Posts tagged “Geo Politics”

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as the future of human innovation and technology. It is likely that AI will integrate into all sectors of the economy and polity within its fold and will influence the way man thinks and perceives the world and the universe at different levels. It is important to note here that countries with a background in AI will emerge as rule makers in the future and will profess an edge over others i.e. countries that possess knowledge of AI will spearhead changes in the international comity of states and dominate global politics. 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) therefore possesses the potential to be the raison d’être of human existence. The comity of international states has woken up to this new reality and is taking quick cognizance of this fact. While the United States and China have already taken a lead in this battle for supremacy in the field of AI, Europe and the rest of “the world is catching up” much like the “catching-up” that Russia attempted to do after the Industrial Revolution in Britain in 1750s. The AI revolution is witnessing a similar trend. US and China are leading the race followed by the United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Russia. 

AI and Geo-politics

AI and its impact on geopolitics can be assessed at multiple levels. It will, simply put, have an impact on all aspects of human life. AI will be used to prevent natural hazards and calamities, it will be used to influence stock exchange rates, mobility of markets, control malpractices in elections etc. Its usage in the world will be multidimensional and all pervasive making it the “tool of the future” for states who want to have a standing in the world of international politics. AI will be the tool that will ‘re-write the rules of the game’. 

The significance of AI can be gauged from the report published by Brookings that talks about a “data revolution” which will essentially permeate each and every sector of the global economy. In this context one can look at an interesting study that looks at AI and geopolitics relates to understanding the nature of the Colombian Amazon which is now accessible and available for academic research after the guerrilla group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Columbia reached a peace deal with the authorities. This is a good example to assess how science and conflict studies and International Relations can converge with commensurate ease.This example also enables us to understand the inherent link between AI and geopolitics.

Similarly, the battle between the United States and China in the cyber realm further amplifies the relevance of AI for nation states. Though the United States has always been the leader in technology and innovation, Chinese smart power is posing an enormous challenge to the US. The United States is belligerent and with companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple taking the initiative, it is trying to hold on to its coveted lead in this battle for technological supremacy. A cursory look at the Google website and one is able to get valuable information on the nature of research that the company is investing in through the use of AI. At the same time, China is not far behind and is using AI more brazenly. Chinese companies like Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent (collectively referred to as BAT) are willing to go to any extent to make hay while the sun shines and take the AI revolution to the next level. For example, Alibaba has attempted to promote digitization to such an extent that only those e-commerce firms who embrace digitization in the long run will survive, while the others will perish. Alibaba is the largest Research and Development (R&D) investor in China and it is now tying up with Sensetime the world’s highest-valued AI startup, to launch a not-for-profit artificial intelligence lab in Hong Kong in a bid to make the city a global hub for artificial intelligence. This is an interesting development within the geopolitical space because it further tightens Chinese control over Hong-Kong as well. China it must not be forgotten is a panopticon state and AI gives the Chinese government an opportunity to further tighten its grip over the Chinese people. This fact is substantiated by a Forbes report that looks at the rising levels of surveillance in China. 

Therefore, lets not forget that though the AI revolution is real and its impact is larger-than-life, governments all over the world also need to walk the tightrope with caution. Though it is clear that a country’s geopolitical strength in the middle of the 21st century will be intertwined with its AI strength as pointed out by a Brookings Report, the indiscriminate use of AI may pose a  threat to nations as well. While the human race may be completely wiped out due to the indiscriminate use of AI, where machines may outwit man, as pointed out by the Late Stephen Hawkins, the propagation of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is a worrying development for nations states. The proliferation of data has its benefits but a line needs to be drawn at some point. The question remains where that fine line will originate? In the end, we can only conclude by saying that sates need to address this pressing issue with cautious optimism.

This piece is written by Anuttama Banerji. Anuttama is Associate Researcher at Govern.

The rise of referendums in Western democracies and dictatorial regimes is often understood as an assertion of voters’ right to choose. Largely, the rise of referendums is equated with direct democracy — as citizens themselves take the charge to speak up politically and vote their preferences. The use of referendums in advanced democracies has been called as ‘unfreezing of alignments’ by Bogdanor. Bogdanor describes ‘unfreezing alignments’ as declining importance of social structural factors determining voting behavior which could be either influenced by religion, or caste. In this manner, the use of referendums suggests that representative institutions are being replaced by direct participatory mechanisms since the 1960s. According to Marco Goldoni, the rise of referendums throws light on ‘the limits and crisis of contemporary representative democracy’, in which voters see their leaders as out of touch with their lives and feelings. Often, referendums are used as by the politicians as a means for achieving a major political change or mission to do so.

