**
At the recent Liberal convention, Prime Minister Mark Carney articulated an ambitious future in which artificial intelligence (AI) serves the interests of all Canadians, not merely a select few. “Our goal is AI for all,” he asserted, emphasising the need for AI that embodies Canadian values, remains accountable to the populace, and genuinely serves the needs of the nation. This optimistic outlook, however, faces scepticism from political theorist Hélène Landemore and democratic innovator Peter MacLeod, who argue that the current political landscape lacks the necessary structure to realise such aspirations.
The Call for Citizen Engagement
Landemore, a Yale professor and author of *Politics Without Politicians*, contends that the power to shape governance should rest not with politicians but with ordinary citizens. In her view, the existing political framework is too heavily influenced by socio-economic elites, leading to a system that primarily caters to the affluent. “The selection mechanism for legislators is oligarchic,” she stated, emphasising that this imbalance has persisted for decades. To counteract this, she advocates for a legislative body selected through sortition, or random sampling of the population, which would better reflect the majority’s interests.
MacLeod, who has spent over two decades implementing citizens’ assemblies across Canada, echoed Landemore’s sentiments. He believes that the public is often relegated to a mere spectator role in democracy, a situation exacerbated by declining voter turnout and eroding trust in government. “People look at what’s on offer and recognise that they’re not all that welcome,” he explained, suggesting that the perceived barriers to participation contribute to widespread apathy.
Rethinking Democracy: The Role of Citizens’ Assemblies
Citizens’ assemblies function similarly to juries, where randomly selected individuals convene to discuss and deliberate on specific issues over an extended period. MacLeod described the process as one where participants engage in meaningful dialogue, consider expert opinions, and strive for consensus rather than division. The focus is not on advocating for individual agendas but rather on finding common ground.
Landemore’s observations of these assemblies revealed a surprising depth of connection among participants. “Within two to three meetings, many began to express feelings for each other in the vocabulary of love,” she noted. This unexpected bond often fosters a sense of belonging and validation, which is crucial in a democratic context where many feel disconnected from the political process. According to MacLeod, this solidarity enhances individuals’ self-worth, making them more invested in the democratic system.
Navigating the AI Landscape through Public Deliberation
As the complexities of AI governance continue to challenge legislators, the question arises: can citizens’ assemblies provide a viable solution? Landemore believes they could offer a path forward, especially given that current legislative bodies appear heavily influenced by the tech sector and its interests. She posed critical questions citizens’ assemblies could explore, such as weighing the environmental costs and potential geopolitical tensions associated with AI technologies.
MacLeod emphasised that citizens’ assemblies are likely to prioritise public welfare over corporate interests. He suggested that these gatherings would adopt a more cautious approach to AI regulation, focusing on the broader societal implications rather than merely short-term economic gains. The potential for a more balanced and inclusive approach to governance through citizen participation is a significant consideration in this evolving landscape.
The Future of Democracy and AI
Some critics argue that advancements in AI may eventually replace human deliberation with “synthetic publics,” but MacLeod challenges this notion. He pointed out that the current disconnect many feel from politics cannot be remedied by introducing technology into the equation. True solidarity and understanding arise from human interactions, which cannot be replicated by AI.
Landemore echoed this sentiment, asserting that the emotional connections formed during deliberative processes are vital for fostering community and understanding. The value of human interaction in politics remains irreplaceable, and any move towards automation risks undermining the very essence of democratic engagement.
Why it Matters
The discourse surrounding AI governance and democratic participation is not merely academic; it has profound implications for the future of Canadian society. As technology continues to shape our lives, the need for a political system that genuinely reflects the will and values of the people becomes increasingly urgent. By embracing citizen-led initiatives such as assemblies, Canada has the opportunity to create a more inclusive and responsive governance model that prioritises the collective interests of its citizens. The outcome of this conversation could redefine the relationship between technology and democracy, ensuring that advancements in AI serve as a force for good.
