POLITICAL LEGITIMACY UNDER THE CONDITION OF REVERSE DEMOCRATIC TRANSIT IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE


DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/2415-881x.2025.97.12-28

Mykhailo Boichenko, Tetiana Zhyzhko

Abstract


It is investigated how political legitimacy in general and the functioning of modern democracy in particular are changing under the influence of Artificial Intelligence. To this end, the features of democratic transit in the age of Artificial Intelligence are clarified. The concept of “reverse democratic transit” is proposed, which denotes the tendency for modern democracies to acquire features of authoritarianism while maintaining the rhetoric of “improving” democracy. It is emphasized that such a reverse democratic transit is experienced not only by those “young” democracies that have recently undergone democratic transit (according to Samuel Huntington’s definition), but also by those “old” democracies in which democratic institutions have been successfully functioning for a long time. It is noted that tendencies towards authoritarianism are also strengthened as a result of the widespread use of Artificial Intelligence in all spheres of public life, including in the political and educational spheres. It is emphasized that, for example, total surveillance of social processes using Artificial Intelligence, as well as other forms of involving Artificial Intelligence in these processes, also affect the legitimacy of these processes, in particular the legitimacy of political and educational institutions. The ambivalence of political legitimacy, which is based on the widespread introduction and use of Artificial Intelligence, is illustrated by the example of the formation of modern political culture in the People's Republic of China: in this country there are both impressive positive examples of the use of Artificial Intelligence in terms of their effectiveness, and clear threats from the ambiguous use of Artificial Intelligence for modern democracy. Based on a comparative analysis of relevant foreign studies on this topic, conclusions are summarized regarding the introduction of Artificial Intelligence for the implementation of political legitimacy in the People's Republic of China.

Keywords


Artificial Intelligence; political legitimacy; legitimacy of Artificial Intelligence; reverse democratic transit; digital totalitarianism; society of total surveillance; political philosophy

References


Peter, F. (2023). Political Legitimacy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legitimacy/

Weber, M. (2012). Economy and Society: Essays on the Sociology of Understanding / trans. from German. By M. Kushnir. Kyiv: Publishing House "Vsesvit", 1112 p. [In Ukrainian].

Sorokin, P. (1937). Social and Cultural Dynamics. In 3 Volumes. New York: American Book Company. 745, 727, 636 pp.

Strauss, L. (2013). On Tyranny. Corrected and expanded edition including the Strauss-Kojeve Correspondence. Edited by V. Gourevitch and M. S. Roth. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 336 p.

Hantington, S. P. (1991). Democracy's Third Wave. Journal of Democracy, Vol. 2, Number 2, pp. 12-34. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0016

Hantington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman-London: University of Oklahoma Press, 366 p.

Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation Crisis. Trans. by T. McCarthy. Polity Press, 196 p.

North, D., Wallis, J. & Weingest, B. (2017). Violence and Ssocial Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History / trans. from English by T. Tsymbal. Kyiv: Nash format, 352 p.

Shenk, D. (2006). Surveillance Society. EMBO reports. 7 Spec. No. Pp. 31-35. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400735

Chin, J., Lin, L. (2024). Surveillance State: Inside China's Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control. St. Martin’s Griffin. 320 p.

Strittmatter, К. (2019). We Have Been Harmonized: Life in China's Surveillance State. Old street publishing, 328 p.

Pei, M. (2024). The Sentinel State: Surveillance and the Survival of Dictatorship in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 336 p.

York, J. C. (2021). Silicon Values: The future of free speech under surveillance capitalism. New York: Verso, 304 p.

Fasman, J. (2021). We see it all. Liberty and justice in an age of perpetual surveillance. New York: Public Affairs, 265 p.

Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2023). Living with Digital Surveillance in China. Citizens’ Narratives on Technology, Privacy, and Governance. Routledge, 338 p.

Boichenko, M. I., Yakovleva, O. V., & Liakh, V. V. (2018). Civilizational and institutional aspects of national self-identification in Ukraine: philosophical-anthropological approach. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (14), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i14.150555

Karpenko, I. V., & Guzhva, A. A. (2021). Human Being in the Dimension of the Psychosociocultural Matrix of Philosophizing. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (20), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i20.249565

Smith, M. (2006). Sovereign democracy: the ideology of Yedinaya Rossiya. Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Conflict Studies Research Centre, 15 p.

Zakaria, F. (2003). The Future of Freedom. Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 270 p.

Guzhva, A. (2021). Political populism and popular culture: political philosophy. Filosofska Dumka, (3), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2021.03.125

Rowe, P. G., Forsyth, A., & Kan, H. Y. 2016. China’s Urban Communities: Concepts, Contexts, and Well-Being. Berlin: DeGruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783035607062.

Byler, D. (2022). In the camps. China’s High-Tech Penal Colony? Trans. from English by A. Yashchuk. Kyiv: Laboratory, 160 p.

Socha, R. & Kogut, B. (2020). Urban Video Surveillance as a Tool to Improve Security in Public Spaces. Sustainability. Vol. 12. Art. 6210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156210


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The editorial board does not always share the position of the authors. The authors are responsible for the accuracy of the material presented.
All rights reserved.
© Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 2026