институционализации алгоритмического контроля над процессами участия и принятия решений. На основе авторского анализа 194 стран мира предложен интегрированный количественный инструмент – индекс GASI (Governance Algorithmic Sovereignty Index), позволяющий диагностировать и прогнозировать (с горизонтом 12–18 месяцев) переход политических систем к различным формам цифровой власти – от сетевой демократии до устойчивой сетевой автократии. Методология расчета GASI основана на сочетании трех параметров: ресурсной ренты (RENTA), уровня цифровой интеграции (DIGITAL) и алгоритмического управления (ALGO). Такой подход фиксирует функциональные механизмы воспроизводства власти и устраняет зависимость от субъективных экспертных оценок, характерных для существующих индексов демократии (Freedom House, V-Dem, Economist Intelligence Unit). Эмпирическое сопоставление показало на уровне 80% совпадения с международными рейтингами и около 20% системных аномалий, выявляющих политизацию экспертных оценок. Страны Глобального Юга, Ближнего Востока и Восточной Азии, обладающие высоким уровнем цифрового суверенитета, систематически занижены, тогда как государства евроатлантического блока получают завышенные рейтинги демократичности. Эти расхождения подтверждают существование нормативно-политического смещения в глобальном индексном поле. Результаты демонстрируют, что GASI способен служить независимым инструментом оценки цифровых режимов, основанным на объективных данных и пригодным для использования в политологическом анализе, международных исследованиях, инвестиционном и ESG-мониторинге.

The article examines the phenomenon of network autocracy as a new form of political regime that preserves formal democratic institutions while institutionalizing algorithmic control over participation and decision-making processes. Based on an author’s analysis of 194 countries, the study proposes an integrated quantitative tool

– the GASI (Governance Algorithmic Sovereignty Index), which allows diagnosing and forecasting (within a 12–18-month horizon) the transition of political systems toward various forms of digital power – from network democracy to stable network autocracy. The GASI methodology combines three parameters: resource rent (RENTA), digital integration (DIGITAL), and algorithmic governance (ALGO). This approach captures the functional mechanisms of power reproduction and eliminates dependence on subjective expert judgments typical of existing democracy indices (Freedom House, V-Dem, Economist Intelligence Unit). Empirical comparison revealed approximately 80% consistency with international ratings and about 20% of systemic anomalies that expose the politicization of expert assessments. Countries of the Global South, the Middle East, and East Asia with high levels of digital sovereignty are systematically underrated, whereas Euro-Atlantic states receive inflated democracy scores. These discrepancies confirm the presence of normative and political biases in the global index field. The results demonstrate that GASI can serve as an independent assessment tool for digital regimes, based on objective data suitable for use in political analysis, international studies, investment, and ESG monitoring.

