Журнал политических исследований, 2021, № 1

ISSN 2587-6295 
 
ЖУРНАЛ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ 
Сетевой научный журнал 
Том 5 
■ 
Выпуск 1 
■ 
2021 
 
Выходит 4 раза в год   
 
 
 
 
 
 
      Издается с 2017 года 
 
 

Свидетельство о регистрации средства массовой 
информации  
Эл № ФС77-63242 от 06.10.2015 г. 
 
Издатель:  
ООО «Научно-издательский центр ИНФРА-М» 
127282, г. Москва, ул. Полярная, д. 31В, стр. 1 
Тел.: (495) 280-15-96 
Факс: (495) 280-36-29 
E-mail: books@infra-m.ru 
http://www.infra-m.ru 
 
Главный редактор: 
Федорченко С.Н. – кандидат политических наук, доцент, 
Московский государственный областной университет, 
зам. декана факультета истории, политологии и права по 
научной работе и международному сотрудничеству 
 
Ответственный редактор:  
Титова Е.Н. 
E-mail: titova_en@infra-m.ru 
 
Журнал включен в Перечень ВАК по следующим 
научным специальностям: 
23.00.01 – Теория и философия политики, история и 
методология 
политической 
науки 
(политические 
науки), 
23.00.02 – Политические институты, процессы и 
технологии (политические науки), 
23.00.04 – Политические проблемы международных 
отношений, глобального и регионального развития 
(политические науки) 
 
Присланные рукописи не возвращаются.  
Точка 
зрения 
редакции 
может 
не 
совпадать  
с мнением авторов публикуемых материалов.  
Редакция оставляет за собой право самостоятельно подбирать к 
авторским 
материалам 
иллюстрации, 
менять 
заголовки, 
сокращать тексты и вносить в рукописи необходимую 
стилистическую 
правку 
без 
согласования 
с 
авторами. 
Поступившие  
в редакцию материалы будут свидетельствовать о согласии 
авторов принять требования редакции.  
Перепечатка 
материалов 
допускается  
с письменного разрешения редакции.  
При цитировании ссылка на журнал «Журнал политических 
исследований» обязательна.  
Редакция не несет ответственности за содержание рекламных 
материалов.  
 
© ИНФРА-М, 2021 
 
Опубликовано 25.03.2021. 
 
САЙТ: http://naukaru.ru/ 
E-mail: titova_en@infra-m.ru 
 
 
 

СОДЕРЖАНИЕ

Политические институты, 

процессы и технологии 

Fedorchenko S.N., Karlyavina E.V.  
Smart City: the arrival of a New Democracy or Digital 
Totalitarianism?  

Бродовская Е.В., Никулин Е.Р., Давыдова М.А.  
Массовые политические протесты в Республике 
Беларусь 
летом-осенью 
2020 
года: 
причины 

возникновения, 
социальная 
база, 
цифровая 

инфраструктура 

Beznosov M.A., Golikov A.S.  
Constructing the Soviet Man’s Image in Modern 
Liberal Sociology Discourse (Levada-Centre Texts 
Cases)  

Бубнов А.Ю., Козлов С.Е.  
Политический активизм в социальных сетях (на 
примерах Москвы, Екатеринбурга и Шиеса)  

Государственное управление 

и отраслевые политики  

Володенков С.В., Сидорович А.В., Щербинин 
А.И., Манойло А.В., Федорченко С.Н., Зверев 
А.Л., Митева В.В., Подрезов М.В., Федоров В.И.  
Новые субъекты и технологии государственной 
политики: актуальная практика и перспективы  

Аршин К.В.  
Миграционная политика Саудовской Аравии в 
свете программы реформ «Видение: 2030»  

Алексеев Р.А., Дюдюн Т.Ю.  
Государственная поддержка малого и среднего 
бизнеса в период пандемии COVID-19 (на примере 
Московской области) 

Теория политики, история 

и методология политической науки 

Матюхин А.В., Синчук Ю.В., Панин Е.В. М.М.  
Сперанский: у истоков политической системы РФ 

