Sovereigntism as a vocation and profession: imperial roots, current state, possible prospects

Ruslan Zaporozhchenko

This paper offers a conceptualization of sovereigntism as a political phenomenon that deconstructs the political system of a state or empire. Analysis of the evolution and genesis of sovereignty has shown its duality: on the one hand, sovereignty has to do with the independence of a state from external influence and focuses on the internal political and intrasocial aspects. On the other hand, sovereignty is a system of power relations, implying a system of universal control and the legitimate use of violence (i.e., through mechanisms of disciplinary power, biopower, biopolitics, control and reproduction of the official ideology). Also, the interpretation of sovereignty's degree of strength offered in this paper makes it possible to discriminate weak, medium-strength, and strong sovereignties, each with its own characteristics and specific of functioning, both in open political systems and in closed ones (taking into account the nature and properties of sovereign power).

I argue that sovereigntism, under the influence of modern globalization processes, becomes either “politicized sovereignty,” consolidating the instruments and practices of populism, particularism, nationalism, and separatism, or the means to refute and deconstruct the existing sovereign system of power (including by redistributing the structures of sovereign power and formalizing nonsystemic relations). Also, analysis of the factors that led to the modern appearance of sovereigntism shows two important features. The first is events in the sovereign entity's external space, such as, the fight against globalization, the actions of supranational governance systems, and the intervention of international institutional actors in the entity's internal political system. The second characteristic feature is the struggle for power within the entity's political system, which may take the form either of a struggle between the center and the periphery, or of a struggle for the transformation of the political system and the legitimacy of political decision-making. Sovereigntism exhibits the ability to catalyze sociopolitical events, phenomena, and practices (protest movements, revolutions or civil wars, rallies, strikes) for further (re)production of divisions within the political system.

Key words:sovereignty, sovereigntism, modern state, empire, power, authority, social space

Social movements, whose positive dynamics increased in 2020, have reactualized sovereignty as one of the key concepts of sociopolitical scientific discourse. Sovereignty is related to issues of state organization, the principle of territorialism, the method of organizing power relations within a specific sociopolitical order, the codification of social space, and political decision-making. On the one hand, sovereignty is interpreted as a configuration of power and domination, that is opposed to sociopolitical plurality (systemic, institutional, or structural). On the other hand, sovereignty denotes the rule and completeness of political power in various forms of (self)organization of the population (a state, an empire, etc.). The expression of political power occurs through (1) political decision-making; (2) the codification and formalization of social relations and the social space; and (3) the reproduction of decisions, actions, communications, symbols, and structures that are accepted by the society's system as “our own,” separate from “alien."

The heterogeneity and plurality of the substantive part of the concept of sovereignty, as well as the lack of a comprehensive conceptualization and categorization of the concept under study, led to the (co)existence in the discourse of political science of three dominant forms of sovereignty. The first one is state sovereignty (as a legal norm for codifying power relations within a particular state). The second one is national sovereignty (as an appeal to national self-determination, which presupposes the existence of a political or cultural nation within a multicomponent society). The third one is people's sovereignty (as a way of legitimizing “people” in the system of power relations, the constitutionalization and legitimization of the rights of “people” to participate in the public policy of the state, i.e., political decision-making).

Over the past few years in the social sciences, sovereignty researchers have emphasized the following areas:

* sovereignty as a derivative of territorialism, that is, the influence of geographic determinism on the changing dynamics of sovereignty (Stilz 2019; Bille 2020);

* the impact of global processes, primarily globalization and building a network society, on the unsustainability of sovereignty (Agnew 2017; Mitchell & Fazi 2017; Craig 2019);

* historical analysis of sovereignty and its rethinking, taking into account the development of society as a social system and the state as a political institution (Bourke & Skinner 2017; Waltermann 2019; Herzog 2020);

* the study of sovereignty through the prism of nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and the modernization of political systems of economically developing “third world” countries (Margariti 2017; Walshe 2019; Bennett 2020).

Two areas of research are sovereignty, primarily in the political system of the EU (Baldassari, Castelli, Truffelli, & Vezzani 2020; Damiani 2020), and the role of sovereignty in the political system of national and modern states (state-nation, nation-state) and in the system of the liberal democratic order (Kallis 2018; Scholte 2020).