Kinds of Referendums in European countries

Referendums are typified as mandatory and non-mandatory. The former are used as constitutional requirements on certain issues, while the non-mandatory ones are triggered only at political actors requests. It is crucial to understand that different forms of referendum have different consequences with respect to the influence exerted by different political actors in the decision making process. For instance, law controlling referendums function as a check on retrospective decision making of the parliament, mandatory referendums aid in multi-cameral decision making, abrogative and rejective referendums play a role in protecting the minorities. The abrogative referendums are generally deployed in circumstances when a particular decision has to be blocked. In case of adhoc and optimal referendums, the majority vote in the parliament is required to introduce it and it is generally in the hands of government and coalitions. The mandatory referendums function as devices for constitutional amendments while initiatives and non-mandatory referendums play a role of ‘policy maximizing’ initiatives.

In the context of Europe, the mandatory referendums have evolved in Denmark, Switzerland and Ireland. In all these states, referendum has been used for constitutional amendments. The use of mandatory referendums in Switzerland dates back to the year of foundation of Swiss federation in 1848. Ever since then, the referendums in Switzerland has been used on matters regarding membership in collective security organisations and supranational communities. Country wise– Switzerland has been the most proactive state to make use of referendums. Apart from Switzerland, Denmark and Italy have frequently made use of this direct participatory mechanism. France has often made use of optional referendums especially during President De Gualle’s rule in 1960s. In western Europe, the average use of referendums has increased from 2.6 in 1940s to 15.6 in 1990s. In case of Italy, the use of abrogative referendum in 1970 has prompted the use of constitutionally mandated referendums. For instance between 1980s and 90s Italy accounted more than half of the nation wide referendums held outside Western Europe outside Switzerland.

Integration issues have been crucial point for entering into the forum of direct democracy. Many European countries off late have witnessed referendums on the matters of integration into European community, formation of European union. The other significant issue is the protection of minority rights. Interestingly, the voters’ have dissented participating in integration matters, which only explains the difference of opinion among political elites and voters.

Referendum- A binary choice after all?

Although referendums have been in vogue ever since French and Russian revolutions. However, the misgivings of referendums is it often reduces the political questions into binary equations of yes or no. Oftentimes, they have been used as instruments allowing populists to fan their fears, exercise populist measures and policies, distort realistis and appeal to emotions. In the contemporary times, referendums have been deployed in Hungary regarding refugee and migrant matters, EU referendum in Britain, one about peace deal to end the country’s 50 year old armed rebellion in Columbia and Italy’s vote on constitutional reforms.

In case of Hungary, the Hungarian Prime Minister namely Viktor Orban failed to convince the majority of population to come and vote in the referendum to close the door for refugees. Although more than 98% voted to out the refugees and migrants, however, abstinence on the part of rest of electorate rendering the voting constitutionally null and void. From direct democracy perspective, as Orban said, “a valid [referendum] is always better than an invalid [referendum]”. Critics have argued that referendum was a diversion from the failure of his domestic policies, and a lot of funds were spent in conducting referendum, on advertising a toxic campaign against the immigrants. The referendums such as these have raised important questions regarding the xenophobia and racism prevalent in Europe and the larger debates of inclusion and accommodation of different groups. The discrimination faced by the refugees is quite frequently compared with the holocaust in Germany and stigmatization faced by the Jews. Zsuzsanna Vajna, a 79-year-old Holocaust survivor, quotes to The Guardian, “In the 1930s, we were in a very bad economic situation. People had to be blamed, and then it was the Jews. And that’s what I’m reminded of when I read the Hungarian government’s propaganda. It’s very dangerous. Because it can contaminate all of Europe.”

In case of Brexit as well, the prevalence of anti-immigrant prejudice decided the voter turnout and the final decision to exit the European Union. An investigation by The Independent reveals an upsurge in hate crimes against the immigrants in post Brexit era. According to this study, “Kent, which recorded a majority Leave vote of nearly 60 per cent, recorded 16 ethnic and religious hate crimes in the 2015 week corresponding to the referendum. This increased to 25 the week of the EU referendum and surged further to 39 the following week – up by 143 per cent.”

The EU referendum has been a matter of debate concerning the discrimination and prejudice meted out to immigrants. The glorification of referendum as a direct democracy device is not necessarily a political question of recognizing rights, inclusion, and democratic consensus. If direct democracy is about assimilating diversities, and question of ‘recognition’, then certain groups are always in a vulnerable position. Further, referendum being a device of direct democracy provides for voters’ discretion to choose for themselves. Hungary and Britain’s Brexit can juxtaposed against each other as cases of political consciousness among the voters’, the element of ‘empathy’ among the citizenry. Hannah Arendt in her theory on ‘banality of evil’ argues that humans as thinking beings would know what they are choosing, ‘thinking’ as a creative process is a dialogue with oneself. In her theory, she explains holocaust against Jews in Germany was the result of humans who were non-thinking beings, for them they were merely doing their duties by abiding the dictates of Hitler. The citizenry being thinking beings can have dialogue with oneself, initiate a democratic among themselves and recognize the needs of inclusion just like Hungarians did.