РЕДАКЦИОННАЯ КОЛЛЕГИЯ

Федорченко С.Н.  — канд. полит. наук, доцент, заместитель декана 
факультета истории, политологии и права по научной работе и 
международному сотрудничеству, доцент кафедры политологии и 
права, Московский государственный областной университет 
Абрамов А.А.  — канд. полит. наук, доцент, доцент кафедры 
политологии и права, Московский государственный областной 
университет  
Афанасьев В.В.  — д-р полит. наук, доцент, профессор отделения 
социологии традиционной культуры, Академия гуманитарных и 
общественных наук  
Багдасарян В.Э.  — д-р ист. наук, декан факультета истории, 
политологии и права, Московский государственный областной 
университет  
Безносов М.А. — канд. социол. наук, доктор философии в области 
политологии (Ph.D. in Political Science), преподаватель, Департамент 
политической науки, Университет Западной Джорджии, США 
Бодрунова С.С. — д-р полит. наук, доцент, профессор кафедры 
менеджмента 
массовых 
коммуникаций, 
Санкт-Петербургский 

государственный 
университет, 
Институт 
«Высшая 
школа 

журналистики и массовых коммуникаций» 
Быков И.А.  — д-р полит. наук, доцент, доцент кафедры связей с 
общественностью в политике и государственном управлении, СанктПетербургский государственный университет  
Ветренко И.А.  — д-р полит. наук, профессор, профессор 
факультета социальных технологий, Северо-Западный институт 
управления РАНХиГС 
Володенков С.В.  — д-р полит. наук, доцент, профессор кафедры 
государственной политики факультета политологии, МГУ им. 
Ломоносова 
Грачев М.Н.  — д-р полит. наук, профессор, профессор кафедры 
теоретической и прикладной политологии факультета истории, 
политологии и права Историко-архивного института, Российский 
государственный гуманитарный университет 
Донай 
Лукаш 
– 
д-р 
полит. 
наук, 
профессор 
кафедры 

менедждународных отношений, Факультет политических наук и 
журналистики Познаньский государственный университет им. 
Адама Мицкевича, г. Познань, Польша 
Кирнос А.В.  — канд. полит. наук, доцент, начальник кафедры 
теории и истории государства и права, Воронежский институт 
Министерства внутренних дел РФ 
Кросстон Мэтью Д.  — д-р филос. наук, профессор факультета 
безопасности и глобальных исследований Американский Военный 
Университет, США 
Курылев К.П.  — д-р ист. наук, доцент, профессор кафедры теории 
и истории международных отношений, Российский университет 
дружбы народов 
Маринов А.И. —  профессор политических наук (публичная 
администрация), 
PhD 
в 
области 
социологии, 
Софийский 

Университет „Св. 
Климент Охридски”, 
кафедра 
публичной 

администрации; Пловдивский Университет „Паисий Хилендарски”, 
кафедра 
политических 
наук 
и 
национальной 
безопасности; 

Председатель Стратегического Совета при Президенте Республики 
Болгария 
Мартынов М.Ю.  — д-р полит. наук, доцент, главный научный 
сотрудник, 
заведующий 
Лабораторией 
социологических  

и правовых исследований, доцент кафедры политико-правовых 
дисциплин, БУ ВО «СурГУ ХМАО — Югра» 
Матюхин А.В.  — д-р полит. наук, доцент, профессор кафедры 
теории 
и 
истории 
международных 
отношений 
института 

международных отношений и социально-политических наук, 
Московский государственный лингвистический университет 
Мацузато Кимитака — доктор права, профессор, Высшая школа 
права и политики, Токийский университет, Япония 
Младенович М. – д-р полит. наук, (Факультет политических наук 
Белградского университета), профессор Факультет безопасности, 
Председатель 
Совета 
факультета 
безопасности, 
Белградский 

университет, Сербия 
Орлов И.Б.  — д-р ист. наук, профессор, заместитель руководителя 
Департамента политики и управления, заместитель руководителя 
Научно-учебной 
лаборатории 
исследований  

в области бизнес-коммуникаций Национальный исследовательский 
университет "Высшая школа экономики" 
Саква Ричард  — доктор философии, профессор российской  
и европейской политики, Университет Кента, Великобритания 
Сельцер Д.Г.  — д-р полит. наук, профессор, заместитель ректора, 
профессор 
кафедры 
международных 
отношений  

и политологии, Тамбовский государственный университет им. 
Державина  
Тарасов И.Н. – д-р полит. наук, профессор, профессор, Балтийский 
Федеральный университет имени Иммануила Канта 
Ярулин И.Ф.  — д-р полит. наук, профессор, директор Института 
социально-политических 
технологий 
и 
коммуникаций, 

Тихоокеанский государственный университет 

Политическая культура, идеология и аксиология

Ярулин И.Ф., Поздняков Е.И.  
Мировоззренческий раскол в Европе 

Труды молодых ученых 

Соловьев Д.А.  
Определение 
влиятельности 
вице-губернаторов 

России: 
позиционный 
метод 
(на 
примере 

Тамбовской области) 

Рецензии, аналитика, обзоры 

Матюхин А.В.  
Необходимые знания студентам о противодействии 
экстремизму (учебник «Политика противодействия 
экстремизму» под редакцией А.П. Кошкина)  

Smart City: the arrival of a New Democracy  
or Digital Totalitarianism? 
 