The positive dynamics of social movements around the world, mentioned earlier, also demonstrate the key tendencies of modern society:

1) attempts to increase the practice of the population's participation in (re)producing political decisions, as well as attempts to increase direct control over the implementation of these decisions;

2) the desire to narrow the established distance between the center of decisionmaking (the subject of political power) and the periphery of the execution of these decisions (the object of political power);

3) de-etatization of the sociopolitical space and the fragmentation of the structures of sovereignty; and

4) the growth of antiglobalization and nationalist, and populist tendencies.

Such tendencies become the basis for the development of sovereignty as one of the key concepts in sociopolitical discourse over the past ten years.

However, examining the category of “sovereignty,” researchers have typically engaged with the issues of populism, nationalist movements, and the crisis in the system of governance that has developed in liberal democratic systems, missing the conceptual and structural features of sovereignty. Sovereignty is thereby transformed into a social and political movement, ideologizing (constructing social reality) claims to the sovereignty of the state, a power within a political organization.

Taking into account all the above mentioned factors, my aim in this paper is to conceptualize sovereignty as a mechanism for deconstructing sovereign power. In this respect, sovereigntism as such a mechanism:

2) manifests in crisis situations related to issues of legitimation and the legitimacy of political decisions within the state; and

3) functions as a system of power relations based on social and political antipodes (binary positions) that serve as the means to construct a political reality.

I am going to focus on implementing the research goal through the use of various approaches (structural, functional, world-system, institutional) and various sociological and political concepts, including critical analysis, the concept of symbolic power as the power to produce, parameterization and factor analysis, and comparative analysis.

A Conceptual Framework and the Political Foundations of Sovereignty

Modern vectors in the study of sovereignty can be identified in three key areas: the legal (regulatory) approach, the sociopolitical approach, and an approach based on the theory of international relations (Krasner 2001: 1). My work adopts the sociopolitical approach, analyzing both the body of critical work on sovereignty and other leading approaches to understanding sovereignty as a system of power and power relations.

The first attempt at conceptualizing sovereignty is associated with the French political philosopher Jean Bodin, who in his work On Sovereignty: Six Books of the Commonwealth defined sovereignty as “absolute and perpetual power vested in a commonwealth” (Bodin 2009: 24). Bodin desacralizes political reality, which earlier was focused on religion and the church as key forms of worldview (ideology) and governance (organization). On the one hand, politics replaces theology; and therefore divine power, or auctoritas, which previously was granted only to the pope, is now extrapolated to belong to the ruler (sovereign) of the state.

On the other hand, the ruler is above political processes within the framework of political reality, which frees the ruler from the legal regulation of the social system. That is, the ruler is simultaneously within the boundaries of the political reality of the state and is not within the boundaries of the law and the laws of the state. It should be understood that the ruler cannot obey “other” laws, commands, or will that come from outside the political system in which the ruler functions. That is, sovereignty is an exclusively internal, immanent property of the political system.

Jean Bodin outlines several important characteristics of power. First, the actions of sovereignty extend to the entire society (population) and the territory of the state, thereby becoming a form of public policy in which political decisions are (re)made and the social structure of power functions. Second, sovereign power must be constant, uninterrupted, and integral, submerging other possible power structures potentially on a par with or above itself. In Bodin's conceptualization of sovereignty one more property of sovereignty is revealed-permanence. Third, the goal of sovereignty is the common good, which comes from internal factors (factors connected to home affairs and home policy). Fourth, sovereign power should be desacralized, that is, separated from religion (as an ideology) meaningfully and from the church (as an organization) formally.

An important clarification that Bodin brings to the study of sovereignty concerns the definition of sovereignty, first of all as power, public or private, but also power as a method of governance through a system of control. If for Bodin sovereignty is a permanent and continuous power, then Carl Schmitt points to the fact that sovereignty defines itself through extraordinary emergencies that go beyond the “normal” existence of the state (Schmitt 2005: 20-24). For Schmitt, sovereignty has a casual nature that manifests informally, not systemically. Any difficult situation that cannot be explained, let alone resolved with the help of legal regulation, is a priori a matter not of power but of sovereignty-as an “emergency” power (Schmitt 2004).

