About the event

In the new contested digital playing field, civic organizations are leveraging Ai for the good of democracy

AI technologies offer new possibilities for investigative journalists, anticorruption advocates, and other prodemocratic activists working with limited resources to advance democratic norms. Yet the transformation wrought by AI advances is far from guaranteed to work in democracy’s favor. How can civic organizations leverage these tools—and what questions do they need to consider before doing so?

In October, the International Forum for Democratic Studies published a new collection of essays authored by Beth Kerley (International Forum for Democratic Studies), Fernanda Campagnucci (Open Knowledge Brasil), and Carl Miller (Demos).

The essays outline possible paths toward a prodemocratic vision for AI. An overview essay by Beth Kerley reflects on the critical questions that confront organizations seeking to deploy AI tools: Where does AI use make sense? What tools match an organization’s needs and capacities? How can civil society build capacity on AI? Which roles in AI design fit a given organization’s profile. While thinking about these questions, Kerley reiterates the timeliness of such considerations, “[f]or the constellation of prodemocratic donors, journalists, advocacy groups, and grassroots activists seeking to find their footing on this rapidly shifting terrain, the time for intentional thinking about leveraging AI for democracy is now.”

Fernanda Campagnucci reviews how some in civil society are already shifting these dynamics. While activists previously experimented with using AI to identify potential corruption (among other governance issues), the potential to use these tools for greater good is noteworthy. As Campagnucci writes, “[t]he advent of AI tools better equipped to handle natural-language information makes possible more creative and adaptable approaches.” She describes the potential implications of this shift, focusing on how her organization, Open Knowledge Brasil (OKBR), has made municipal gazettes available for machine processing, opening up government information more for the public good.

During an event launching the report, Campagnucci also stressed that governments are playing a more active role in employing these AI capabilities themselves. For example, government oversight agencies are using AI to flag suspicious procurement procedures and identify “politically-exposed persons” who work under government contracts.

Carl Miller takes this shift in AI usage further, explaining how AI might enable fundamentally new forms of democratic participation. Focusing on large language models (LLMs), he argues that there are “new capacities for summarization, moderation, and translation, among other tasks. These ‘game changer’ tools hold the potential to facilitate tech-assisted deliberations at scale.”

In addition, these tools can narrow critical cultural and linguistic gaps in democratic societies. LLMs can summarize and categorize massive troves of data and remain “interactive,” allowing users to engage with and train these AI tools as they adjust over time. LLMs can also process and translate language into numerous other languages rapidly. For Miller, this machine translation technology could help bridge the gap between hyper-localized and international policy discussions and offer citizens more opportunities to engage with local and national politics.

During the launch event, Daniel O’Maley also cited examples of how AI has been used for prodemocratic purposes. Whether harnessing AI tools to protect interviewees’ identity (e.g., LGBTQI individuals having identity obscured for a documentary in a repressive society) or creating news anchor avatars to present the news without risk of harassment (e.g., Venezuela’s La Chama y el Pana program), the possibilities for AI’s prodemocratic uses are significant.

Broad adoption of AI technologies still carries risk and there is notable disagreement concerning how to best leverage this technology for good—particularly given authoritarian tendencies to use these same technologies that can quash freedoms of speech, privacy, and assembly.

Unfortunately, prodemocracy activists are working at a disadvantage. Kerley observes, for example, “[a] handful of deep-pocketed tech companies, mostly based in Silicon Valley or the PRC, lead the resource-intensive training of ‘foundation models’” for AI tools. Shifting these dynamics in favor of civil society, the public at large, and democratic norms is critical.

Carl Miller agreed, emphasizing that “we are living in the struggle for the soul of the information age.”

AI tools carry enormous power for good but are vulnerable to misuse. AI tools themselves cannot solve problems in a vacuum—they should be paired with political will and developed with a careful eye to ensure they uphold democratic norms and practice. The data that lie at the heart of these technologies must also be safeguarded. Ultimately, leveraging AI’s potential “will require fresh thinking not just about new technologies, but political innovations to make them meaningful.”

about the speakers

Fernanda Campagnucci is a data governance expert and former executive director of Open Knowledge Brazil (2019–2024). Currently, she serves on the organization’s board and is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Münster, Germany, where she coordinates the Scope Project, focused on state capacity in smart cities and online participation. With six years of experience as a public manager at São Paulo City Hall, Fernanda played a pivotal role in developing municipal policies on transparency, open data, and integrity within the Municipal Comptroller’s Office.

Carl Miller founded the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media at Demos in 2011 and CASM Technology in 2014, and has spent the last decade researching disinformation, social media intelligence (SOCMINT), extremism, online electoral interference, radicalization, digital politics, conspiracy theories, cyber-crime, and Internet governance. He is the author of The Death of the Gods: The New Global Power Grab (Penguin Random House), and the presenter of “Power Trip: The Age of AI” (Intelligence Squared).

Christopher Walker is the vice president for studies and analysis at the National Endowment for Democracy. He oversees the multidimensional department that is responsible for NED’s analytical and thought leadership efforts, which pursues its goals through several interrelated initiatives: International Forum for Democratic Studies; the Journal of Democracy; the Reagan-Fascell fellowship program for international democracy activists; and the Center for International Media Assistance. Prior to joining the NED, Walker was vice president for strategy and analysis at Freedom House.

Beth Kerley is a senior program officer managing the International Forum for Democratic Studies’ emerging technologies portfolio, which covers the challenges and opportunities for democracy as technological advances supply new tools of politics and governance. She was previously associate editor of the Journal of Democracy and holds a PhD in History from Harvard University and a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University.

Daniel O’Maley is the Director for Technology and Democracy at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), where he leads efforts to foster cutting-edge programming that supports civil society at the intersection of technology and democracy. Formerly Senior Digital Governance Specialist at NED’s Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), O’Maley spearheaded projects at the intersection of technology, news media, and freedom of expression online. O’Maley holds a Ph.D. in Cultural Anthropology from Vanderbilt University.

Follow the conversation on Twitter @ThinkDemocracy using #NEDEvents 
Please email press@ned.org to register as a member of the press