Information Technology and Democracy. Chances and Challenges

We live in the time of profound transformations commonly labelled with the word “globalization”. The rise of one ecological-technological-social system encompassing our whole planet is an important element of these processes. Solving big global problems demands knowledge of two complementary sorts: on the one hand – going “in depth”, on the other – going “in breadth”. The present paper assumes the second (in a sense: philosophical) perspective. It tries to analyze some relations between the development of technology (IT) and the development of democracy. The notion of democracy, its various forms and axiological reasons for it are considered first. In the subsequent chapter different consequences (both positive and negative) the IT development has for contemporary democracy are discussed. In the next chapter the evolutionary nature of the technological development is debated as well as the question of (democratic) control of this process. The development of Artificial General Intelligence is presented as a challenge for democracy


Introduction
There is rather common agreement that we have lived for some decades (at least) in the time of globalization. But virtually all other -more or less specific -questions concerning globalization (its "essence", its temporal dimension, its "positive" or "negative" character…) give rise to many -sometimes very hot -debates. Due to the subject of this paper I cannot discuss, even very briefly, these issues. (A very good systematic overview give (Scholte 2005;Jones 2007).) Nonetheless, I would like to formulate a declaration: Many interpretations of globalization should be viewed as complementary rather than opposite. In particular, an interpretation of globalization I am going to present in the next passage is to be viewed not as alternative to those already formulated but as a supplement to them. Or, to put it in different words, as a characteristic of an aspect of globalization.
intellectual reasons, but -first of all! -for very practical ones: reasons implied by globalization and the responsibility for our common future.
How to overcome this situation (some call it "intellectual crisis")? I am convinced that it is philosophy that has an important role to play here: It is the task of philosophy (of course, to be realized not in separation from particular scientific disciplines, but through active collaboration with them) to offer such world-image(s). For two important reasons, at least. Firstly, unlike individual scientific disciplines, philosophy has no defined (and limited) domain; or, alternatively, it might be said that its domain comprises "everything"(including not only the actual but the potential also). Secondly, philosophy is both descriptive and normative: it tries to say not only what the world is like, but also what it ought to be. (It might be added here that, due to centuries-long ongoing debates, philosophers are particularly aware of the complexities of the relations between various types of discourses, in particular -descriptive and normative.) The present paper -though it undertakes a very limited number of issues (thus it is very distant from any overall world-image) -is intended as a philosophical text: First, it discusses some problems apart from their "disciplinary affiliations": on the one handthese issues that are discussed in political theory or legal studies, on the other -those debated in such fields as social studies of technology or media studies. Second, this paper formulates not only descriptive but also normative (or axiological/evaluative) propositions. (Kuzior and Zozul'ak 2019;Przybylska-Czajkowska 2019a) The central question of this text can be formulated in a simple way: In which ways information technology actually influences (both positively and negatively) democracy and vice versa, in which ways could influence, and in which -ought to? (Sclove 1995, Caplan 2008

On democracy
Democracy -both as a practice and as an idea -is a huge subject. Thus I am not going to present any, even very concise, overview of all important problems that could be grouped under this heading, but I will limit myself to a small number of issues -to those which will be relevant for the further considerations that will be conducted in the next two chapters.
The term "democracy" was created already in ancient times (Plato, Aristotle) as a characteristic of some states. In the 20 th century the scope of this notion was considerably enlarged: it can be today referred to political parties, factories, universities or even churches. It might even have some sense to speak about democratic relations in families (Przybylska-Czajkowska 2019c; Courpasson 2017).