This piece is written by Manisha Chachra. Manisha is Associate Researcher at Govern.

Digital Democracy in political sense stands for an interconnected realm aided through internet and communication technologies. The term is synonymously used for ‘electronic democracy’, ‘tele democracy’, and ‘cyber democracy’. According to Barry N. Hague and Brian Loader, digital democracy in the contemporary context refers to wide range of technological applications like ‘people’s parliaments,’, citizens’ juries, email access to electronic discussion groups and public information kiosks. The emergence of digital democracy is often seen as a platform where society and technology interacts causing an effect in the politics of the state. This interaction originates from its contextual social realities, political culture, legal frameworks and is often constrained through power relations. The expansion of digital democracy in globalized world has enhanced political democracy impacting the participation of citizens in a democratic set up. Historically, the portrayal of digital democracy draws from the notions of direct communication between the politicians and the citizens. Robert Dahl’s, ‘Who Governs?’, argues that public meetings by civic groups were a wellspring for popular sovereignty. Research studies by Castells, Kerbel & Bloom and many others have revealed that online communication is no different from face-to-face interaction between different leaders and citizens. The blogs, podcasts and other online mediums are not only discursive spaces for establishing a link between the political talk and online participation but also facilitating the circulation of news and opinions among the common citizenry.

In terms of political campaigning and using digital democracy for creating political and electoral impacts, Barack Obama is well-known as “the first digital president”. His 2008 election campaign was an endeavor to engage citizens and the government. However, the campaign was later criticized as slicing voters into micro-targetable commodities. As reported here by The Guardian,“it was about turning voters and the magic of the ballot box into giant matrices, thousands of rows and columns of data running across a screen. And politics doesn’t need to listen to what people are trying to say if technology can discover what it needs to win their vote while they slump in front of TV.”

Theoretically, the notion of digital democracy if understood from liberal-individualist perspective or what can be called ‘right-wing’ leaning is that within digitized democracy individuals should be able to have their particular interests realised in liberal political systems. According to Lincoln Dahlberg, “Digital media are understood here as enabling individuals to gain the information they need to examine competing political positions and problems, and as providing them with the means for the registration, and subsequent aggregation”. According the right-wing understanding, digital democracy is a forum to fulfill one’s individual and economic aspirations without hindrance in a marketplace. Democracy here is an aggregation and expression of individuals wills that aims to protect the rights of individuals ensuring maximization of information flows and registration of choices. In that manner, digital media is seen as operating reasonable independent of centralized controls. Holistically, the aim of liberal individualist perspective is to expand the direct individual representative communication and eventually looking forward to bypass the state, corporate, political party, and lobby group interference in this individual-representative relationship.

Within the left-wing leaning or what can also be called as marxist positioning of digital democracy focuses on the cooperative ownership of digital commons. The left-wing vision of digital democracy was ostensible in Jeremy Corbyn’s vision of democratising the internet. In his manifesto he underlined that the labour party aims to democratise the internet such that no one is left behind. He advocated for a high speed broadband across the country, digital bill of rights to protect personal privacy thereby, enhancing online rights of individuals, platform cooperatives– fostering the cooperative ownership of digital platforms for distributing labour and selling services. When it comes to cooperative ownership it also seems that Corbyn’s vision was to nationalise the services like Airbnb, Deliveroo, and Uber. He also envisioned a publically funded open source software where everyone can share a code and learn from each other.

While the right emphasises too much on the individual, the left has its own downsides of stressing too much on the community aspect. The criticisms furnished against Corbyn’s vision were that secure and portable online identity which could be used for services like health, education and housing will have privacy concerns. The online meetings on political matters as suggested in his manifesto is a replica of Twitter.

We might bifurcate the political inclinations as left, right and centre, however, digital revolution has both the perspectives closely attached to it. On the flipside, the secrecy and opaqueness of digital network have always been a questionable matter. The role of Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram in such a reality becomes unaccountable to billions of people as the founder of such organisations are the rule setters. With regards to the matters of governance and policy making, the state must function as an agency to set the framework for digital democracy. Even in terms of technological revolutions, and lessening of gaps one must not forget that power relations remain as it is. Therefore, what could be bad or a gap that requires filling is that democracy has to ensure that social relations are in consonance with digital parlance.

This piece is written by Manisha Chachra. Manisha is Associate Researcher at Govern.