AI-supported digital democracy · A proposal
Start with a voice.
Build real influence.
Protect the three freedoms. Discuss a better future. Give shared decisions more authority, step by step.
A community can begin with proposals and develop the process as it learns. It needs clear rules for each step; it does not need a finished design for every future institution.
From discussion to decisions
One foundation. Gradual implementation.
People agree on the fundamentals.
Think. Discuss. Remember. Your own thoughts are always free. Matters that can affect democratic decisions must remain open to inquiry, discussion, and remembrance. Participation is voluntary; unanimity is not required.
Those in power protect them.
The existing government and relevant institutions make these freedoms usable: people can question power, organise, access evidence, and challenge restrictions without retaliation. Explicit protections, precise limits, and independent remedies must prevent punishment through vague interpretations.
People build an advisory democracy.
This shadow democracy publishes proposals, discussion, votes, and reasons. Its outcomes are recommendations. People can develop and compare possible futures before the system has governing authority.
Decisions gain authority, one area at a time.
Institutions first respond to proposals, then can commit defined decisions or budgets to the process. Each expansion identifies who participates, what they control, and who must carry it out.
The foundation must remain protected throughout. Signing the principles is a commitment; people being able to use them is the test.
Demonstrate it in the EU
A working example people can inspect.
Start with a willing community and an accountable institution in an EU country where the three freedoms are protected in practice. A municipality or other competent public body is a possible partner, subject to its legal powers.
Begin with an advisory process and a defined decision or budget. Before any binding vote, establish the legal authority, participants, decision rule, resources, review process, and responsibility for delivery.
Publish who could take part, the alternatives considered, the cost, the result, and what actually happened. A pilot succeeds when people can influence a real decision, inspect the result, and correct the process.
No public institution has adopted this proposal through this website. The first pilot still needs a partner, a legal assessment, and a tested platform.
AI helps people participate
Understand more.
Keep your own judgement.
AI can translate discussions, explain proposals at different levels, trace claims to sources, compare options, and help people express amendments. It can make a large discussion easier to navigate.
Participants must be able to inspect sources, correct summaries, see disagreements, choose other tools, and participate without AI. Cost estimates and simulations must expose their assumptions and uncertainty.
AI has no vote. It cannot manufacture participants, decide which political views are legitimate, or quietly determine the agenda. People remain responsible for decisions, moderation, and appeals. The Council of Europe’s AI framework provides relevant reference principles on autonomy, oversight, accountability, and remedies.
Grow from local needs
Many starting points.
Clear responsibilities.
A neighbourhood can discuss local services while another community works on education or transport. Each publishes its scope, participation rules, records, and current authority. Shared standards let communities exchange proposals and evidence.
When a decision affects several communities, they agree how it will be handled together. Boundaries, overlapping responsibilities, and voting rights need a public agreement; the software cannot settle them by itself.
Government can adopt an advisory proposal using its existing powers. For a result to be binding in advance, the relevant authority must make a valid commitment. Changes beyond its powers require the appropriate legal or constitutional reform.
The platform can make starting and administering a process easy. Protecting people and transferring public authority require institutions that honour the agreement. That is what makes gradual implementation real.
An example open to everyone
Show the process.
Let people judge it.
Publish the software, rules, costs, independent assessments, failures, and results. Anyone can inspect a demonstration and judge whether the approach fits their community.
The EU can advocate the same three freedoms at home and abroad, using public evidence and consistent standards. The test is what people can safely do, including criticising the government and proposing alternatives.
A successful EU pilot would provide evidence about that pilot. It would not establish that adoption elsewhere will be easy or automatic. Local protection, public legitimacy, and the cooperation of institutions remain necessary.
The long-term aim is accountable government people can change peacefully. Moving one budget online is a start; wider democratic government also requires protected rights, independent scrutiny, and a real way to replace those exercising power.
Make progress measurable
Participation. Authority. Delivery.
How many people participate? Which decisions belong to them? Are the results carried out? Keep these measures separate so a busy discussion cannot be mistaken for a transfer of power.
Questions that matter
What makes this workable?
Who protects people before a new government exists?
The proposed route begins with commitments from the authorities that already control institutions and enforcement. Independent scrutiny and an effective remedy must support those commitments. A new elected government does not have to exist before the current authorities stop suppressing peaceful participation.
If those authorities refuse or reverse the protections, this route is blocked at the foundation. A website cannot supply the missing protection, and an agreement on paper does not demonstrate safety.
Does discussion need to wait for a new constitution?
Under this proposal, peaceful discussion of alternative institutions belongs within the three freedoms. An advisory process therefore belongs within the protected foundation, with lawful rules for privacy and other rights. Whether it is protected in a particular country depends on its law and actual practice.
Some authorities may be able to consult or adopt recommendations within existing powers. Delegating binding decisions, changing jurisdictions, or replacing constitutional institutions can require legislation or constitutional change. A gradual process makes each proposed change visible; it does not waive those requirements.
How does advice become binding authority?
Publish three different statuses: advisory means a recommendation; response required means the institution must explain what it will do; binding within scope means it has validly committed the specified decision in advance, subject to rights and review.
Publishing reasons for accepting or rejecting recommendations and following their implementation reflects the OECD’s principles for deliberative processes. Accepting several recommendations voluntarily does not, by itself, delegate future decisions.
What must the platform protect?
Independent assessment must address duplicate voting, eligibility, ballot secrecy, coercion, security, accessibility, and exclusion. Public accountability records and private political choices need different protections. Publishing a participant list can expose people; participation must not require public disclosure of political preferences.
Provide offline participation, appeals, independent auditing, and continuity if the service fails. Open source alone does not establish a secure or fair voting system. AI summaries also need correction and appeal mechanisms.
Can we build on systems that already exist?
Decidim supplies open-source tools for proposals, discussion, voting, assemblies, and implementation tracking. Reykjavík’s My Neighborhood connects residents’ ideas and online voting to municipal projects.
These are references to assess, not evidence that the full proposal is implemented. At EU level, Article 10 TEU establishes representative democracy and a right to participate in the Union’s democratic life. This proposal does not itself alter that legal framework.