I not only accept this broad understanding of the notion of democracy but I consider it to be theoretically useful and inspiring. However, I will focus mainly on democracy as a characteristic of states, sub-state territorial units, or multi-states organizations (such as European Union). Alternatively, it could be said that the word "democracy" is to be referred here to such groups as nations or local communities. (Kuzior 2014) I am not going to present any definition of democracy: in my opinion, good definitions can be formulated only in the context of a theoretical system (i.e. a collection of concepts and theses "sufficiently logically similar" to mathematical or physical theories); unfortunately, still, social sciences do not rather dispose any such system. Thus, it will be -to my mind -better to characterize the notion of democracy discussing a number of ideas connected in this or that way with this very notion (instead of formulating a "definition" of it) The most general concept we should, I think, start with is that of (rational) decisionmaking. This notion is so widely used in various disciplines (economics, psychology, sociology…) that no comments seem to be necessary here.
A step is to be made now from the concept of decisions being undertaken by individuals to group (collective) decision-making. As it is in the case of individual decisions also group decisions can concern great many various issues and can be of diverse kinds. What are the most important decisions a group makes -it depends on the on the type of this group. As declared above, I focus here on the most important and complex social groups -on groups defined by their relations to states (or other territorial units). Such groups we can call "societies" -e.g. Polish society, Saxonian society, London society…, and -as suggested in the Introduction -global (world) society.
What decisions have to make societies? Surely: various. But many of them can be grouped together since, in spite of variety of issues resolved by these decisions, they share a form -the form of legal acts (constitutions, bills and the like). Using other words, one could say that law-making is the main type (form) of group decision-making if a society is this group and if this society should develop in a sustainable manner (Kwilinski et al. 2019).
In the context of the issues discussed in this paper, a note on relations between technology and law should be made. The development of technology can be characterized in various ways. In particular, it can be viewed as a process resulting in greater and greater human power over the world (human body and psyche including; let us note that the philosophically interesting and difficult problem of "reflexive power" or "self-power" arises here (Kuzior and Kwilinski 2021)). The ways in which this power is exercised have to be regulated. As a consequence, whole new branches of law arise.
Most of them (e.g. space law, computer law etc.) has to have international character. -This trend in law is one of those that create new challenges for democracy. As for now, only a very general (and thus: very partial) characteristic of democracy has been sketched. Now, a characteristic of a more specific kind is to be given. As formulates it one of the most prominent contemporary theoreticians of democracy, "tendency toward democratic participation arises from…the logic of equality" (Dahl 2015). This These two documents can regarded as marking symbolically the beginning of the modern trend towards democracy. Third, a number of, so to say, "technical" issues arise.
It is rather obvious that some minimal mental capacities should be expected (demanded?) from a person id s/he is to participate in democratic decision-making. On the one hand this issue is related to the developmental psychology (the problem of age and maturity), on the other hand -to psychiatry (the problem of "normalcy"). These brief remarks should but demonstrate that I am aware that with development of democracy many troubles and difficulties are connected. Nevertheless, attempts and efforts oriented at their (incremental and partial) overcoming are meaningful if we regard democracy as an ideal. Since I share this attitude, I am going now to discuss shortly the axiological (ethical etc.) fundamentals of democracy.
Let us return to equality. It is obvious that not all rights can be granted to every (adult and normal) person -for instance the right to drive a car or to teach higher algebra. It is also almost obvious that hard working person should be better paid than an idler. Etc.
Etc. But, at least according to the opinion accepted by many persons, medical ambulance should come -in the situations of some types -to every human, irrespective of his or her merits. S/he also should not be humiliated irrespective of being an innocent individual or a criminal… In short, humans are very complex beings characterized by many various attributes (capacities etc.). If viewed from the point of view determined by some attributes they can treated in a not egalitarian way; if seen from the point of view determined by other attributes they should be treated as equal.