Умный город: приход новой демократии или 
цифрового тоталитаризма? 
 
DOI: 10.12737/2587-6295-2021-5-1-3-22 
УДК 32.019.51 
Received: 05.02.2021  
Approved: 19.02.2021 
Published: 25.03.2021 
 
Fedorchenko S.N.  
Candidate of Political Science, Professor of the Department of Political Science and Law, Deputy 
Dean of the faculty of History, Political Science and Law for Research, Moscow Region State 
University, doctoral student RAS Institute of Philosophy. 
e-mail: sn.fedorchenko@mgou.ru 
 
Федорченко С.Н.  
канд. полит. наук, профессор кафедры политологии и права, заместитель декана факультета 
истории, политологии и права по научной работе Московского государственного областного 
университета, доцент, докторант Института философии РАН. 
e-mail: sn.fedorchenko@mgou.ru  
 
Karlyavina E.V. 
Chief lecturer, Chair of International Relations and Geopolicy of Transport, 
Russian University of Transport MIIT 
e-mail: katerinakarlj@yandex.ru 
 
Карлявина Е.В. 
Старший преподаватель кафедры международных отношений и геополитики транспорта 
Российского университета транспорта (МИИТ). 
e-mail: katerinakarlj@yandex.ru 
 
Abstract  
The main purpose of the article is to study technologies of a smart city to identify the prospects for 
digital democracy and risks of digital totalitarianism. The basic methodological optics is the 
discourse analysis, which involves the identification and comparative analysis of various concepts on 
the selected issues. The supporting methodology was the Case Study principles and the big data 
analysis capabilities of the Google Trends platform. The article makes a theoretical contribution to 
the understanding of the algorithmic nature of modern political power, which is the basis of urban 
technopolitics, as well as the complex configuration of Policy and Politics. Algorithms, as the 
fundamental basis of digital applications and smart city technologies, are beginning to permeate the 
entire life of a citizen, closely intertwining with the mechanisms of digital control, rating, political 
decision-making, extraction, filtering and sorting of information data. It is particularly emphasized 
that the traditional social reality is transformed into a sociotechnical reality (the phygital world), in 
which it is no longer possible to rigidly separate the social from the technical. The conclusions 
indicate that digital democracy is possible only on the principles of open source, while digital 
totalitarianism, on the contrary, excludes such a model. Without the inclusion of smart citizens, the 
process of discussion and political decision-making, digital democracy is simply emasculated into a 
good, but still narrow service on the part of the authorities. In addition, without comprehensive 

programs in the field of political education, there will be no digital democracy, no smart citizens, 
only a smart elite will remain.  
Keywords: smart city, digitalization, democracy, digital totalitarianism, digitalization of politics, 
digital democracy, network communications, algorithmic power. 
 
Аннотация 
Основной целью статьи является исследование технологий умного города для выявления 
перспектив цифровой демократии и рисков цифрового тоталитаризма. В качестве базовой 
методологической оптики выступает дискурс-анализ, предполагающий выявление и 
сравнительный анализ различных концепций по выбранной проблематике. Вспомогательной 
методологией стали принципы Case Study и возможности анализа больших данных 
платформы Google Trends. Статья вносит теоретический вклад в осмысление алгоритмической 
природы современной политической власти, являющейся основой городской технополитики, а 
также сложной конфигурации Policy и Politics. Алгоритмы, как фундаментальная основа 
цифровых приложений и технологий умного города, начинают пронизывать всю жизнь 
гражданина, тесно переплетаясь с механизмами цифрового контроля, рейтингования, 
процессом принятия политических решений, извлечением, фильтрацией и сортировкой 
информационных данных. Особо подчеркивается, что традиционная социальная реальность 
трансформируется в социотехническую реальность (фиджитал-мир), в которой уже нельзя 
жестко оторвать социальное от технического. В выводах обозначено, что цифровая 
демократия возможна только на принципах открытого исходного кода, тогда как цифровой 
тоталитаризм, напротив, исключает такую модель. Без включения умных граждан в процесс 
обсуждения и принятия политических решений цифровая демократия просто выхолащивается 
в хороший, но все же узкий сервис со стороны властей. Кроме того, без комплексных 
программ в сфере политического образования не появится ни цифровой демократии, ни 
умных граждан, останется только умная элита. Возникает опасность стирания грани 
общественного, государственного и частного, что гибельно для любой формы демократии, в 
том числе и цифровой. Тогда как цифровой тоталитаризм заменяет гражданина потребителем, 
ориентирует общество на тотальную деполитизацию с одновременной консервацией 
цифрового неравенства в пользу немногочисленной элиты.  
Ключевые слова: умный город, цифровизация, демократия, цифровой тоталитаризм, 
цифровизация политики, цифровая демократия, сетевые коммуникации, алгоритмическая 
власть. 
 
