Sciences of Europe # 60, (2020) 19 POLITICAL SCIENCES LIBERAL DEMOCRACY: FROM THE MASS SOCIETY BROAD UNIVERSALISM TOWARD THE NETWORK SOCIETY DEEP SOVEREIGNTY Kostyrev A. Candidate of Political Sciences, Associate Professor of Law, Philosophy, and Political Sciences Department, National University ‘Chernihiv Collegium’ named after T.G. Shevchenko ORCID 0000-0001-9671-4355 ABSTRACT The paper deals to analyze the transformation of liberal democracy from universalism to sovereignty in terms of changes in political communication that are caused by the emergence of a new form of social interaction defined as a networked society. The author examines the formation and relationship of such basic categories of humanism as sovereignty, liberalism, and democracy. He reveals the role of the media in ensuring the stability of liberal democratic regimes and shows how the dominance of the media controlled by transnational corporations or by the government leads to the universalization of the mass society and the loss of an individual’s sovereignty. The author concludes that the formation of a networked society entails a deepening of sovereignty at the individual, group, and state levels and highlights its main directions: the personalization of politics, the formation of autonomous communication clusters based on the principle of common moral values, and the glocalization of the cultural space. The article highlights the problems associated with the deployment of sovereignization processes at all of these levels. Keywords: media, Internet, network individualism, personalization, echo chamber, bubble democracy, na- tion-state. Introduction Discussions about the crisis of the liberal-demo- cratic model as a universal global socio-economic and political pattern have been gaining momentum in pub- lic and academic circles since 2008 when the world plunged into the abyss of the economic crisis. And the rapid economic growth of communist China, which be- came a member of the WTO in 2001, coupled with neo- imperialist policies of Russia, which began to «rise from its knees» and position itself as a ‘sovereign de- mocracy’, finally shattered Fukuyama’s futurological prediction of the “end of history” as a result of the worldwide liberal democracy victory. However, the real despair befell the apologists of this globalist model in 2016 after the Brexit referendum in Great Britain and Trump’s victory in the US presidential election. Both events showed that the political pendulum swung to- wards sovereignty. And the development of political processes in Poland, Hungary, and other countries only confirmed this trend. Joe Biden’s victory in the November 2020 US presidential election appears to have brought optimism back to the ranks of the global liberal democratic model. In his article ‘Why America Must Lead Again. Rescuing U.S. Foreign Policy After Trump’, the future President states that democracies – paralyzed by hy- perpartisanship, hobbled by corruption, weighed down by extreme inequality – are having a harder time deliv- ering for their people. Biden indicates authoritarianism, nationalism, and illiberalism as the main obstacles. And he names Trump and demagogues around the world, China’s abusive behaviors and human rights violations, and President Vladimir Putin’s kleptocratic authoritar- ian system as the main enemies. Based on this, the American leader outlined his program for democratic renewing [1]. However, a diagnosis that does not reveal the cause of the disease is unlikely to cure the patient. And the subjectivation of negative factors that lie on the sur- face leads public and academic discourses away from considering those tectonic shifts that change the entire social structure in general and the order of liberal and democratic principles functioning, in particular. Without ignoring the presence of geopolitical and geo-economic reasons for the crisis that affects West- ern democracies, or the origins of the sovereigntization that has arisen around the world, the paper aims to an- alyze the transformation of liberal democracy from uni- versalism to sovereignty in terms of changes in political communication that are caused by the emergence of a new form of social interaction defined as a networked society, and to adapt the concept and methods of liberal democracy to the changing socio-political realities. 1. Sovereignty, Liberalism and Democracy: the Enlightenment’s Triplets It should be noted that some globalists interpret sovereignty as the antithesis of liberalism and democ- racy and try to directly associate it with authoritarian- ism and nationalism. This view reflects a misguided at- titude toward liberal democracy not as a political theory but as a geopolitical ideology somewhat similar to com- munism and Nazism in their pursuit of world domina- tion. From this point of view, Trump’s steps toward US sovereignty in the context of the globalization project seem similar to how Russia declared its independence within the USSR under Yeltsin. Then this act gave rise to the parade of sovereignties of the Soviet republics, which eventually led to the destruction of the USSR and the entire socialist camp. Those who seek to implement the project of the Great West can not allow a repeat of a similar scenario.