Trying to formulate these observations in more abstract terms, I would say that a part of human attributes constitute what could be called "moral person" (or just "person"?), and that just as moral persons we all are equal. The second argument is based on the stance known as communitarianism (a stance opposed to libertarianism). According to this view, very generally interpreted, human is a social being: community is a reality which is (should be) for humans not only of instrumental but also of autotelic value. (An analogy with our attitudes toward the Nature could be made: we can regard it as a storage of useful things, or -as a being of its own intrinsic value.) It can be maintained that participating in the process of (re-)constructing the structure ( The next argument is closely related to the previous one but is of somewhat more instrumental character. To outline it, let us start with a note on the attitudes towards law. Sociological studies demonstrate that these attitudes vary considerably -both in time and space. In particular, in authoritarian societies (or in societies with long authoritarian past) law is most often regarded as imposed "from above" -as a manifestation of the arbitrary power of the state (of the rulers). Such an attitude may result in the social disorganization (if the state is not able or prone to intensify controlling citizens) or -in the strengthening the role played by police and other institutions of state control. -It is obvious and has not to be stressed that neither of these results is socially desirable.
Contrarily, one can expect that participation in the law-making may result in more positive attitudes towards law. For two reasons: First, democratic law-making can be interpreted as a form of the concluding a social contract -contract between equal citizens.
Such a contract is likely to be more respected than arbitrary rules established by authoritarian power. Second, there is a positive correlation between quality of law and the respect for law. The phrase "quality of law" could be interpreted as a name for a synthetic index -an index composed of quite a few simple indices. It is neither possible nor necessary even to try only to enlist all such indices. Out of them, I'd like to mention two indices only. One of them can be called "realism of law".
Law, simply (schematically) put, is composed of warrants and prohibitions (andsomewhat less importantly -oermissions) . It could be said that law (more precisely: the given legal system) is "realistic" if there is "sufficiently high" (cf. comments made above while speaking about global disasteres) probability that people will do what they - according to it -should and will not do what they should not. The other index can be called "determinism" or "predictability". Law, if it is actually applied, has various consequences; some of them are intended, some are not; it also happens that the actual consequences are even contrary to the intended ones. In any individual case it is rather impossible that the given law is "realistic"("determinist") or is not. But it can be argued than some mechanism of law-making will be giving us "realistic" ("predictable") law more often than some other mechanisms. I believe that democratic mechanisms result more often in better quality of law than non-democratic ones.
The last (hypo)thesis needs a reservation (qualification). And to formulate it some additional analytical comments on the notion of democracy are necessary. First, of methodological character. For some goals, we can (in regard this notion as dichotomous (here is democracy, there is not). But for some other, we can regard it as being of ordinal type ("this country is more democratic than that one"). Second: it can be said that minimal level of democracy is defined as follows: all members of a group (society) can decide who is to make "substantial" decisions. This condition satisfies any system of representative democracy.
And how we could characterize stronger types (higher levels) of democracy? Two elements (distinct but interrelated) seem to play the crucial role: participation and deliberation (this role is reflected in the existence and importance ot the terms "participative democracy" and "deliberative democracy" (Saward 2003)). Both participation and deliberation would deserve separate analyses (not only conceptual but -first of all -substantial; shortly speaking: the problems of the scope and degree of participation, and of the quality of deliberation). The term "participation" indicates the elements of directness in the given democratic system. And the term 'deliberation" describes a mechanism of making decisions by a group of people. The level of democracy is, according to proposed here conception, depends on the le1vel of participation and deliberation.
Approaching the end of this chapter I would like to stress that -roughly speaking -the more participative and deliberative a democratic system is, the more fully the arguments in favor of democracy can be applied.

Impact of information technology (IT) on democracy
According to the interpretation assumed in this text, democracy can be regarded as a type of collective (group) decision-making. As in the case of any kind of decision-making will omit the adjective "electronic": the phrase "information technologies" will be regarded as shortened form of "electronic IT". If other types of information technologies will be mentioned, proper adjectives will be added. Let me also stress that though computers and their networks (in particular: Internet) are the main part of IT, but other technologies such as television/radio and phones should also be regarded as its parts.
In this chapter I am going to consider three different though interrelated problems: In which ways IT actually exerts influence on democracy? In which other ways IT could influence it? And -it which of those possible ways democracy should be influenced?
