Abstract:
This article examines the expansion of the classical triad of separation of powers. Based on systems analysis and cybernetic control theory, it substantiates the existence of supra-institutional levels of power—conceptual, ideological, and informational—which act as determinants for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Particular attention is paid to the role of informational power as a cross-cutting resource and a distinct institutional phenomenon in the digital era. The perspectives of domestic and foreign scholars on the problems of power, governance, and information society are integrated.
Keywords: conceptual power, informational power, cybernetics of control, separation of powers, goal setting, ideology, legitimation, social systems, digital governance.
1. Introduction: Limitations of the Classical Approach in the Information Society
Traditional political science, relying on the foundational works of Charles Montesquieu and John Locke, has historically focused on the institutional separation of power functions (legislation, execution, judiciary). However, this classical approach primarily describes governance instruments and coercive mechanisms, ignoring the subject of goal setting that stands above these instruments.
In systems theory, developed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, any controlled system requires a clear control loop with a predefined objective. If we view society as a complex cybernetic system, the question arises: who and how forms the objective function of this system? The answer leads us to the necessity of introducing conceptual, ideological, and informational power, which precede the institutional level.
As Nobel laureate Norbert Wiener noted in his cybernetics works, control is impossible without a clearly defined goal, and system effectiveness is determined by the quality of goal setting, not merely by the perfection of executive mechanisms. In today’s information society, control over information flows—ensuring the functioning of all control loops—is added to this requirement.
Ukrainian political scientist O. Rafalskyi aptly notes that the classical separation of powers model often overlooks “hidden” mechanisms of influence that shape the state’s development paradigm, including information-communication aspects and the meanings underlying legal norms.
2. Conceptual Power: The Priority of Meta-Governance
At the top of the governance pyramid lies what is commonly referred to as “Conceptual Power.” In academic discourse, this corresponds to strategic goal setting and paradigmatic governance.
2.1. Scientific Substantiation
In second-order cybernetics, control is viewed not as a reaction to environmental perturbations, but as the design of the system’s development trajectory. Conceptual power is the subject’s ability to form the objective function of societal development. According to the principles of general control theory, the higher level of hierarchy always defines goals for the lower levels. Whoever defines “why” and “where” automatically becomes the master of those deciding “how.”
2.2. Functional Aspect
The function of conceptual power includes environmental factor recognition, goal vector formation, effectiveness criteria definition, and constraint setting. Without a concept, executive power degenerates into meaningless bustle or directionless coercion. Ukrainian researcher V. Horbatenko indicates that the conceptual level defines the “strategic vector” of state development, which is later implemented through institutional mechanisms. This is the level of meta-politics, where the rules of the game are set before they are formalized. In Thomas Kuhn’s terminology, this is the level of paradigm formation—a set of fundamental assumptions defining reality perception. Ukrainian philosopher V. Tabachkovskyi notes that “civilizational choices” of society are formed at this level, later transforming into political decisions.
3. Ideological Power: The Mechanism of Semantic Legitimation
The second level, “Ideological Power,” is responsible for transmitting the concept into mass consciousness. In sociology, this correlates with Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony and Joseph Nye’s concept of Soft Power.
3.1. Theoretical Foundations
In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci demonstrated that the ruling class maintains power not only through coercion (the state apparatus) but also through hegemony—intellectual and moral leadership achieved via civil society. Ideological power creates symbolic capital, allowing private interests to be transformed into universally significant values.
3.2. Legitimation Function
Power cannot rely solely on violence. For stability, it requires legitimation (per M. Weber), achieved through tradition, leader charisma, or rational-legal foundations. Ideological power “clothes” dry concepts in attractive forms (religion, ethics, national idea, human rights). This is governance through meanings, not orders. Ukrainian political scientist M. Mykhalchenko notes that in the context of globalization, ideological power becomes a key tool for shaping national identity and social solidarity.