Moreover, sovereignty is unregulated power that exists simultaneously with constitutional, lawful power. Constitutional power regulates and codifies normal situations that are the natural state of a political system or social relations. Sovereignty acts in the field of extraordinary circumstances; therefore, sovereignty is an extraordinary power that cannot be regulated in advance. Sovereignty is a kind of permanent power that is not produced from anything but exists in politics itself as a mechanism of management through political decision-making. Sovereignty is “real political power” (Schmitt [1932] 1996: 30-34) that ensures the sovereign order of political organization; it becomes especially relevant in those situations where the question is about the survival of the political system itself, which is under threat of destruction.

The sovereign, according to Schmitt, is a delimiter that points to “enemies," draws the boundaries between “normal” and “emergency” situations, and also directly and absolutely ensures the survival and reproducibility of the political system. The sovereign is the subject of political relations and political reality at the same time (Schmitt 2005). Certainly, the central element of Schmitt's theory is “political will” as a special instrumental quality of a sovereign. The sovereign is above the constitutional field, but acts within the framework of a specific political system. Thus, by acting outside the normative-legal field, the sovereign is able to impose his or her own political order, which in the future will acquire the features of a legal, constitutional, and legitimate one.

Criticism of and opposition to Carl Schmitt's perspective on sovereignty is provided by the French philosopher Michel Foucault, who points out that “sovereignty and discipline, legislation, the right of sovereignty and disciplinary mechanics are in fact the two things that constitute the general mechanisms of power in our society” (Foucault 2003: 39). Foucault designates several important epistemological positions: first, the subject of sovereignty cannot be single and exclusive within the political system; rather, we should be speaking about a plurality of subjects, or at least about the binary opposition “subject to subject.” Second, sovereign power does not come “from above,” according to the will of a sovereign-ruler, but “from below” as the fear of subordinates before the ruler (sovereign); therefore, it is necessary to highlight a certain plurality of powers, which in total should constitute the unity of political power. Third, sovereign power is based not on the law as a structure for normalizing and codifying the social space of the population but on a certain fundamental legitimacy that is the ground for all laws (ibid.: 44).

According to Foucault, sovereign power is in opposition to disciplinary power, but it can also have a set of disciplinary mechanisms to implement the reproduction of itself. Chiefly, this arises from the arrangement of the infrastructure for control, supervision, and observation-in aggregate, the expansive nature of biopower, or “power over the body." Sovereign power is a system of governance that has regulatory and political dimensions (Foucault 2009: 53-55). The normative aspect of sovereign power presupposes quite legal and legitimate mechanisms of “inclusion” and “exclusion” of various structural units from public administration while the political aspect of sovereign power is a legitimate, but beyond normative, way of resolving the situation that puts the political system in a situation of hopelessness, “a dead end.”

Of most important concern here is the radical rejection of the law as a universal system of order that ensures the safety of the population within the boundaries of a specific territory. To resolve this stalemate which goes beyond the normative and transforms into the political Foucault suggests distinguishing between two regimes of power: sovereign law and disciplinary mechanisms. If sovereign law is a derivative of sovereign power and is aimed at controlling territory, then disciplinary power, through a certain set of mechanisms, controls the population:

From the nineteenth century until the present day, we have then in modern societies, on the one hand, a legislation, a discourse, and an organization of public right articulated around the principle of the sovereignty of the social body and the delegation of individual sovereignty to the State; and we also have a tight grid of disciplinary coercions that actually guarantees the cohesion of that social body. (ibid.: 37)

That is, sovereignty is transformed from social power into a constitutive property of political (state) power through management, communication, and control. Sovereignty is determined by its normative and legal nature (its legal component), while in sociopolitical discourse, sovereignty is transformed into an ideological construct, which, in my opinion, is aimed at legitimizing the practices of constructing the sociopolitical reality of the population of a particular state. Sovereignty exhausted itself meaningfully when it ceased to perform the functions of control over land and resources during the creation of the modern state. Disciplinary power is guided by a person and by social relations in the era of rationalization of the state as a system.

Taking into account the conceptual positions outlined above, I suggest considering sovereignty as a system of (re)production and legitimation of political decisions within a specific political system (open or closed), focused exclusively on the internal “agenda" (requests, demands, proposals) of the population. A sovereign system both hinders and resists both pressure and influence from outside. Sovereignty draws visible or invisible borders that distinguish “friends” from “enemies;” that is, it opposes two different systems of government, two different forms of internal political order.