Introduction 
The smart city concept started gaining real-world traction when political processes went digital, 
and the internet became ubiquitous in the daily lives of the general citizenry, political parties, cities, 
and states. The scope of the digitalization of politics is far greater than digitalizing all the regulatory 
documents, political images, and messages: this phenomenon is driven by the activities of major 
digital corporations (Google, Apple, Huawei, Facebook, etc.) that have created digital platforms 
(giving the users an ability to communicate) and network effects (methods of expanding the user 
audiences of digital platforms) [31]. Decentralized social networks have existed since before the 
internet, but once they went digital, they became thoroughly intertwined with every aspect of our 
lives. Manuel Castells is one of the first people to research various network effects. He described a 
number of specific phenomena within his concept of Network Power: Networking Power (the power 
of actors that can draw people into the network or exclude them from the network), Network Power 
(the influence the standards of network actors have on communication and globalization), Networked 
Power (specific manifestations of an actor's power over other actors within the network), and 
Network-making Power (actors' capabilities to construct networks according to their goals and 
values) [11]. Scientific interest in the networking mechanisms of the digitalization of human life 
prompted a reevaluation of attitude toward political power and its rather vertical, strictly hierarchical 
structure. At the same time, the expert reviews were polarized, noting that the smart city could either 

provide new opportunities for democracy or conceal a totalitarian threat to the individual expression 
of civil liberties. 
Network effects allow us to confirm that digitalization indeed changes the essence of traditional 
political institutions and erstwhile forms of political communication. A smart city concentrates every 
conceivable network effect, becoming a testing ground for finding the impact of digital technologies 
upon its people. Some consider digitalization an element of a special sociotechnological reality that 
replaces the traditional social reality. Many authors have been writing about the emergence of this 
new sociotechnological reality (or phygital world): B. Latour, L. Suchman, G. Lovink, I. A. Isaev, S. 
McQuire, and others. In this approach, digital information is not just data but also metadata that allow 
citizens to interpret and reuse all sorts of content. It also enables political actors to analyze ongoing 
processes and control the mass consciousness. Digital platforms were, however, originally created 
with their own special temporality: the internet protocols at their core are intended for the 
transmission of hypertext. Not only do they transmit and compress information, but they also register 
the time and location of its origin, track its routes, and record user activity on the internet (e.g., via 
cookies) identifying it with the specific browser of the user. This stream of metadata makes digital 
content social, and the tools that are used to process digital information combine technical processing 
with social processing [22]. These digital processes transform social topology into a closed loop 
despite the discreet nature of network communications. So who, or, more precisely, what is closing 
the loop of social topology? 
Some researchers look for an answer in the social power of the algorithms and the 
algorithmization of power. The algorithm is barely noticeable, but it is a major part of our lives, 
including in the political sphere. The algorithm searches for information, filters it, and sorts it. It has 
a direct impact on decision making, content ranking, content recommendations, and newsfeed 
settings; it offers ample opportunities for very precise targeting. These researchers write extensively 
about algorithmic identity, algorithmic culture, and algorithmic life. F. Pasquale made an insightful 
comment about "authority as expressed algorithmically": algorithms directing the flow of big data 
and those interjecting into critical decision-making processes. In light of that, we think it reasonable 
to consider the approach suggested by D. Beer [9] who considers algorithms and their design an 
organic part of our sociopolitical landscape. In his works, he refers to M. Foucault [15] who noted a 
link between power relations and the existing discourses that make it possible for these discourses to 
exist.  
Beer's approach stipulates that the power of algorithms lies in their capacity to define what is 
important, and what is not for any given individual. Algorithms become filter bubbles: while the 
algorithms are sorting the data, they have the capacity to expand but, more importantly, to limit the 
circle of social connections and reduce the scope of a given citizen's cultural and political experience. 
Interpersonal communication becomes dependent on the patterns, associations, and configurations of 
favored connections introduced by algorithms [9]. On the one hand, for most users, algorithms 
operate like an inscrutable black box. On the other hand, algorithms have a mythos of their own, that 
of the most trustworthy, objective, neutral, effective, and efficient means of arriving at truth. In his 
works, Beer suggests that algorithms are not just code, they are a fundamental concept that we use to 
designate certain phenomena. According to Beer, algorithmic power can produce truths through the 
functioning of systems and through discursive manipulation of approaches, norms, and modes of 
thinking. In other words, algorithms are one part of how modern power is deployed.  
The potential of algorithmization and its risks are becoming increasingly relevant from the point 
of view of the powerful in light of the proliferation of the smart city concept. For example, IBM has 
its own Smarter Cities program within which the company develops cognitive ecosystems that 
comprise cognitive cities, homes, offices, cafes, entertainment centers, manufacturing sites, and a 
cognitive learning system. Moreover, IBM has moved away from betting on brain research and now 
pursues the concept of neural plasticity. According to this concept, a person's environment influences 
their development more than their genetic code. IBM considers human subjects as malleable brains 
that can be studied with algorithmic tools. IBM perceives human and computational (robotic) 
learning in the same fashion, as a system of algorithms [35]. At present, the concept of the smart city 