сетевая автократияцифровой суверенитетиндекс демократиииндекс цифрового суверенитета GASIалгоритмическое управлениецифровая интеграцияполитическая трансформациярентная экономикаV-DemFreedom Houseцифровое государствоnetwork autocracydigital sovereigntydemocracy indexGASIalgorithmic governancedigital integrationpolitical transformationrent-based economyV-DemFreedom Housedigital stateReferencesАвдеев Д.А., Журавлева Е.С. Индексы и критерии развития демократии в современном процессе [Indexes and Criteria for the Development of Democracy in the Modern Process] // ГОСРЕГ: Государственное регулирование общественных отношений. 2018. № 3(25). С. 54–61.Avdeev D.A., Zhuravleva E.S. Indexes and Criteria for the Development of Democracy in the Modern Process. GOSREG: Gosudarstvennoe regulirovanie obshchestvennyh otnoshenij [GOSREG: State Regulation of Public Relations]. 2018; 3(25):54–61 [In Russian].Бондарик Е.В. Основные международные индексы свободы СМИ: систематизация, критерии оценки и критика [Main International Media Freedom Indiсes: Systematization, Evaluation Criteria and Criticism] // Полития. 2019. № 3(94). С. 185–200. https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2019-94-3-185-200.Bondarik E.V. Main International Media Freedom Indiсes: Systematization, Evaluation Criteria and Criticism. Politiya [Politeia]. 2019; 3(94):185–200 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2019-94-3-185-200.Горбачев М.В. Методологические уровни интерпретации современной российской демократии: цивилизационная уникальность и проблемы выбора идентификационной модели исследования [The Methodolodical Levels of Modern Russian Democracy Interpretation: Civilization Unique and the Problem of Search of the Effective Model of Identification Research] // Известия Саратовского университета. Новая серия. Серия: Социология. Политология. 2010. Т. 10. Вып. 3. С. 84–87.Gorbachov M.V. The Methodolodical Levels of Modern Russian Democracy Interpretation: Civilization Unique and the Problem of Search of the Effective Model of Identification Research. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya: Sociologiya. Politologiya. [Izvestiya of Saratov University. Sociology. Politology]. 2010; 10(3):84–87 [In Russian].Никотин Д.А. Политический режим в постсоветской России: периоды трансформации и индексы демократии [Political Regime in Post-Soviet Russia: Periods of Transformation and Indices of Democracy] // Наука Красноярья. 2016. № 2(25). С. 127–141. https://doi.org/10.12731/2070-7568-2016-2-127-141.Nikotin D.A. Political Regime in Post-Soviet Russia: Periods of Transformation and Indices of Democracy. Nauka Krasnoyar’ya [Krasnoyarsk Science]. 2016; 2(25):127–141 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.12731/2070-7568-2016-2-127-141.Политический атлас современности: Опыт многомерного статистического анализа политических систем современных государств [The Political Atlas of Modernity: The Experience of Multidimensional Statistical Analysis of the Political Systems of Modern States]. М.: Изд-во «МГИМО–Университет», 2007. 272 с.The Political Atlas of Modernity: The Experience of Multidimensional Statistical Analysis of the Political Systems of Modern States. Moscow: Izd-vo «MGIMO–Universitet» [MGIMO University Publishing House], 2007. 272 p. [In Russian].Понарин Э.Д. Об объективном, субъективном и манипулятивном в рейтингах стран [About the Objective, Subjective and Manipulative in Country Ratings] // СОЦИОДИГГЕР. 2021. Август. Т. 2. Вып. 7(12). С. 95–100.Ponarin E.D. About the Objective, Subjective and Manipulative in Country Ratings. SOCIODIGGER [SOCIODIGGER]. 2021; 7(12):95–100 [In Russian].Шулика Ю. Анализ выживаемости авторитарных режимов в рентно-сырьевых экономиках: возможности и ограничения модели пропорциональных рисков [Survival Analysis for Authoritarian Regimes in Resource Rent Economies: Possibilities and Limitations of the Proportional Hazards Model] // Вестник Пермского университета. Серия: Политология. 2018. Т. 12. № 4. С. 122– 139. https://doi.org/10.17072/2218-1067-2018-4-122-139.Shulika Yu. Survival Analysis for Authoritarian Regimes in Resource Rent Economies: Possibilities and Limitations of the Proportional Hazards Model. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seriya: Politologiya [Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science]. 2018; 12(4):122–139 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.17072/2218-1067-2018-4-122-139.Bollen K. Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps // Studies in Comparative International Development. 1990. Vol. 25. P. 7–24.Bollen K. Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps. Studies in Comparative International Development. 1990; 25:7–24 [In English].Campbell D.F., Barth Th.D., Pölzlbauer P., Pölzlbauer G. Democracy Ranking: The Quality of Democracy in the World. Vienna: Democracy Ranking. 2012. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20130911030535/ http://democracyranking.org/wordpress/.Campbell D.F., Barth Th.D., Pölzlbauer P., Pölzlbauer G. Democracy Ranking: The Quality of Democracy in the World. Vienna: Democracy Ranking. 2012. [In English]. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20130911030535/http://democracyranking.org/wordpress/.Carothers T. Democracy Assistance: Political vs. Developmental? // Journal of Democracy. 