Sovereignty should be understood as a tool for legitimizing the political system by other political systems; that is, “sovereignty differentiates the state ontologically and ethically from other forms of political life, and furnishes us simultaneously with the conditions for knowing the state as such” (Bartelson 1995: 189). Sovereignty is also interpreted as an internal property of the political system: the ability to adopt and legitimate political decisions and to use legitimate violence as a means of building the infrastructure of power relations, which is consolidated around the mechanisms of discipline and control.

Does Empire Construct Sovereignty or Does Sovereignty Construct Empire?

Even though the conceptualization of sovereignty took place in the 16th century and was associated primarily with royal power and the feudal system of organizing the population within a limited territory, we can observe a ramified system of sovereign power, through the presence of signs of sovereignty, even in ancient Rome. The Roman Empire illustrates many of the systemic and functional features that formed the basis for the modern forms of (self)organization of the population. Sovereignty also existed in the structure of power relations not so much in the Roman Republic as in the Roman Empire. The first emperor, Octavian Augustus, consolidated the maximum amount of power in his hands, becoming a single subject of power relations (Hinsley 1986: 41-43). Such sovereignty could be designated “absolute,” using the terminology proposed by Gottfried Leibniz (1988).

In analyzing the political structure of the Holy Roman Empire, however, Leibniz denied the existence of absolute sovereignty, giving scientific preference to a multitude of relative sovereignties, which are immanent, extend to a specific territory, may be influenced from outside, but at the same time constantly interact with each other. With respect to sovereign relations in the Roman Empire, we can identify several features:

1) The right to change political reality and lead political changes belongs to a single subject of power relations.

2) A single subject of power relations exercises direct control over the movement of capital, goods, people, and services in the territorial space of the imperial system.

3) A single subject of power relations is able to manage the system both in a peaceful period, when the paths and opportunities for the development of the system are predetermined, and in a period of uncertainty, when the system is engulfed in crisis.

It is during such systemic crises that exclusivity and a certain absoluteness of sovereignty are manifested, when the central government becomes not just power over the law, but also power capable of changing laws, political decisions, “rules of the game,” and political reality, and of getting an opportunity beyond actions. We suggest speaking less about the absoluteness of the system (about its infinity, perfection, or unconditionality) and more about its autonomy and autarky (its focus on itself). This idea is developed further later in the paper when the analysis turns to determining the degree of strength of sovereignty.

For absolute sovereignty, a characteristic feature is its personification, that is, its identification with a specific subject of power relations-with the ruler. Absolute sovereignty is not just above the law, that is, it is not just outside the normative legal system it also produces the normative reality itself, constructs it through a personified control system. Consequently, with absolute sovereignty, the system becomes autarky (focused on itself and ensuring its own security) and autocracy, in which power relations are monopolized and subsequently subjectively reproduced. Under these circumstances of uncertainty, absolute sovereignty is the embodiment of some (un)natural state of society, while sovereignty, according to Giorgio Agamben,

presents itself as an incorporation of the state of nature in society, or, if one prefers, as a state of indistinction between nature and culture, between violence and law, and this very indistinction constitutes specifically sovereign violence. The state of nature is therefore not truly external to nomos but rather contains its virtuality. (Agamben 1998: 35)

The Roman Empire was a huge and multi-level political organization that required a certain system of government, being not just a set of territories but many political forms of organization of the population. The multifunctional Latin word imperium means control, power, limitation possessed by the subject of power relations. “Imperium” was received by the governors of the emperor, proconsuls or propraetors who ruled over a limited territory, realizing there the model of power relations that they projected from the center, Rome. Consequently, the provincial leaders controlled the movement of capital, goods, people, and services, and directed political changes, but could not change political reality itself.

Thus, the provincial leaders themselves became the subjects of power relations, which functioned in the system of a single subject of power relations, but at the same time they created their own “system within the system” (a subsystem of the system). In other words, within the framework of the absolute sovereignty of the entire Roman Empire, the type of sovereignty operated and reproduced what we may call relative sovereignty, following the logic of Leibniz.

A multitude of relative sovereignties constituted a hierarchy of power relations that provided control over the existing order. Moreover, it was precisely this set of relative sovereignties that legitimized absolute sovereignty; that is, the periphery legitimized the center's right to govern itself. In this case, sovereignty is the refusal of the regions to challenge the center (central power), as well as the refusal of any state to interfere in the internal affairs of any other state (Wallerstein 2004: 97).

