Let's play a game: put traditional politics aside for a moment (also to distract yourself a bit from the sense of desolation). In its place, imagine a system where decisions are made by advanced algorithms, based on objective data rather than personal opinions. Artificial governments? Yes. They sound really, really strange. But they are no longer just such a frontier hypothesis: technology is opening up scenarios that deserve serious reflection.
The dawn of a new governance
With the advent of Smart cities and systems based on blockchain, the concept of artificial government is emerging as a potential evolution of democracy. It strikes me how this idea echoes the vision of Plato of a government guided by “pure reason,” albeit in a form that the Greek philosopher could never have imagined (and perhaps neither could we, given the current state of development of so-called artificial intelligence).
In any case, assuming for the sake of argument that this “electronic governance” if it existed and was at its peak, what would be its positive and negative sides? Let's start with the good news: the most obvious advantage of artificial governments is the ability to process huge amounts of data to make objective decisions. Nick bostrom, philosopher of theOxford University, suggests that an artificial intelligence system could optimize the distribution of public resources with a precision impossible for humans, even by modifying the parameters and spending chapters in real or near real time.
Eliminating human bias from decision making would be the second, potential benefit. As theorized by to Lawrence Less, the code architecture could ensure a more fair and transparent form of justice. AI systems would not be influenced by emotions, biases or personal interests. Chey, what a tale! Or not? Hold on.
The price of automation
Shoshana Zuboff, American sociologist and essayist, warns us against the risks of “surveillance capitalism”. Artificial governments would require constant monitoring of citizens to function effectively. I am particularly concerned about this potential erosion of individual privacy. Who programs the algorithms? This question, raised by Yuval Noah Harari, highlights a fundamental paradox: even the most objective systems must initially be programmed by humans, with their values and biases. Absolute neutrality may be an illusion.
The philosopher James Moore raises a crucial point: How can we ensure accountability in an automated system? If an algorithm makes a bad decision, who is responsible? The chain of accountability becomes cloudy when decisions are delegated to machines. Martha Nussbaum, finally, reminds us of the importance of emotions in moral reasoning. A purely artificial government may lack the empathic understanding needed for decisions that profoundly impact people's lives. So let's throw it all away! Or not? Slow down.
Artificial Governments: Is the Future of Democracy a Hybrid Model?
The solution may lie in what Don Ihde who loves “post-phenomenological technology”: a system that integrates algorithmic efficiency with human supervision. Not a completely artificial government, then, but a collaboration between human and artificial intelligence. Jürgen Habermas emphasizes the importance of dialogue in democracy. How might an artificial government facilitate, rather than replace, this deliberative process? Technology should amplify, not suppress, the voice of citizens.
The prospect of artificial governments forces us to reconsider the very meaning of democracy in the digital age. It is not just about administrative efficiency, but to redefine the social contract for the age of AI. As he claimed Hannah Arendt, Political power comes from consent, not coercion. Any artificial system of government will have to earn the trust of citizens through transparency, accountability, and respect for fundamental rights. The future of governance may be neither fully human nor fully artificial, but a synthesis that takes the best of both worlds.
Just one thing: if things go badly, who do we blame?