Before I discuss the relations between information technologies and democracy considered as already existing order, I would like to say some words on the role various types of information technologies can play (have played) in the development of (struggle for) democracy. Without getting into difficult problems discussed in social (cultural) anthropology, we can assume that early societies (hordes, tribes etc.) were relatively democratic (Dahl 2000). This situation started to change dramatically some 5000 years ago: more or less at the same time when the institution of state began to develop and the evolution of writing was initiated. With very few exceptions (of which ancient Greeceand, particularly, the ca. 500 B.C.-300 B.C. Athens -is the most important; we owe her the very idea of democracy and its first theoretical analyses) vaarious non-democratic orders had dominated till the last decades of 18 th century.
However complex and differentiated are current interpretations of the American (1776) and the French (1789) revolutions, both these historical events are rather commonly regarded as the beginning of the development of modern democracy (democracies). -Of course, this process has had its "ups" and "downs", it sometime accelerated and sometime slowed down… A book would be necessary to present a systematic theoretical analysis of this process (and many-volumes work if it were to contain itsboth spatially and temporally complete -description). And a large separate paper if the main ideas of such a book were to be presented. However, it is possible to make a few useful points on this issue. Firstly, if we look at the last 250 years or so from a distance, the trend towards democratization is clearly visible. Secondly, a great variety of factors have co-determined this trend; among them -the great development of electromechanical and electronic information technologies (both parts and products of subsequent industrial revolutions, resulting from the first -at the turn of 18 th and 19 th centuries). Thirdly, no -even the most visible -trend should be regarded (at least without separate theoretical argumentation) as a manifestation of a deterministic law.
History is rather an interplay of various trends, of which some may be opposite. Thus, we cannot be sure that the trend toward democracy will not reverse, and -in particularthat information technologies will always be democracy supportive.
So much for general remarks. I would like to supplement them with three historical observations. First, the role IT (mainly TV) played in the 1989 "Autumn of Nations": the Second: the "Arab Spring" (2010-2012). On the one hand, this historical phenomenon is much more ambiguous than that mentioned in the previous passage: the movements were less successful and its results much more dramatic. On the other hand, the role of IT in those processes -though a subject of some controversies -is regarded as considerable, at least. It is worthwhile to note that the "Spring" was initiated in Tunisia and just in this country conflicts concerned the access to WikiLeaks materials Third: the rise of anti-and alter-globalization movements (global democracy might be defined as their main goal). As for now, their successes are very limited. But, at least, they succeeded in making globalization a subject of world-wide debates. They also demonstrated that global social movements can develop without large organizational infrastructure: Without Internet these movements could not exist and act. In sum: the fact that IT played in those changes considerable positive role seems to be beyond any serious doubt. So much about IT and struggle for democracy.
The next fragment of this chapter I will begin from noting a simple but important historical fact: The history of modern democracy starts in the second half of the 18 th century. It is also the time of Enlightenment -of many interconnected ("interwoven") processes which, viewed as a dynamic whole, can be regarded as a profound cultural revolution. It has had a great impact on the history (cultural, political, economic etc.) of the next centuries -until our times. In particular, just in this epoch the idea of common compulsory education started to be introduced (rather slowly: in quite a few states only in the second half of the 20 th century!). There is very little doubt that temporal coincidence with the industrial revolution and with the development of democracy was not incidental. This concidens confirms the intuitively rather obvious conviction that (modern) democracy presupposes a level of cultural competences. This conviction, So much about knowledge. It is obvious that possession of even large knowledge is not sufficient for "understanding the world". It is also impossible without the ability to analyze the possessed knowledge (to confront various its element, to look for hidden assumptions or not formulated consequences, etc.). But without some traits of character, in particular -without the ability to concentration and without patience -analysis is almost impossible. And, one can suppose, books-based learning helps to develop these traits much more than the Internet-based learning.
In the previous passage I focused on some ways in which information technology influences individuals. Now I am going to pass to the ways IT influences interpersonal communications (the central element of any "high level" democratic system).
