The Digital Sovereignty Index (GASI): Revealing the Politicization of Global Democracy Ratings and New Parameters of Network Regimes

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.

1. 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].

2. 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.

3. 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].

4. 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.

5. 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].

6. Ponarin E.D. About the Objective, Subjective and Manipulative in Country Ratings. SOCIODIGGER [SOCIODIGGER]. 2021; 7(12):95–100 [In Russian].

7. 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.

8. Bollen K. Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps. Studies in Comparative International Development. 1990; 25:7–24 [In English].

9. 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/.

10. Carothers T. Democracy Assistance: Political vs. Developmental? Journal of Democracy. 2009; 20(1):5– 19 [In English].

11. Castells M. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2010 [In English].

12. Collier D., Levitsky S. Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research. World Politics. 1997; 49(3):430–451 [In English].

13. Crouch C. Post-Democracy After the Crises. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020. 187 p. [In English].

14. Dahl R. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971 [In English].

15. 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].

16. Diamond L. Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency. New York: Penguin Press, 2019. 368 p. [In English].

17. 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].

18. Inglehart R., Welzel C. Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: the Human Development Sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 333 p. [In English].

19. 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.

20. Lake D.A. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011. 248 p. [In English]. ISBN 978-0-8014-4715-7.

21. Levitsky S., Way L. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 517 p. [In English].

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Morozov E. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011. 409 p. [In English].

25. 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.

26. Norris P. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 360 p. [In English].

27. Norris P. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press 2001. 303 p. [In English].

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. Zuboff Sh. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs, 2019. 717 p. [In English].