is clearly being idealized. However, the current trends in the evolution of the sociotechnological 
reality and objective conditions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic clearly indicate that, sooner or 
later, most large cities will use digital platforms to resolve their current issues. These include selfgovernment, commerce, targeted advertisement, the election process, feedback exchange between 
urban residents and the government, crime prevention, energy consumption monitoring, 
environmental monitoring, and traffic monitoring. It is therefore important to understand which 
actors will participate in the creation of the algorithms and the imposition of them on digital 
platforms—will those actors be the citizenry, the state, the insular cliques of political elites, or the 
digital corporations themselves? How centralized will those digital platforms be? Will there still be a 
hard line between private, public, state, and commercial? All these challenging questions formulate 
the main goal of the article: to study the technologies of the smart city and to process the 
opportunities of digital democracy and the risks of digital totalitarianism. 
 
Scientific literature review 
Publications dedicated to the varied aspects of a smart city mostly focus on a limited number of 
research avenues. Some researchers conduct in-depth studies of smart technologies (N. Odendaal, A. 
Aurigi, N. Walravens)—the technological, informational, and communicational side of the equation. 
Other researchers, although also embracing technology, focus more on human resources, or smart 
citizens (J. M. Shapiro, J. V. Winters)—those are the urban residents who are sufficiently tech-savvy 
and are active on the sociopolitical scene. Lastly, some researchers touch on smart management (L. 
Calderoni,  D. Maio, P. Palmieri, K. Kourtit). Many works feature a combination of these three 
components: smart technologies, smart citizens, and smart management. Having studied more than 
50 publications in this field, A. Meijer and M. Bolivar have concluded that the concept of a smart city 
implies that its management is capable of attracting and mobilizing human capital via a partnership 
with private individuals and businesses using information and communication technologies [26]. The 
authors of the research make the following distinctions: the governance of a smart city (this is 
basically a traditional variant of decision making and the implementation of decisions that does not 
require any transformation of the governmental structures), smart decision-making processes (partial 
transformation of state institutions using data collection and network technologies), and smart 
administration (a more differentiated and complex level of the exploitation of digital technologies 
aimed at providing better service for the urban community and citizenry). Meijer and Bolivar review 
the issue of the legitimacy of smart cities in great detail, deliberating on the issues of power and 
democracy and engaging the citizens in the city's self-governance.  
Bibliographic reviews indicate that a smart city gradually becomes the center of planning and 
city politics where the strategic emphasis is placed on the so-called happiness policy. The goals of 
this policy are sustainable development, assessing the residents' quality of life, and assessing their 
level of engagement with urban authorities (Smart Dubai1 is an example of such a program). In other 
words, smart citizens must be happy citizens. This means that they have to be given more civil 
liberties and provided with training and opportunity to become engaged in the smart city's projects. 
The smart city factor usually correlates with two models of smart citizenship: the republican 
model and the cybernetic model. The former concerns the sovereignty of the citizenry, and the latter 
specifically concerns their engagement in the informational and communicational sphere. The 
Republican Smart Citizenship Model is based on scientific data that provides the citizens with an 
opportunity to present arguments in favor of their position with regard to various urban issues, 
including political campaigns. The Cybernetic Smart Citizenship Model is based on liberal ideology 
and the decentralization of data. It focuses primarily on civil insights—the unique perception that 
each citizen has on the issues they encounter in their urban life—as opposed to focusing on general 
discourse. In this case, citizens must be able to collect data independently to keep their understanding 
of specific issues of the urban environment up to date. The fact that several models of smart 