In empires, which are both complex and multilevel systems of government, the problem of sovereignty was solved by identifying the object of political power-the individual as a structural component of the population. At the same time, an empire should be understood not only and not so much as a political form of organizing space but as a form of a sociopolitical order with an extensive infrastructure of control over the constant (re)production of this very order.

The empire always claims to be complete, to create its own imperial world, into which all the social and political structures of the periphery are integrated. However, the degree of integration can be different, and it depends on the institutional, structural, and functional capabilities first of all of the periphery itself, as well as on its willingness to integrate into the imperial system of order.

If we apply the conceptual and discursive practices of modern science to studying the empire, then the empire is a supranational entity within which imperial sovereignty operates and, in the system of imperial sovereignty, a subsystem of sovereignty of the periphery can operate. Claiming completeness, empires resolved the issue of sovereign power by identifying the population with the empire through either (1) practices of citizenship (citizen of the Roman Empire, citizen of the Soviet Union) or (2) practices of subjectness (subjects of the ruler in the British, Russian, or Ottoman Empires).

The peripheral constituents of an empire (principalities, kingdoms, provinces, and other political forms of organization) are part of the (re)production of imperial sovereignty. That is, we have a situation in which the emperor is a sovereign interacting with the entire system through the development of a certain sum of relations (decisions, actions, communications, structures, symbols and signs), which are accepted by the system as “their own,” separated from “aliens' ones.”

In this case, sovereignty acts as a property of the social system to order chaos, (re)producing the existing imperial order. However, owing to the territorial extent of the empire and its structural and functional complexity, the emerging situations of chaos or uncertainty (the so-called “bifurcation points” in political science) extrapolate the mechanisms of sovereignty to their “local” ruler, that is, to the one who is “here and now” managing the periphery and making decisions. In this understanding, the practice of “colonial administration” or “local government of colonies” is manifested when the king or emperor is formally a sovereign, and nominally these functions are (re)performed by the “colonial manager” who has a system of control; instruments of violence, discipline, and domination; and the ability to influence the construction of collective identities at his or her disposal.

Charles Tilly points to the fact that the colonization of new territories by the British, Dutch, and French focused on “giving their merchants permission to organize colonial rule” (Tilly 1992: 92). However, a certain clarification is in order: in addition to merchants, other structures of social power were also involved, primarily missionaries, who formed the ideological basis of the imperial order, and the military, which functioned as an instrument for maintaining order, ensuring security, and protecting the territory of the colony from external interference (McNeill 1963; Mann 1986). These power structures organized new territories, extrapolating the practices and methods of governing the center to the empire (in this case, the metropolis).

As a consequence, there is a process in which the empire institutionalizes the structures of sovereignty, creating, for example, the British, French or Dutch East India Company. The development of new territories on the one hand turns the empire into a discrete management system, forcing it to seek new forms of management of the sociopolitical order. On the other hand, it transforms its system into a supraterritorial and multilevel one, forcing a consideration of sovereignty not just as a system but as a mechanism with the ability to reproduce and legitimize political decisions, where internal factors determine not only the interests of the center but also the needs of the periphery, though to a lesser extent.

Neoliberalism as a Projection of the “Imperial” Character of Sovereignty: The Degree of Strength, and Ways of Functioning

No matter how paradoxical it may sound, the modern neoliberal system of government that was formed during the 20th century is a projection of the colonial (imperial) system of government that was formed in the 16th to 18th centuries. In my opinion, neoliberalism is an attempt to legitimize the (post)imperial order in modern times by institutionalizing the structures of sovereignty: international and local associations (organizations or blocs), transnational corporations, and military-political alliances. As Giovanni Arrighi pointed out:

Moreover, constraints and restrictions on state sovereignty came to be embodied in parastatal organizations-most notably, the UN and the Bretton Woods organizations-which for the first time in the modern era institutionalized the idea of world government. (Arrighi 1994: 75)

Institutionalization, primarily of the network structures of sovereignty, is the process of creating a supranational level of government with dominant centers and (semi)peripheries lying within the sphere of the center's influence.

During the course of the collapse of empires, the creation of independent national states, and the process of decolonization that took place in the 19th and 20th centuries, sovereignty began to be associated with the independence of domestic politics (the political system) from external influence (other political systems). If we take the state of modernity (as a rational, secularized, and disciplining state) as an axiom of the existence of the modern state, then it is necessary to stipulate possible ways to evaluate the strength of sovereignty, that is, possible ways to evaluate the functioning of sovereignty.