2009. № 20(1). P. 5–19.Carothers T. Democracy Assistance: Political vs. Developmental? Journal of Democracy. 2009; 20(1):5– 19 [In English].Castells M. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2010.Castells M. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2010 [In English].Collier D., Levitsky S. Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research // World Politics. 1997. Vol. 49. № 3. P. 430–451.Collier D., Levitsky S. Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research. World Politics. 1997; 49(3):430–451 [In English].Crouch C. Post-Democracy After the Crises. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020. 187 p.Crouch C. Post-Democracy After the Crises. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020. 187 p. [In English].Dahl R. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.Dahl R. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971 [In English].DeNardis L. The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in a World with No Off Switch. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020. 236 p.DeNardis L. The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in a World with No Off Switch. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020. 236 p. [In English].Diamond L. Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency. New York: Penguin Press, 2019. 368 p.Diamond L. Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency. New York: Penguin Press, 2019. 368 p. [In English].Fukuyama F. Political Order and Political Decay. From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Strauss y Giroux, 2014. 658 p.Fukuyama F. Political Order and Political Decay. From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Strauss y Giroux, 2014. 658 p. [In English].Inglehart R., Welzel C. Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: the Human Development Sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 333 p.Inglehart R., Welzel C. Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: the Human Development Sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 333 p. [In English].Kurki M. Democracy and Conceptual Contestability: Reconsidering Conceptions of Democracy in Democracy Promotion // International Studies Review. 2010. № 12(3). P. 362–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2010.00943.x.Kurki M. Democracy and Conceptual Contestability: Reconsidering conceptions of democracy in democracy promotion. International Studies Review. 2010; 12(3):362–386 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2010.00943.x.Lake D.A. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011. 248 p. ISBN 978-0-8014-4715-7.Lake D.A. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011. 248 p. [In English]. ISBN 978-0-8014-4715-7.Levitsky S., Way L. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 517 p.Levitsky S., Way L. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 517 p. [In English].Mejias U.A., Couldry N. Data Grab: The New Colonialism of Big Tech and How to Fight Back. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2024. 328 p. ISBN 978-0-226-83230-2.Mejias U.A., Couldry N. Data Grab: The New Colonialism of Big Tech and How to Fight Back. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2024. 328 p. [In English]. ISBN 978-0-226-83230-2.Merkel W. Is There a Crisis of Democracy? // Democratic Theory. 2014. № 1(2). P. 11–25. https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2014.010202.Merkel W. Is There a Crisis of Democracy? Democratic Theory. 2014; 1(2):11–25 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2014.010202.Morozov E. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York: Public Affairs, 2011. 409 p.Morozov E. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011. 409 p. [In English].Munck G.L., Verkuilen J. Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices // Comparative Political Studies. 2002. № 35(1). P. 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041400203500101.Munck G.L., Verkuilen J. Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies. 2002; 35(1):5–34 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041400203500101.Norris P. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 360 p.Norris P. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 360 p. [In English].Norris P. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 303 p.Norris P. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press 2001. 303 p. [In English].Ross M.L. The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. 312 p. ISBN 978-0-691-15430-0.Ross M.L. The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. 312 p. [In English]. ISBN 978-0-691-15430-0.Way L. Pluralism by Default: Weak Autocrats and the Rise of Competitive Politics // International Affairs. 2016. № 92(5). P. 1279–1280. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12731.Way L. Pluralism by Default: Weak Autocrats and the Rise of Competitive Politics. International Affairs. 2016; 92(5):1279–1280 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12731.Zuboff Sh. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs, 2019. 717 p.Zuboff Sh. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs, 2019. 717 p. [In English].

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.