4. Informational Power: A Cross-Cutting Resource and a Separate Dimension of Governance
In the context of societal digital transformation, informational power acquires the status of an independent analytical category. We examine it in two dimensions: as a cross-cutting resource ensuring the functioning of all power levels, and as a distinct institutional phenomenon of the digital era.
4.1. Theoretical Foundations of Informational Power
The concept correlates with Michel Foucault’s power/knowledge theory, which demonstrates that power and knowledge are inseparable: there is no power without the production of corresponding knowledge, and vice versa. Manuel Castells, in his Information Age trilogy, introduces the concept of “network power,” noting that in information society, power resides less in institutions and more in the ability to control information flows and program networks. Ukrainian researcher V. Horbatenko defines informational power as “the subject’s ability to influence the governance object through purposeful information use, control over information flows, and communication channels.”
4.2. Informational Power as a Cross-Cutting Resource (Infrastructural Dimension)
As an infrastructural resource, informational power penetrates all levels of the governance hierarchy, performing specific functions at each stage of the control impulse transformation. At the conceptual level, it serves as analytical reconnaissance and forecasting: systematic Big Data collection, AI algorithm application, and global trend monitoring form an objective environmental picture necessary for strategic goal setting and development vector definition. Moving to the ideological level, information mechanisms transform into meaning transmission channels: mass media, educational institutions, and cultural practices give abstract concepts emotional and value-based coloring, turning them into social demands and shaping collective consciousness. At the legislative level, informational power materializes through institutionalization: fixing normative acts, official law publication, and maintaining structured legal databases convert ideological settings into formalized, universally binding rules. Executive power relies on information flows as the foundation of operational administration: reporting, document flow, interdepartmental communication, and digital service provision ensure a continuous cycle of resource management and policy implementation. Finally, at the judicial level, the informational component takes on fixing, verification, and arbitration roles: event logging, evidence base formation, precedent analysis, and decision publicity create a precise feedback mechanism that detects and corrects deviations from the prescribed legal and conceptual vector. Thus, informational power functions as the unified “nervous system” of social governance, where each institutional level receives the necessary data volume to perform its function, and disruption or manipulation of these flows at any stage leads to the disintegration of the entire control loop.
4.3. Subjective Dimension: Platform Power and Control over Truth
In the digital era, new subjects of informational power have emerged, often operating outside traditional institutions:
• Gatekeeping (Filtering): Algorithmic visibility management. The decision about what information millions will see, and what no one will, is an act of power.
• Agenda Setting: Defining not what to think, but what to think about.
• Epistemological Power: The power to define what constitutes truth versus “fake news” or “delusion.” This involves control over expert communities and fact-checking mechanisms.
A separate phenomenon is the power of digital platforms (Google, Meta, etc.). Researcher Shoshana Zuboff introduces the concept of “surveillance capitalism,” where personal data becomes a commodity, and power concentrates in those who control these data streams. Ukrainian media researcher V. Ivanov notes: “In hybrid war conditions, informational power becomes a weapon of mass consciousness destruction. Whoever controls narratives controls political reality.”
5. Institutional Power: Implementation Tools in the Information Age
We now examine the classical branches of power through the lens of the informational dimension.
5.1. Legislative Power (Norm Creation)
Scientific role: Institutionalization. In the information age, legislative power faces challenges related to internet regulation and data protection. Ukrainian legal scholar Y. Shemshuchenko emphasizes that Ukraine’s legislative power often lags behind the pace of technological change, creating legal gaps that are filled by corporate platform rules.
5.2. Executive Power (Administration)
Scientific role: Operationalization. Digital transformation manifests in e-government (e.g., the Diia project). Ukrainian researcher I. Kresina notes that digitalization can reduce corruption by making processes transparent, but also creates risks of digital discrimination.
5.3. Judicial Power (Control & Arbitration)
Scientific role: Feedback. Informational aspects include e-justice and open registries. Ukrainian lawyer M. Koziubra points out that judicial power is often used as a tool of political influence, indicating its subordination to higher levels of power.