We suggest distinguishing three degrees of strength of sovereignty, depending on the set of specific parameters: weak, medium and strong (see table 1). These degrees of strength of sovereignty are more characteristic of open political systems, in which sovereignty itself is relative to many other sovereignties or the same sovereignty both within the internal political system and beyond. On the one hand, in the modern world, the dominant form is an open political system, but recently conditions have been created for a “rollback from openness” and autonomy of the system.

Table 1. Sovereignty's degree of strength: Structure and functions

On the other hand, a closed political system is a “project” of the 20th century, associated primarily with the undemocratic regime characteristics of the political system. In the case of a closed political system, we are speaking about the autonomy of sovereignty, which, as a rule, is strong in terms of the degree of strength, and also tends to absoluteness (returning to Leibniz's idea of absolute sovereignty).

With weak sovereignty, the hierarchical structure of power relations is weak and rather formal. Such a hierarchy is volatile and unstable, depending on the internal or external social, military, or cultural environment. A weak hierarchy is characterized by a mismatch between elites and a blur in the clear planning of interactions between different social structures. Such a mechanism arises during political or social crises and is of a short-term nature. Because it is unstable and weak accordingly, it seeks to strengthen power hierarchies in any form. Weak sovereignty rests on organization “from below”; that is, the power of the sovereign is directly proportional to the desire of the population to obey, and also depends on the belief of the population in its ruler and the fear of subordinates before the ruler.

With weak sovereignty, there is no bureaucracy as such; its functions are performed by groups of persons close to the ruler who function according to a system of informal relations. Therefore, the structure of power relations is patrimonial, and also includes the practices of nepotism and crony capitalism. The political system itself is close to leaderism as a way of institutionalizing social relations. Leaderism presupposes the presence of a charismatic ruler-a leader who is both a catalyst for political reality and a coordinator of political processes.

Therefore, the normative system with weak sovereignty functions through the prism of customs and morality. A custom is a historically established norm that relies on literal performance; that is, it does not require individual or collective interpretation. The custom is not universal and the same for everyone; it may be different for different social groups, and the degree of its implementation will also differ. Morality precedes law; accordingly, the normative system tries to systematize norms in such a way that they are the same for everyone in terms of the degree of fulfillment and the degree of punishment for nonfulfillment. Morality goes beyond the everyday life in which the individual finds him- or herself and his or her social boundaries.

Social solidarity (Durkheim 1969: 37-43) as a way of legitimizing collective identity is mechanical, that is, formal. It is based on the underdevelopment and similarity of the constituent models of society. Inherent in mechanical solidarity is the use of violence and repressive mechanisms to support social structuring. With mechanical solidarity, an individual blends into a team, which the individual directly depends on. The social solidarity of a team depends on the level of interaction among its members, as well as on cooperation between socioeconomic functions reflecting the normative space of such a team. Mechanical solidarity is characterized by repressive sanctions, a similarity in sociocultural structures and norms, and a poorly developed infrastructure of social ties and social mobility.

The social structure is represented by the variation of layers/columns where the “filter” for the transition from one layer to another is the presence of certain resources and capabilities (financial, administrative, military, power, relatives). This structure is typical, for example, of some countries in Africa and the Middle East (Libya, Syria, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia), where formally these political organizations are states, but nominally they are divided into many (self)organized groups (military formations, rebels, paramilitary groups that control a certain territory and the movement of capital, goods, and people on it).

With medium sovereignty, a medium hierarchy of power functions that is based on at least a two-level system of relations. The level of organization of the hierarchy depends on the level of organization of the political system and the society itself. As a rule, medium sovereignty is represented by the practices of populism, clientelism, and elitism in how the distribution of power is structured and in the formation of power inequalities. With respect to clientelism, there is an indirect interaction between the patron and the client whereby the latter directly depends on the former. Clients are loyal and devoted to the patron or to the person interested in obtaining both social prestige and socioeconomic benefits.

Consequently, during the functioning of the medium hierarchy, there is a consensus direction in the organization of power relations, whereby not only subjects of political power but also objects are allowed to develop and make a political decision. In this context, consensus is a way of coordinating the actions of the authorities that, in one way or another, depends on the relationship between the ruler, the bureaucracy, and the population. Bureaucracy, on the other hand, is client-oriented and its functions are aimed at identifying the needs and desires of the population for more flexible management and to prevent crises in the political system. On the one hand, the patron has broad social ties, power or economic resources on the other, the patron needs “his or her own people” in the appropriate areas of implementing the power policy and supporting the legitimacy of the existing system of government.

