Governing intelligence: Democracy, transparency, and the limits of control

Who ensures AI remains accountable to the people it affects?

We're entering into an era where governments around the world are beginning to rely on AI not just for efficiency, but for decision-making. Some are exploring AI-assisted governance. Some are trialling AI-driven services. And in at least one country, an "AI Minister" has been appointed. A move that has sparked equal parts of curiosity and alarm.

This moment raises one of the most important ethical questions of our time: How do we govern intelligence that could soon surpass our own?

The quiet erosion of transparency

When algorithms begin influencing public policy, we need visibility. But visibility is exactly what's hardest to achieve. AI models are complex, proprietary, and often opaque even to their creators. If these systems begin shaping decisions about welfare, immigration, policing, education, or healthcare, democratic accountability becomes cloudy.

When you cannot see how a decision was made, you cannot contest it.

When you cannot contest it, your rights weaken.

And once your rights weaken, it becomes difficult to strengthen them again.

Why democracy struggles with technologies this fast

Democratic systems rely on deliberation, debate, and time. Time to gather evidence, consult communities, and shape fair policy. AI evolves at a pace that doesn't allow for this. As a result, governments risk adopting tools they don't fully understand, driven by pressure to modernise or cut costs.

The danger isn't that AI will "take over." The danger is that humans will hand over decisions because the systems seem smarter, faster, or cheaper.

Democracy cannot survive if we outsource judgement to machines we cannot question.

What governing AI should look like

Good governance isn't about restriction, it's about clarity. We need transparent boundaries around what AI can decide, how decisions are audited, how communities can challenge outcomes, and where humans must remain firmly in control.

These boundaries should reflect cultural values, not just technical capability. They should protect rights, not just productivity. And they should be shaped through public dialogue, not behind closed doors.

If we want AI to support democratic life, the people must remain the ultimate authority, not the systems we build and and not the customers who own them.