1 Noori N., de Jong M., Janssen M., Schraven D., Hoppe Th. Input-Output Modeling for Smart City Development, 
Journal 
of 
Urban 
Technology. 
2020. 
DOI: 
10.1080/10630732.2020.1794728. 
Available 
at: 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10630732.2020.1794728 (Accessed: 10.02.2021). 

citizenship have emerged is, according to Dutch researchers D. Zandbergen and J. Uitermark, a 
reaction of urban residents to emerging systems of digital control that have the opposite effect: they 
limit civil activity and impose a constant surveillance regime, pushing citizens to make certain 
decisions [37]. According to O. Söderström, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed to the world three 
specific models of smart cities: the state model (in which algorithms, digital apps, and technologies 
serve as an extension of the existing authorities), the corporate model (the state loses its monopoly on 
the production and control of big data to the "platform" urbanism of Uber, Deliveroo, Airbnb, etc.), 
and the civil model (in which digital apps and technologies are developed and used by the citizenry 
and civil society organizations)2. Söderström stipulates that in the smart cities of the Global North 
citizens are critical of the introduction of additional forms of digital control, fearing for the privacy of 
their data and for their political freedoms. Meanwhile, the citizens of the smart cities of the Global 
South, in contrast, consider such measures a necessary part of the provision of services and an 
increase in the effectiveness of security measures.  
R. Kitchin makes an insightful comment about the nature of the threats presented by smart cities: 
they come with trends in technological transformation such as the growth of rationality and the 
spread of realistic epistemology. These trends influence the reconfiguration of the city's information 
and communication systems for data analysis, geolocation surveillance, and urban manageability. 
They reduce the life of the city—and the political aspect thereof—to procedural logic and the rules of 
computation3. Cities now comply with the principles of dataficiation—a radical expansion of the 
range, scale, and specificity of the big data generated by people. Data-based urbanism gives way to 
an urbanism that is controlled by data that are processed by hundreds of algorithms. Smartphones 
regularly transmit user data to digital companies and their partners. The state, law enforcement, and 
security agencies can access those data. The traditional notices and consent forms can no longer 
protect the confidentiality of the citizen's data in an unceasing data stream. The authors note that 
people often feel powerless and anxious due to their hypervisibility; they also note that citizens are 
uncertain about the security of their data [20]. These results demonstrate the limitations of the smart 
citizen model due to its exclusive focus on liberal and individualistic Western values (those of 
Western Europe, USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand). The transformation of a citizen into a user 
of private services without the development of collective models of political organization and identity 
renders urban residents helpless in the face of forms of digital control and the smart city's rules of the 
game, imposed by digital companies or the political actors tied to those companies. As a result, a 
citizen is reduced to an object of surveillance. For that reason, some studies present the concept of 
smart communities, as opposed to individual smart citizens (L. Qi, J. Guo). However, even in these 
works, the priority is not given to analyzing and predicting the development of citizens' collective 
forms of political participation in the life of the city through digital technologies but to smart homes, 
creating sustainable infrastructure, surveillance systems, visitor management systems, parking 
management, energy management, and energy conservation4. In other words, smart communities are 
currently under-researched and require further examination.  
So far, the work on digital democracy and digital totalitarianism has little to do with the research 
in the field of smart cities, although it is difficult to deny that the digital urban space is becoming an 
experimental testing ground for the management of various political technologies of mass 
consciousness by the political authorities and digital corporations. Digital democracy is described as 

