From Virtual Secretary to Minister of State: The Day an AI Ascended to Parliament

It's not science fiction. It's a possible - and increasingly probable - portrait of a technological political future. The day an AI ascended to parliament marks a historical divide between human and digital governance.

The Symbolic Event

Imagine waking up and reading in the headlines:

"For the first time in history, an Artificial Intelligence assumes ministerial position"

Your first reaction might be skepticism: "This is exaggeration. Fake news. Impossible."

But the silent replacement is already happening around us.

AI Already Governs (You Just Don't See It)

AI is not replacing politicians yet, but it's already substituting crucial decisions:

1. Criminal Justice

COMPAS algorithm in the USA determines prison sentences
Risk assessment systems decide who gets bail
Predictive policing defines where police patrols go

2. Public Administration

Fraud detection algorithms approve or deny social benefits
Digital content moderation determines what you see online
Resource allocation systems decide infrastructure investments

3. International Politics

China: Social credit system governs citizen behavior
USA: Pentagon algorithms select military targets
Europe: Predictive systems for migration management

The difference between AI advisor and AI minister is smaller than you think. What changes is only the formality, not the power.

The Representativeness Dilemma

When code occupies decision positions:

Who guarantees it represents society?

The Problem of Algorithmic Bias

AI systems reflect the biases of:

📊 Data they were trained on
👨‍💻 Programmers who created them
🏢 Companies that control them
💰 Interests that financed them

When code governs without transparency, we have technocracy without accountability. Power without representation. Decisions without appeal.

The Crucial Question

Who writes the code that decides the future?

Two Possible Paths

Path 1: Opaque Algorithmic Governance

Decisions made by black-box systems
No transparency about criteria
Citizens reduced to data points
Power concentrated in tech companies

Path 2: Transparent Democratic Governance

Open and auditable algorithms
Clear criteria and contestable
Citizens as active participants
Power distributed and controlled

Regulation: European Response

The EU AI Act (2023) establishes:

✅ Transparency requirements for governmental systems
✅ Mandatory human oversight
✅ Right to explanation of algorithmic decisions
✅ Periodic auditing and accountability

Europe chooses algorithmic governance with democratic guardrails. Code can decide, but must be transparent, auditable and contestable.

Conclusion: Code as Act of Power

The day an AI ascends to parliament is not dystopian future - it's logical extension of what already happens.

The question is not if AI will govern, but how:

With transparency or opacity?
With human control or total automation?
Representing society or serving private interests?

Each line of code that governs is an act of power. The question is: who writes it, for whom, and under what control?

Reflect: Which decisions in your life are already made by algorithms? And how much control do you have over them?