The increasingly widespread adoption of AI has revealed a stark divide: while developed nations curate dialogues around ethical AI and democratic technological frameworks, emerging economies are often caught in a turbulent pathway of rapid modernization and authoritarian misuse. Some of the literature on democratic development cynically contends that for developing nations and emerging economies, ethical AI and its democratic use are a luxury, eclipsed by the pressing urge to leverage AI for technological, economic, and arguably, political gain. As AI burgeons into a pervasive force across global landscapes, a discussion has emerged: Does responsible and democratic AI use catalyze development, or is development a precursor, enabling nations to then adapt AI usage to democratic norms?
Some of the prominent scholars of democratization and development posited that democratic structures, underscored by inclusive institutions, provide a fertile ground upon which development can robustly bloom. This perspective argues that situations where citizens have a voice and institutions are accountable and inclusive foster policies that support broader public interests, which, in turn, propel economic development.
However, a significant body of literature takes a contrary view, contending that economic development creates conditions conducive for democratization by enhancing education, creating a middle class, and fostering a civil society that demands democratic governance. Another group of democratization and development scholars propose that wealthier and more developed societies are more likely to sustain democratic institutions. They argue that economic prosperity engenders an educated and economically stable middle class, which starts to demand greater political participation, accountability, and transparency from governing bodies. Countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong are often cited to underscore the development-induces-democracy perspective.
H. Akin Unver is an associate professor of international relations at Ozyegin University in Istanbul and the coauthor of “Democratization, State Capacity and Developmental Correlates of International Artificial Intelligence Trade,” forthcoming in Democratization.
Some have argued that utilizing AI within a democratically ethical framework can, indeed, catalyze development. Democratically governed AI systems promote transparency, accountability, and inclusivity, ensuring that technology is leveraged for the collective good and potentially minimizing socioeconomic disparities. Democratic AI usage implies that technology is deployed transparently, with mechanisms in place to mitigate bias and ensure equitable access and benefits. In such a scenario, AI can enhance various sectors inclusively, from healthcare and education to agriculture and public services, steering a nation toward comprehensive development.
Conversely, AI adoption without invoking democratic norms and regulatory frameworks can lead to ethical and societal pitfalls. Governments can wield AI tools for mass surveillance, information manipulation, and to accentuate existing social and economic disparities, especially when deployed without adequate ethical and democratic checks and balances. As detailed by Carnegie’s AI Global Surveillance Technology index, an increasing number of nations—in fact, the majority of governments—utilize AI-facilitated surveillance and data analytics to monitor citizens and potentially quell dissent, exemplifying the darker underbelly of unbridled AI adoption devoid of democratic governance. Instead of nurturing democratization, AI can be an instrument to fortify authoritarian proclivities.
Nations that prioritize democratization prior to or in tandem with AI adoption may theoretically cultivate a more ethically aligned technological landscape. Democratic norms, such as transparency, accountability, and citizen participation, when ingrained within AI development and deployment, can ensure that governments and private companies use technology in a manner that aligns with societal welfare and ethical tenets. In this scenario, regulatory frameworks, policies, and societal norms that uphold democratic principles guide AI applications.
However, this trajectory, largely defined by stringent regulatory frameworks, policies, and societal norms, demands meticulous scrutiny of AI applications, ensuring unbiased algorithms and equitable access to technology. The bureaucratic and ethical oversight, while safeguarding societal welfare and ethical tenets, may potentially decelerate the pace of AI innovation and implementation. The bureaucratic obstacles involved in ensuring compliance with democratic norms could inhibit the quick, agile deployment of AI technologies occurring in less regulated environments. In this scenario, the ethical high road, punctuated by rigorous democratic frameworks, could risk technological and economic stagnation, as other nations, unencumbered by such considerations, sprint ahead in the global AI race. Consequently, nations that prioritize ethics and democratization might find themselves grappling with the unsettling reality of being globally outshone by counterparts that have embraced a path of rapid, albeit ethically questionable, AI deployment. Slower development, in turn, may lead to lower job creation, slower infrastructure development, and slower growth, paving the way for public support for authoritarian practices.
The interconnectedness of AI adoption, development, and democratization reveals a multifaceted narrative, particularly complex for developing nations straddling the demands of rapid technological advancement and ethical governance. The exigency of development often propels these countries toward a trajectory where AI adoption may sideline democratic norms, not out of disregard for ethical use but for pragmatic reasons: to ensure global competitiveness and to satisfy internal developmental pressures. While unbridled AI adoption holds the promise for developmental leaps, it also risks becoming a tool for authoritarian consolidation, mass surveillance, and the exacerbation of socioeconomic disparities. For nations navigating this intricate pathway, an imperative emerges for a nuanced, contextually apt approach toward intertwining democratic governance with AI development and use. Thus, the future necessitates an inclusive global dialogue and cooperative platform that acknowledges the varied socioeconomic, cultural, and political landscapes of nations, fostering an environment where knowledge, resources, and collaborative efforts toward responsible AI use can coalesce.
Navigating the entwined trajectories of AI, development, and democracy uncovers a realm where scientific scholarship and policymaking intertwine yet diverge—and where consensus remains elusive. The discourse among academics and practitioners continues to grapple with an unyielding question: is the democratization of AI an imperative or a luxury in the pathway toward rapid technological and economic development? The inconclusiveness emanating from scholarly debates underscores that the link between faster technological development and the prerequisites of political liberalization and democratic governance remains shrouded in ambiguity.
Consequently, Western nations need to recalibrate their diplomatic and international development dialogues. Rather than endorsing a prescriptive model that underscores political liberalization as a quintessential precursor for sustainable AI development—a luxury for developing nations—it is preferable to adopt a nuanced stance that emphatically prioritizes developmental outcomes. The emphasis should traverse beyond democratization to recognize and validate diverse pathways toward development, acknowledging that nations particularly in the Global South may sculpt their developmental and technological narratives divergently, shaped by their unique sociopolitical and cultural tapestries. Moving forward, it is crucial to foster a multilateral, inclusive dialogue that emboldens a collective pursuit toward ethical AI development, while respecting and appreciating varied developmental paradigms. Through this lens of mutual respect, collaborative spirit, and acknowledgment of distinct pathways, the global community can navigate the future of AI, development, and democracy, aligning technological progress with an array of governance frameworks.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.