At the beginning of world-wide Internet (at the 1990s) the optimistic views on its role in the development of Internet dominated. The development of Facebook (since 2004) and other social media resulted in the gradual change of these views. I am not sure that pessimism has triumphed but that we meet today more pessimism than twenty years ago is, to my perception, easily noticeable. (Fallis 2011) Let us try to identify the main sources of this change. It seems to me that we should start from the phenomenon known as "filter bubble". This, quite popular today, term was coined by Eli Pariser, an American activist and entrepreneur, and popularized by his best-selling book. Its full title -"Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You" Particularly "hot" debates concern the evolution of human society (societies). This is a large and very controversial (ideologically and politically involved) issue which cannot be discussed here -only one its aspect is to be undertaken: In the human civilization (culture) some "areas" ("domains" etc.) -such as religion, science, law, art, etc. -can be distinguished. One of the central questions of historiosophy (i.e. philosophy of history)

Preprints
can formulated as follows: which of these "areas" can be regarded as (relatively) autonomously evolving. Can we speak, for instance, about (autonomous) evolution of religion or of morality? -Various answers have given to such questions.
One of the most important questions of this sort is the one concerning technology. To my knowledge, this question has not been explicitly asked, thus -the more -no answers could have been proposed. Unable to make references to any existing theory, and having no possibility even to sketch my own theory, I have to limit myself to a declaration: I believe that history of technology can be regarded as an evolutionary process. I think also that already now some arguments supporting this hypothesis can be formulated: If history of technology is viewed in a very broad perspective, quite a few trends can be detected; for instance, a trend of increasing complexity of technological instruments and somewhat similar trend of growing "recurrent character" of these instruments (machines to produce machines to produce…), or a trend towards larger and larger technological systems (such as Internet); also a trend towards more and more rational character of I would like to end this passage with the following quote: "the nature of the beginning civilization of knowledge will give people almost unlimited possibilities to choose between various technological options -also the suicidal ones" (Wierzbicki 2011) (The author of these words represents a unique combination of competences: he is an expert in electrical engineering and automation, has published may works in these domains but also patented some inventions; he has also very good and wide philosophical knowledge.) Let us assume that, on the one hand, there has been such a process than can be called "evolution of technology" and, on the other, that this process is open. It is thus possible that, with due care, we could try to control this evolution -to enhance some trends and to weaken others. In this way we have arrived to the area of theoretical reflection and practical actions widely known under the name of Technology Assessment (TA). (Grunwald 2009) Looking from the historical perspective, one could say that TA came into existence (some fifty years ago) as, so to say, reaction to the actual technological developments which raised some serious social concerns. In the 1990s, in Netherlands, new orientation in TA emerged: Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA). The goal of CTA is to involve people who will use the technologies being created into the process of their designing. (Czajkowski 2020;Vrain 2017;Phoenix and Trader 2008) It seems to me that there are some theoretical (methodological, philosophical) connections between CTA and technology forecasting and that these connections should be strengthened. The common task for the both disciplines could be defined in the Three issues connected with this problem should be briefly discussed here (each of them would deserve a separate paper). First, the global character of the problem: if AGI will be created only at one place, this fact will have -sooner or later -global consequences (the inventors will not be able to hide AGI for a long time). Second, the problem has both mathematical and ethical character (similar to that generated by nuclear energy): what does mean the phrase "very small" if applied to the probability of the end of human race?
And third a moral (philosophical, existential) problem: the "end of human race" has not to be identical (identified) with its physical destruction; it can mean -as a Polish sociologist suggests -very profound transformation (incidentally, recommended by some transhumanists) of the human nature (Zybertowicz 2015). How profound, if any, such a transformation should be acceptable? Such issues should be decided by a global democratic mechanisms.
Designing such a mechanism (not to say about its practical construction) is a great challenge scientists, politician social movements activist…face already today: according to many experts, the problem of AGI will become real in a few decades. If so, we have still some time. The point is to make a good use of it.
Funding: This research received funding upon the project run by the Department of Applied Social Sciences of the Faculty of Organization and Management of the Silesian University of Technology directional research for the year 2021: 13/020/BK21/0062