**
In a compelling address at the recent Liberal convention, Prime Minister Mark Carney outlined an ambitious vision for artificial intelligence (AI) that promises to serve the interests of all Canadians, rather than just a privileged few. “Our goal is AI for all,” Carney asserted, emphasising the need for AI governance that embodies Canadian values and remains accountable to the populace. However, two prominent thinkers in the field of political theory contend that the current democratic framework may be inadequate to realise this vision.
The Case for Citizen-Led Governance
Hélène Landemore, a Yale professor and author of *Politics Without Politicians*, argues that the responsibility for steering democracy should rest with ordinary citizens rather than elected officials. She highlights the shortcomings of the existing political system, which she describes as increasingly oligarchic, favouring socio-economic elites at the expense of broader public representation. “When you send to power the representatives of socio-economic elites, you end up with a system that is overly responsive to the affluent,” she explained, referencing decades of political science research that supports her claims.
Peter MacLeod, a democratic innovator with over 20 years of experience in citizen assemblies, concurs. He points out that the political landscape has been marred by declining party memberships and voter engagement, leading to a pervasive distrust in government. “For the past 30 or 40 years, we’ve been witnessing all the trend lines pointing in the wrong direction,” he stated, making a case for a more participatory approach to governance.
Rethinking Political Engagement
MacLeod believes that many citizens feel alienated from the political process, often perceiving themselves as mere spectators. “Apathy is a kind of fancy word for blaming the victim,” he remarked, suggesting that people disengage when they feel unwelcome in political discussions. He advocates for increased citizen involvement, particularly through structured formats like assemblies, which can foster a sense of community and shared purpose.
The model of citizen assemblies can be likened to jury duty, where a diverse group of individuals comes together to deliberate over important issues. Participants are invited to examine topics in depth, engage in discussions, and work towards consensus. MacLeod highlighted the transformative potential of these assemblies, noting that they create an environment where individuals can feel valued and connected.
A New Kind of Political Solidarity
Landemore describes the atmosphere within these assemblies as one filled with unexpected camaraderie and even love. “Within two to three meetings, most people in the assembly were starting to express their feelings for each other in the vocabulary of love,” she observed, emphasising the profound emotional connections formed during the deliberation process. Such bonds, she argues, are essential in fostering a more inclusive and compassionate political landscape.
Both theorists suggest that a shift towards citizen-led governance could be instrumental in addressing complex issues such as AI regulation. Landemore proposed that citizens could effectively navigate trade-offs related to technology, such as the environmental impact of AI advancements. “The difficulty is not coming up with questions; it’s really how we’re going to get the money and the political will,” she cautioned, underscoring the challenges that remain.
Emerging Challenges in AI Governance
The conversation about AI governance is urgent, as both politicians and tech leaders struggle to find a balanced approach. Landemore believes that citizen assemblies could provide a viable pathway forward. “Currently, I just see elected legislatures quite captured by the tech industry and incapable or unwilling to regulate,” she noted, advocating for a model where the public can contribute meaningfully to discussions about ethical AI usage.
MacLeod echoed her sentiments, asserting that a citizens’ assembly would likely prioritise the precautionary principle, focusing on the long-term welfare of society rather than short-term business interests. He believes citizens would be more inclined to consider the broader implications of technology, including social and environmental impacts.
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Democracy
While some propose that AI could entirely replace human deliberation through “synthetic publics,” MacLeod argues against this notion. “How introducing robots to the equation is supposed to rekindle that sense of solidarity, I don’t understand,” he stated, highlighting the importance of human connections in democratic processes. Landemore reinforced this idea, asserting that the emotional dynamics of deliberation are crucial for fostering a sense of community among participants.
Why it Matters
The discussions led by Carney, Landemore, and MacLeod signal a critical moment for Canadian democracy, particularly in the face of rapid technological change. As AI continues to evolve, the challenge will be to ensure that its governance aligns with the collective values of society. By advocating for a more participatory approach that empowers citizens, there is potential to reshape the future of democracy in a way that is inclusive, equitable, and reflective of the diverse perspectives that make up the Canadian populace.
