Can democracy survive AI?
That means the coming AI revolution may render closed political systems more stable than open ones. In an age of rapid change, transparency, pluralism, checks and balances, and other key democratic features could prove to be liabilities. Could the openness that long gave democracies their edge become the cause of their undoing?
Two decades ago, I sketched a 'J-curve' to illustrate the link between a country's openness and its stability. My argument, in a nutshell, was that while mature democracies are stable because they are open, and consolidated autocracies are stable because they are closed, countries stuck in the messy middle (the nadir of the 'J') are more likely to crack under stress.
But this relationship isn't static; it's shaped by technology. Back then, the world was riding a wave of decentralisation. Information and communications technologies (ICT) and the Internet were connecting people everywhere, arming them with more information than they had ever had access to, and tipping the scales towards citizens and open political systems. From the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union to the colour revolutions in Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring in the Middle East, global liberalisation appeared inexorable.
The coming AI revolution may render closed political systems more stable than open ones.
That progress has since been thrown into reverse. The decentralising ICT revolution gave way to a centralising data revolution built on network effects, digital surveillance and algorithmic nudging. Instead of diffusing power, this technology concentrated it, handing those who control the largest datasets – be they governments or big technology companies – the ability to shape what billions of people see, do and believe.
As citizens were turned from principal agents into objects of technological filters and data collection, closed systems gained ground. The gains made by the colour revolutions and the Arab Spring were clawed back. And most dramatically, the United States has gone from being the world's leading exporter of democracy – however inconsistently and hypocritically – to the leading exporter of the tools that undermine it.
The diffusion of AI capabilities will supercharge these trends. Models trained on our private data will soon 'know' us better than we know ourselves, programming us faster than we can programme them, and transferring even more power to the few who control the data and the algorithms.
Here, the J-curve warps and comes to look more like a shallow 'U.' As AI spreads, both tightly closed and hyper-open societies will become relatively more fragile than they were. But over time, as the technology improves and control over the most advanced models is consolidated, AI could harden autocracies and fray democracies, flipping the shape back towards an inverted J whose stable slope now favours closed systems.
In this world, the CPC would be able to convert its vast data troves, state control of the economy, and existing surveillance apparatus into an even more potent tool of repression. The US would drift towards a more top-down, kleptocratic system in which a small club of tech titans exerts growing influence over public life in pursuit of their private interests. Both systems would become similarly centralised – and dominant – at the expense of citizens. Europe and Japan would face geopolitical irrelevance (or worse, internal instability) as they fall behind in the race for AI supremacy.
Dystopian scenarios such as those outlined here can be avoided, but only if decentralised open-source AI models end up on top.
For now, however, the momentum lies with closed models centralising power.
History offers at least a sliver of hope. Every previous technological revolution – from the printing press and railroads to broadcast media – destabilised politics and compelled the emergence of new norms and institutions that eventually restored balance between openness and stability. The question is whether democracies can adapt once again, and in time, before AI writes them out of the script. @Project Syndicate 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
5 days ago
- Observer
Can democracy survive AI?
Digital technology was supposed to disperse power. Early Internet visionaries hoped that the revolution they were unleashing would empower individuals to free themselves from ignorance, poverty and tyranny. And for a while, at least, it did. But today, ever-smarter algorithms increasingly predict and shape our every choice, enabling unprecedentedly effective forms of centralised, unaccountable surveillance and control. That means the coming AI revolution may render closed political systems more stable than open ones. In an age of rapid change, transparency, pluralism, checks and balances, and other key democratic features could prove to be liabilities. Could the openness that long gave democracies their edge become the cause of their undoing? Two decades ago, I sketched a 'J-curve' to illustrate the link between a country's openness and its stability. My argument, in a nutshell, was that while mature democracies are stable because they are open, and consolidated autocracies are stable because they are closed, countries stuck in the messy middle (the nadir of the 'J') are more likely to crack under stress. But this relationship isn't static; it's shaped by technology. Back then, the world was riding a wave of decentralisation. Information and communications technologies (ICT) and the Internet were connecting people everywhere, arming them with more information than they had ever had access to, and tipping the scales towards citizens and open political systems. From the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union to the colour revolutions in Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring in the Middle East, global liberalisation appeared inexorable. The coming AI revolution may render closed political systems more stable than open ones. That progress has since been thrown into reverse. The decentralising ICT revolution gave way to a centralising data revolution built on network effects, digital surveillance and algorithmic nudging. Instead of diffusing power, this technology concentrated it, handing those who control the largest datasets – be they governments or big technology companies – the ability to shape what billions of people see, do and believe. As citizens were turned from principal agents into objects of technological filters and data collection, closed systems gained ground. The gains made by the colour revolutions and the Arab Spring were clawed back. And most dramatically, the United States has gone from being the world's leading exporter of democracy – however inconsistently and hypocritically – to the leading exporter of the tools that undermine it. The diffusion of AI capabilities will supercharge these trends. Models trained on our private data will soon 'know' us better than we know ourselves, programming us faster than we can programme them, and transferring even more power to the few who control the data and the algorithms. Here, the J-curve warps and comes to look more like a shallow 'U.' As AI spreads, both tightly closed and hyper-open societies will become relatively more fragile than they were. But over time, as the technology improves and control over the most advanced models is consolidated, AI could harden autocracies and fray democracies, flipping the shape back towards an inverted J whose stable slope now favours closed systems. In this world, the CPC would be able to convert its vast data troves, state control of the economy, and existing surveillance apparatus into an even more potent tool of repression. The US would drift towards a more top-down, kleptocratic system in which a small club of tech titans exerts growing influence over public life in pursuit of their private interests. Both systems would become similarly centralised – and dominant – at the expense of citizens. Europe and Japan would face geopolitical irrelevance (or worse, internal instability) as they fall behind in the race for AI supremacy. Dystopian scenarios such as those outlined here can be avoided, but only if decentralised open-source AI models end up on top. For now, however, the momentum lies with closed models centralising power. History offers at least a sliver of hope. Every previous technological revolution – from the printing press and railroads to broadcast media – destabilised politics and compelled the emergence of new norms and institutions that eventually restored balance between openness and stability. The question is whether democracies can adapt once again, and in time, before AI writes them out of the script. @Project Syndicate 2025
Observer
6 days ago
- Observer
Palestinian resistance is legally justified
Israel's decision to reoccupy Gaza after October 7 marks the most dramatic shift in Middle East policy since the Arab Spring. As someone who has observed this conflict for decades, I believe this decision represents not just a tactical response but a fundamental abandonment of containment strategy that creates new legal realities justifying the Palestinian resistance under international law. The October 7 operation must be understood within 17 years of blockade that transformed Gaza into what UN Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk described as 'an open-air prison.' The deliberate closure of political avenues for Palestinian liberation — from Oslo's collapse to international acceptance of indefinite occupation — created conditions where violent resistance became, for many Palestinians, the only remaining option. The legal framework is unambiguous. Under international law, specifically Article 1 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, peoples fighting colonial domination and foreign occupation have the right to self-determination, including through armed struggle when other means prove ineffective. While some states contest this interpretation, the principle remains embedded in international legal frameworks precisely because it reflects occupied peoples' fundamental right to resist their oppressors. Israel's reoccupation represents a complete policy reversal. Previous operations — Cast Lead in 2008, Protective Edge in 2014, Guardian of the Walls in 2021 — aimed at degrading Hamas capabilities whilst maintaining blockade and limited engagement. Current reoccupation signals Israeli recognition that containment has fundamentally failed. Israeli officials now speak openly of 'eliminating Hamas' and establishing long-term military control. These objectives require permanent occupation rather than periodic operations. This shift transforms the legal landscape, strengthening the case for legitimate resistance. International humanitarian law's principles of distinction and proportionality apply to all parties, including resistance movements. However, these same principles demand scrutiny of Israel's reoccupation strategy, which has demonstrably failed both tests. By systematically targeting hospitals, schools and water treatment facilities, Israel violates Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention — acts constituting war crimes. The International Court of Justice's recent advisory opinion confirms that prolonged occupation with settlement policies violates international law. This makes reoccupation a clear breach of Article 43 of the Hague Regulations. A Palestinian woman walks inside the damaged Islamic University of Gaza, where she shelters, in Gaza City. - Reuters From a moral perspective, when occupying powers systematically violate international law, resistance becomes not just legally permissible but morally imperative. The human consequences of these legal violations are devastating. According to UN agencies, 1.9 million Palestinians have been displaced, 70 per cent of hospitals are non-functional and 90 per cent face acute food insecurity. This represents what international legal scholars increasingly recognise as weaponising basic necessities to facilitate reoccupation and long-term control. The economic dimension reveals equally calculated destruction. Sara Roy's seminal research on Gaza's 'de-development' demonstrates the systematic dismantling of Palestinian economic capacity to create dependency. Gaza's fishing fleet was reduced from 15,000 to 4,000 workers through Israeli restrictions. Agricultural exports providing sustainable livelihoods have been banned or severely restricted. Reoccupation eliminates remaining economic independence to ensure Palestinian dependency on Israeli-controlled aid and governance. This constitutes collective punishment that international law explicitly prohibits, further