6. Systemic Integration of Power Levels
Based on the above, we propose an integrated multi-level power model:
1. Conceptual Power (meta-governance) → sets the GOAL.
2. Ideological Power (legitimation) → shapes DESIRE.
3. Informational Power (communication & control) → ensures FLOWS.
4. Legislative Power (norm creation) → creates RULES.
5. Executive Power (administration) → performs ACTIONS.
6. Judicial Power (control) → ensures SUBMISSION.
Time Horizons: An important observation is that informational power has the highest reaction speed (from hours to years), giving it a tactical advantage over slower institutional levels (laws and courts).
Feedback Loops: An effective system requires multi-loop feedback. Disruption of these connections (e.g., manipulation of reporting data) leads to flawed decisions at the conceptual level. Ukrainian economist A. Halchynskyi notes that the breakdown of feedback loops between power levels was one of the causes of ineffective reforms in Ukraine.
7. Ukrainian Context: Informational Power in Conditions of War and Transformation
For Ukraine, the role of informational power is critical for several reasons:
7.1. Hybrid War and Information Sovereignty
Russia uses informational power as a weapon to destroy conceptual sovereignty (narratives about the “artificiality” of the state) and undermine ideological unity. Ukrainian security researcher O. Suslov states: “In hybrid war conditions, information security becomes a matter of national survival. Victory depends not only on weapons, but also on narrative control.”
7.2. Digital Transformation as a Democratization Tool
Ukraine is betting that informational power (data transparency) can reduce corruption and increase trust in institutions.
7.3. Platform Regulation Challenges
Ukraine faces a dilemma between the need to protect against hostile propaganda and dependence on Western platforms, which requires the development of its own digital sovereignty strategy.
8. Conclusion
The presented integrated model does not deny the classical separation of powers, but places it in a broader context.
Key Theses:
1. Informational power is primary to all institutional levels, as it controls the “oxygen” of governance—information.
2. In the digital era, informational power crystallizes into a separate center of influence, often operating outside traditional state institutions.
3. Conceptual power remains the highest level, but it depends on informational power for data collection.
4. The struggle for power in the 21st century is primarily a struggle for control over event interpretation and truth definition.
Attempting to reform society by changing only laws or courts, while ignoring concepts and information flows, is doomed to failure. True transformation requires simultaneous work across all levels of the hierarchy.
References
1. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
2. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Books.
3. Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General System Theory. New York: George Braziller.
4. Black, D. (1976). The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press.
5. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood.
6. Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
7. Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.
9. von Foerster, H. (1981). Observing Systems. Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.
10. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
11. Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
12. Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1), 1-25.
13. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level Governance and European Integration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
16. Mesarovic, M. D., Macko, D., & Takahara, Y. (1970). Theory of Hierarchical, Multilevel, Systems. New York: Academic Press.
17. Montesquieu, Ch. de S. (1748). De l’esprit des lois. Genève: Barrillot.
18. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153-171.
20. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs.References
1. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
2. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Books.
3. Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General System Theory. New York: George Braziller.
4. Black, D. (1976). The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press.
5. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood.
6. Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
7. Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.
9. von Foerster, H. (1981). Observing Systems. Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.
10. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
11. Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
12. Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1), 1-25.
13. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level Governance and European Integration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
16. Mesarovic, M. D., Macko, D., & Takahara, Y. (1970). Theory of Hierarchical, Multilevel, Systems. New York: Academic Press.
17. Montesquieu, Ch. de S. (1748). De l’esprit des lois. Genève: Barrillot.
18. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153-171.
20. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs.References
1. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
2. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Books.
3. Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General System Theory. New York: George Braziller.
4. Black, D. (1976). The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press.
5. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood.
6. Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
7. Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.
9. von Foerster, H. (1981). Observing Systems. Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.
10. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
11. Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
12. Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1), 1-25.
13. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level Governance and European Integration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
16. Mesarovic, M. D., Macko, D., & Takahara, Y. (1970). Theory of Hierarchical, Multilevel, Systems. New York: Academic Press.
17. Montesquieu, Ch. de S. (1748). De l’esprit des lois. Genève: Barrillot.
18. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153-171.
20. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs.!