2 Söderström O. The three modes of existence of the pandemic smart city //Urban Geography. 2020. 09 Oct. DOI: 
10.1080/02723638.2020.1807167. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02723638.2020.1807167 
(Accessed: 10.02.2021). 
3 Kitchin R. The ethics of smart cities and urban science //Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: 
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2016. Vol. 374. Iss. 2083. DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0115. Available at: 
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2016.0115 (Accessed: 10.02.2021). 
4 Qi L., Guo J. Development of smart city community service integrated management platform. International //Journal of 
Distributed 
Sensor 
Networks. 
June 
2019. 
DOI:10.1177/1550147719851975. 
Available 
at: 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1550147719851975#articleCitationDownloadContainer 
(Accessed: 
10.02.2021). 

the deployment of the information and communication strategies and technologies used by 
democratic actors involved in the political processes within various communities (A. Timonen). 
Some specialists say that digital democracy does not reinforce traditional political institutions, nor 
does it make life any easier for politicians, but it does establish an important link between them and 
the citizenry [33]. Some intriguing research [38] suggests that there is a correlation between offline 
political participation and online expressive participation. Therefore, empirical evidence proves that 
there is indeed a special sociotechnological reality, and its advent will replace the traditional social 
reality. This phenomenon has the unique trait that hybrid forms of political engagement are 
developed within it, combining online and offline activity.  
For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that there are studies devoted to the variety of 
problems with digital democracy. S.-J. Min, for instance, dedicated her research to the second-level 
digital divide factor that is linked to the multileveled access of users to information and 
communication resources. So what is this divide that can get in the way of democracy? This 
primarily concerns the disparity in users' digital skills. Social, economic, psychological, cultural, and 
other factors also contribute to the divide [27]. There is also a democratic divide: digital technologies 
only help active citizens while pushing those who do not engage with such technologies to the 
sidelines of politics. 
Political scientists who study the phenomenon of digital totalitarianism sometimes base their 
research on H. Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, which was published long before widespread 
digitalization. In her book, Arendt defines totalitarianism as a system that seeks to subjugate 
absolutely all spheres of human life through measures of control. Arendt asserts that this is the key 
difference between totalitarian regimes and autocracies. An autocracy seeks only to weaken political 
opposition [8]. Arendt's thesis about such signs of totalitarianism as loneliness and individual 
isolation in modern conditions of mass digital communications does, of course, require serious 
correction. However, if we employ the concept of the digital capsule developed by professor S. V. 
Volodenkov, we will see the theoretical landscape with new eyes. A digital capsule is the information 
and communication environment that is formed around every modern citizen. This environment 
offers them a complete model for the interpretation of their current political landscape [2]. On the one 
hand, the digital capsule adapts to the personal needs and characteristics of the user, but, on the other 
hand, it gives the user rather stereotyped and limited insights into the new sociotechnical reality that 
surrounds them. In other words, the core message Arendt had about totalitarianism is still relevant 
with regard to the existing mechanisms of digital control over the citizenry and the mechanisms that 
use their personal data to construct a worldview beneficial to a political actor.  
However, the reworkings of Arendt's ideas and similar ideas by other authors are not always 
objective. On the contrary, these works often ideologize totalitarianism. For instance, C. J. Friedrich 
and Z. Brzezinski asserted that the political regimes of the fascist nations and the Soviet Union were 
essentially the same thing [16]. This assertion merits criticism: while the Soviet state had at its core 
the idea of the Internationale, the fascist states rejected any such idea. Applying totalitarianism theory 
to the Soviet Union within the framework of such comparisons likely aims to revise the role of the 
Soviet Union in the victory over the fascist coalition and to create a stable image of the Soviet Union 
as an enemy. Since Russia is the historical and legal successor of the USSR, the goals of these deeply 
flawed comparisons could have destructive long-term ramifications. There is an opposing evaluation 
of the nature of totalitarianism. M. Halberstam notes that there is a hidden link between liberalism 
and totalitarianism. In his book, he essentially accuses liberalism of being a secret ally of 
totalitarianism [18] although he does not elaborate on the role of the latter as a characteristically 
Western phenomenon. The first studies on the digital form of totalitarianism have already appeared 
[14], but thus far they remain few in number.  
 
 

Methods 
We chose discourse analysis as our main methodological approach. It presupposes the detection 
and comparative analysis of various concepts within a given field. In our discourse analysis, we 
formulated two basic research questions: 
1. Is digital democracy possible in a smart city? 
2. What are the risks of digital totalitarianism in a smart city?  
The discourse analysis carried out was specifically work with the databases of the major 
publishing houses, SAGE and the Taylor & Francis Group. Case Study principles and the capabilities 
of the Google Trends platform were used as supporting methodologies to analyze search queries 
about democracy, totalitarianism, and digital technologies. This research was aided by the 
reconceptualization of the body of theoretical work by M. Foucault and the concept of the 
algorithmization of power by D. Beer. Let us then proceed to the methodological search for answers 
to the questions we posed. 
 