Institutional design with medium sovereignty is formalized as a monarchy, which cannot always be only and exclusively hereditary. The monarchical structure presupposes the creation of a vertical of power relations, a ramified infrastructure of power, as well as a differentiation of society-a normatively fixed social stratification of the population. The social structure is represented by classes and strata; the latter, in turn, are characterized by (1) the unification of people into a community on a nominal basis-property, blood, ethnos, language; and (2) the construction of a hierarchical model of interaction and relationships.

Classes, as Pierre Bourdieu defines them, are a set of agents that occupy an initial position (at the same time, they exist in specific conditions, and are subject to these conditions and circumstances); have similar dispositions, interests, and capital and produce similar social practices and positions (Bourdieu 1985: 726-727). A social class is a set of objective and subjective factors having in common the acceptance of the (re)production of the social order, a normative value system, and a “class consciousness.” Class consciousness, in turn, is the construction of social reality, an ideology manifesting as a set of social practices, norms, values, and identification of oneself in the social and political system.

With strong sovereignty, a strong power hierarchy also functions, which is best represented in a meaningful way in corporatism and its structural varieties (bureaucratic, oligarchic, societal, economic, others). With strong sovereignty, we are speaking about the degree of integration of the elites into the political system, as well as their (in)direct participation in the development of political decisions and (re)production of the network structure of power. According to the logic of corporatism, the structural units of society are not separate individuals but social groups that have the best chance at being on the receiving end of the redistribution of power, capital, prestige, and social benefits. The power structure, as a system reproducing sovereign relations, is formed “from above,” creating a ramified configuration of power: (1) as a relationship between subjects and objects, (2) as a struggle for the possession of power resources, and (3) as control over the organization of social space.

The production of mechanisms to legitimize power, the maintenance of a system of universal control, and the reproduction of the existing political order all require a professional bureaucracy that is rational, systemic, and multifunctional (Weber [1921] 1978; Merton 1968). Thus the power hierarchy in strong sovereignty performs a management function that is, sovereignty in this case should be considered as the management and organization of social structures in the context of the political system. Therefore, the normative system is based on law as a process of codification, systematization, and universalization of existing norms in conjunction with politics as an instrument of the conscious regulation of society, social structures, social processes, and sociopolitical relations.

The social structure is also determined variably, through the prism of estates (when certain “filters” are evident, which slow down social mobility and fix the social distance between communities, groups, and individuals); the social structure may also take the form of guild trusts (when an impenetrable system is created that regulates social distance, forms hierarchical structures of interactions, and monopolizes the very right to power). Guild trusts also have their own specificities, depending on their content:

1) economic character-the dominance of the economy; for example, US transnational corporations, chaebols in South Korea, zaibatsus in Japan;

2) poLiticaL nature -political parties, elites, and leaders; politics seen as a field of struggle and the redistribution of power;

3) professional (consensus) character-a combination of economic and political, when the economy is seen as a way to achieve political goals and politics is understood and accepted as an instrument of reproduction and satisfaction of social needs.

The degrees of strength of sovereignty, as was noted earlier, function in open and closed political systems, where open systems are characterized by relative sovereignty, (co)related to other relative sovereignty. In a closed system, the relativity of sovereignty is impossible, since any closed political system tends to autonomization, autarky, and, as a possible option, isolation. Therefore, in closed political systems (see figure 1), sovereignty is autonomous, one of the properties of which can be absoluteness, and strong in terms of power at the same time.

Figure 1. Sovereignty's degree of strength on a scale of relative to absolute

Figure 2. Sovereignty in the context of political systems

In other words, in open political systems, sovereignty is relative to a number of other relative sovereignties, which either line up in a hierarchy (vertical structure of sovereign power) or function with each other in equal conditions (horizontal structure of sovereign power) (see figure 2). Moreover, sovereignty is relative in relation to the very political system in which it functions. This type of sovereignty, as a rule, is permanent: it is a system of power relations that is (re)produced within the boundaries of a particular political system. Relative sovereignty presupposes the intervention of concomitant factors in the very process of producing sovereignty also, relative sovereignty can be influenced by social or political conjuncture, so it cannot be autonomous (tending to absoluteness).

