**
In a bold address at the recent Liberal convention, Prime Minister Mark Carney articulated a transformative vision for the future of artificial intelligence (AI) in Canada, asserting that the technology should serve all citizens equitably. “Our goal is AI for all,” he declared, emphasising a framework governed by Canadian values and accountable to the populace. However, political theorist Hélène Landemore and democratic innovator Peter MacLeod contend that the current political landscape is ill-equipped to realise this ambitious aim. They argue that a shift towards citizen-led decision-making is essential for effective governance in the age of AI.
The Case for Citizen-Led Governance
Landemore, a Yale professor and author of *Politics Without Politicians*, posits that the traditional political system often prioritises the interests of the socio-economic elite over the general public. “It’s a very oligarchic selection mechanism,” she notes, pointing out that the selection of legislators tends to favour affluent representatives, leading to a disconnect between those in power and the majority of citizens.
To combat this issue, Landemore suggests exploring sortition—a system where representatives are randomly selected from the public. This approach could ensure a legislative body that better reflects the diverse views and needs of the population. “You would end up with laws that are much more for the majority,” she asserts, highlighting the potential for more equitable governance.
Engaging Citizens in Democracy
MacLeod, who has dedicated over two decades to implementing citizens’ assemblies across Canada, echoes Landemore’s sentiments. He believes that many citizens feel like mere spectators in the democratic process, often disillusioned by a political environment that appears unwelcoming. “Apathy is a kind of fancy word for blaming the victim,” he argues, suggesting that people are discouraged from engaging due to a lack of meaningful opportunities to contribute.
Citizens’ assemblies, akin to juries, invite a random selection of individuals to deliberate on specific issues for a defined period. Participants engage with experts, share perspectives, and work towards consensus rather than partisan division. MacLeod emphasises that this collaborative process fosters understanding and solidarity, enabling citizens to feel valued and heard—a crucial aspect often missing in conventional political discourse.
The Power of Deliberation and Connection
Landemore describes the atmosphere within these assemblies as surprisingly affectionate. “Within two to three meetings, most people were starting to express their feelings for each other in the vocabulary of love,” she observes. This emotional connection cultivates a sense of belonging and purpose, empowering individuals who may have previously felt disenfranchised.
MacLeod adds that this sense of solidarity is transformative. “For the first time in people’s lives, they feel like they matter and they count,” he says, reinforcing the idea that a more inclusive political process could lead to greater civic engagement and a healthier democracy.
Addressing the AI Dilemma
The challenge of regulating AI has confounded policymakers and industry leaders alike. Both Landemore and MacLeod propose that citizen assemblies could play a pivotal role in navigating these complex issues. Landemore suggests that citizens are well-equipped to tackle difficult questions surrounding the costs and trade-offs associated with AI, such as the environmental impact and the ethical implications of technology use.
MacLeod believes that the insights gained from citizen assemblies would likely prioritise public welfare over corporate interests. “You’d expect citizens to be less interested in business success and quarterly returns, and much more interested in the public, environmental, social and broader economic impacts that are at stake,” he states.
The Future of Political Deliberation
Amid the rise of AI, some propose that technology could entirely replace human deliberation, creating so-called “synthetic publics.” MacLeod challenges this notion, arguing that the essence of democracy lies in human connection and solidarity. “If we accept that one of the greatest problems in democracy right now is that people feel cut off from it… I don’t understand how introducing robots to the equation is supposed to rekindle that sense of solidarity,” he remarks.
Landemore concurs, emphasising that the emotional and social dynamics of deliberation cannot be replicated by artificial intelligence. The transformative power of human interaction—rooted in empathy and shared experiences—is vital for a thriving democratic process.
Why it Matters
The conversation surrounding AI governance and democratic engagement is more critical now than ever. As technological advancements reshape our society, the call for inclusive, citizen-led decision-making grows louder. By prioritising the voices of ordinary citizens, we can foster a political environment that not only addresses the complexities of AI but also revitalises the very fabric of democracy. Embracing this vision could lead to a future where governance is genuinely reflective of and responsive to the needs of all Canadians, ensuring that the benefits of technology are equitably shared.