justifying resistance. Perhaps most troubling is international acquiescence to reoccupation. This undermines the very legal frameworks justifying the Palestinian resistance. Why is Ukrainian resistance to the Russian war celebrated as heroic while the Palestinian resistance to Israeli reoccupation condemned as terrorism? The United States provides Israel with $3.8 billion annually in military assistance, funding reoccupation operations against Palestinian civilians. European Union trade agreements continue despite the bloc's own determination that Israeli settlements violate international law. Such policies make Western governments complicit in legitimising reoccupation whilst undermining institutions that recognise resistance rights. Despite overwhelming disadvantage, the Palestinian resistance demonstrates remarkable resilience, reflecting their cause's legal legitimacy. Hamas and other factions have developed sophisticated defensive capabilities challenging reoccupation forces. Their tunnel networks represent ingenuity of people exercising internationally recognised rights to resist renewed subjugation. This resistance enjoys growing regional solidarity, demonstrating that the 'axis of resistance' will not accept reoccupation. It bears emphasising that while resistance is legally justified, civilian protection remains paramount for all parties. International solidarity offers hope for supporting legally justified resistance. From university campuses to trade unions, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement gains momentum whilst South Africa's International Court of Justice case signals growing institutional recognition that the Palestinian resistance deserves international support. However, symbolic solidarity is insufficient. The international community must impose comprehensive sanctions on Israel, end military cooperation, and refuse recognition of reoccupation administration whilst explicitly acknowledging the Palestinian resistance rights. Only decisive action can prevent consolidation of illegal occupation and create conditions for genuine peace based on justice rather than domination. The world's response will determine whether international law is a shield for the oppressed or a tool for the powerful. The question is whether the world will stand with the occupier or with the occupied.
Observer
26-07-2025
- Observer
Cracking down on illegal Wi-Fi networks is key for Oman's futureCracking down on illegal Wi-Fi networks is key for Oman's future
The Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA) has been active across Muscat and beyond, conducting field inspections and seizing illegal wireless equipment. At first glance, it may sound like routine regulatory exercise. But in reality, it's a critical step to protect Oman's digital economy and the security of our online lives. Across neighbourhoods, unauthorised wireless networks are being set up — people sharing or selling Internet connections without a licence. It might seem harmless, even helpful. But in truth, these illegal networks are damaging: they degrade service quality, undermine telecom investments and expose users to cyber threats. Let's start with the basics. These unlicensed setups interfere with legitimate signals, slowing down speeds for paying customers. That's not just frustrating — it's unfair. Students, families and businesses all rely on stable Internet to get through the day. Unauthorised connections sabotage that. Worse still, they threaten long-term infrastructure development. Licensed providers depend on subscription revenue to fund upgrades — fibre networks, 5G rollouts and expanded coverage. Illegal reselling eats into that income. If providers can't invest, the whole country is stuck with outdated, unreliable services. This comes at a time when Oman's digital economy is expanding rapidly. The telecom sector grew over 15% this year, and there are now more than 8 million mobile subscriptions in a population of 4.5 million. The national goal is to increase the digital sector's share of GDP from 3% to 10% by 2040. But reaching that target depends on protecting the very infrastructure that supports it. It's also about fairness. Illegal Wi-Fi often appears in areas where residents are looking for cheaper options. That's understandable. But these shortcuts distort the market, discourage healthy competition and degrade quality for everyone. In trying to save, users end up with slower speeds, higher risks and fewer choices. Security is another major concern. When users connect to unlicensed networks, they're effectively handing over their data to an unknown operator. Emails, passwords, financial information — all can be compromised. Oman has already seen a rise in cyber scams this year, from phishing to identity theft. Many of these crimes start with illegally accessed data. Oman currently ranks among the world's top countries in cybersecurity, scoring 97 out of 100 in the Global Cybersecurity Index. But rogue networks create loopholes in that system. They're not just individual risks — they weaken the national digital firewall. There's also a legal risk. If someone uses your shared connection for illegal activity — hacking, pirated content, or worse — the consequences could fall on you. That's not a theoretical problem; it's a real one. That's why the TRA's crackdown is necessary. The law clearly prohibits operating telecom services without a licence, with penalties reaching up to RO 50,000 or jail time. But enforcement is only part of the effort. The TRA is also using detection tools, monitoring traffic patterns with licensed providers, and encouraging the public to report suspicious activity. Importantly, they're positioning this campaign not just as punishment, but as public education. Following the rules isn't just compliance — it's civic responsibility. At the same time, Oman is addressing the root causes. The national fibre rollout aims to reach 75% of buildings this year. Increased competition is helping to lower prices. And new policies for 2025 will continue modernising the sector. Oman's digital future depends on trust, rule of law and shared responsibility. Illegal shortcuts damage all three. Internet access for all is a national goal — but it must be achieved securely, legally and fairly. By acting today, Oman is building a safer, more connected future for every citizen.