In closed political systems, it is the autonomous (with development into absolute) sovereignty that functions; that is, the political system is in a constant state of tension and a state of emergency. The functionality of such a system is ensured through control over the social reality of the population, the use of physical violence, a system of disciplinary mechanisms, and the exercise of a power that stands above the law and constitutes both the laws themselves and the normative space. In such a system, law is perceived not as a way to codify the social order but as an instrument of direct subordination. In closed political systems, autonomous sovereignty proceeds from the guality of power (control over the system of violence) and the number of followers (the apparatus of the system of violence).

Sovereigntism as a “New” Political Reality: Factor Analysis. From the point of view of international law, sovereignty has been transformed into an attribute of a state independent of outside influence. However, the process of globalization that is taking place in our time calls into guestion the existence of sovereignty. Globalization presupposes, if you look at its substantive part, at least three main aspects: universalism (as a system of universal norms, laws, and rules), codification (as ordering, first of all, the system of power relations and control systems), and unification (as a method of managing diversity with their further reduction to a single model).

In this perspective, we get at Least two discursive directions: first, sovereignty as a system of power relations, and second, sovereignty as an attribute of the state, independent of outside influence. In such a consideration of sovereignty, the question arises about the study of sovereigntism as “politicized sovereignty.” Modern researchers view sovereigntism either as a derivative of populism, particularism, and nationalism (Howell & Moe 2020; Kimball 2020; Sharma 2020) or as a mechanism for influencing communities about the internal politics of the state (Strang 1996; Rensmann 2016; Beetz & Rossi 2017; Agnew 2019).

In our opinion, for a more comprehensive and systematic analysis, it is necessary to separate sovereigntism as a poLiticaL movement that claims to ideologically justify itself (here taking the form of political parties or organizations, e.g., French Action, France Arise, Popular Republican Union in France, New Force, Brothers of Italy, in Italy, FaLange EspanoLa de Las JONS, and Vox, in Spain) from sovereigntism as a set of practices, that is, immanent, discrete events or actions of a sociopolitical nature (rallies, protests, revoLutions, uprisings) aimed at deLegitimizing sovereign power or at deconstructing political reality itself.

So, if “sovereigntism [is] the belief in the uncontested primacy of nationaL-LeveL politics and the caLL to recover at this precise LeveL (institutionaLLy as weLL as territoriaLLy) power that has sLipped away to more distant and diffuse Layers of governance” (KaLLis 2018: 299), then sovereigntism is adjacent to or conjoined with such sociaL and poLiticaL phenomena as particuLarism, separatism, nationaLism, and popuLism. Sovereigntism is a naturaL reaction to the processes of gLobaLization and universaLization taking pLace in the modern worLd. Therefore, sovereigntism must be considered a compLeteLy naturaL reaction, a response to gLobaLization, when the processes of integration and universaLization “undermine” the abiLity of the authorities to focus excLusiveLy on internaL factors when making poLiticaL decisions.

In order to conceptuaLize sovereigntism as a poLiticaL phenomenon, we suggest anaLyzing the factors of the emergence and impLementation of sovereignty, which are LargeLy associated with the crisis of sovereignty itself as a system of power reLations, on the one hand, and with the crisis in the system of internaL government on the other. We distinguish the foLLowing factors: (1) the crisis of coLLective identity, (2) "universaLization of the universaL," (3) a cLash of ideoLogies, (4) the crisis of the Legitimacy of power and the system of universaL controL, (5) popuLism and particuLarism as instruments of sovereignty, (6) autonomization of sovereignty in open systems, and (7) the crisis of sovereignty as a discursive fieLd.

The crisis of collective identity. Sovereignty, as was said earLier, presupposes the deveLopment of a certain coLLective identity, which constitutes a binary position in reLation to the externaL environment. In other words, sovereignty appeaLs to society as a whoLe, the “friends” of the poLiticaL system, which organizes them and protects them from “enemies” from outside. This “we or they” opposition is necessary to Legitimize the system of power reLations, as weLL as to create discipLinary mechanisms for managing the poLiticaL system.

It has been the source of greatest preoccupation and contention when conditions have been producing rapid changes in the scope of government or in the nature of society or in both. It has been resisted or reviled -- it could not be overlooked-when conditions, by producing a close integration between society and government or else by producing a gap between society and government, have inclined men to assume that government and community are identical. (Hinsley 1986: 2)