Is Digital Democracy possible in a Smart City? 
To answer such a question one must have a clear understanding of the digital environment and 
the digital technologies of a smart city that could facilitate the flourishing of digital democracy. The 
analysis of data obtained using Google Trends indicates that interest in democracy has been in 
constant, volatile flux worldwide since the early 2000s (figure 1). It is quite possible that this can be 
attributed to the elections regularly held worldwide and the recurring signals related to the electoral 
process. Even though such interest is very intermittent, the fact that there is consistent interest in 
democracy is an important indicator for the future of the smart city. 
 

 
Figure 1. Interest in the word "Democracy" around the world since 2004 
 
Big data analysis also showed that the topic "smart management" is the most popular among 
users, and the search query "smart community" also retains relevance, while the search query "smart 
citizens" is of lesser interest (figure 2). 
 

 
Figure 2. Searches for the words "smart management" (green), "smart community" (red), "smart 
administration" (yellow), and "smart citizens" (blue) in the world over five years 
 
Passion for the idea of digital democracy in cities is associated primarily with the idea of 
"techno-politics"—a concept popular in the West. Techno-politics is usually explained by positioning 
democracy at the core of the sociotechnical reality. Through the lens of techno-politics, democracy is 
an ongoing process organized on special techno-political (digital) platforms. The techno-political 
approach emphasizes the importance of open source development, the availability of digital 

technologies and projects, and the rights of citizens to transform those technologies and projects [23]. 
This approach is largely inspired by M. Castells's work on collective consciousness and network 
power. However, there is nothing fundamentally novel about this concept. The model of technopolitics arose from the assumption that the modernization of political regimes and their economic and 
social development depend on successfully introducing digital technologies into most spheres of life. 
For example, in a number of smart cities around the world, digital platforms based on Consul open 
source code have been introduced: Decidim Barcelona (Barcelona), New York City Participatory 
Budgeting (New York), A Porta Aberta (La Coruña), RIVP (Paris), decidimVLC (Valencia), 
Participativni proračun (Hrpellier-Kozina), Participa Getafe (Getafe), #TOLEDOPARTICIPA 
(Toledo), Decide Cieza (Cieza), Participa Mendoza (Mendoza), BA Elige (Buenos Aires), Orcamento 
Participativo Digital (Porto-Alegri), Renca Decide (Santiago), DzialaMy!  Wawer (Warsaw), Stem 
van Groningen (Groningen), Stem van Emmen (Emmen), Jouw Badhoevedorp (Badhuvedorp), etc. 
An open software platform can be used by any citizen or any organization based in the city5. It allows 
citizens to make proposals; take part in voting; initiate debates on urban issues; participate in the 
discussion, monitoring, and evaluation of the disbursement of the city budget; enter into discussions 
on legislation (with the visualization of comments in the form of a color code).  
 

 
Figure 3. New York City Council Participatory Budgeting6 
 
A good example of digital democracy technology is the New York City Council's Participatory 
Budgeting system. Through this platform, citizens mark problems on an interactive map of New 
York and provide specific suggestions for solving them (figure 3). It is obvious that the city's 
authorities have implemented this model to create an additional mechanism for the democratic 
legitimation of their policies. Urban issues are highlighted with colored markers corresponding to the 
following themes: streets, education, transportation, the elderly, health, public safety, sanitation, 
culture, parks, and more. 
On the open-source Decidim Barcelona platform, proof of the citizen's place of residence is 
required to obtain the right to discuss urban issues. The most popular proposals introduced by 
citizens in the field of urban policy are commented on by residents and implemented by the 
authorities upon review of their technical and economic feasibility. The authorities are also obligated 
to evaluate the comments of citizens on budget planning at the district level (issues of transport, bike 
paths, entertainment, sports facilities, noise monitoring, tree planting, etc.). However, researchers 

5 Consul. Available at: https://consulproject.org/en/ (Accessed: 13.02.2021). 
6 New York City Council Participatory Budgeting. Available at: http://ideas.pbnyc.org/page/about (Accessed: 
13.02.2021).