AI for Democracy_ Reimagining Governance in the Age of Intelligence

20 Feb 2026 10:00h - 11:00h

AI for Democracy_ Reimagining Governance in the Age of Intelligence

Session at a glanceSummary, keypoints, and speakers overview

Summary

The summit in Delhi brought together leaders to “re-imagine governance” by exploring how artificial intelligence can serve the world’s largest democracy [1-2]. Speakers framed the discussion around the question “AI for democracy” and argued that AI should reinforce, not erode, democratic pillars such as accountability, transparency and inclusivity [18-20][23-26].


Dr Chinmay Pandya highlighted AI’s dual promise-improved public services, reduced corruption-and its dangers, including misinformation, polarization and the concentration of power in the hands of a few data-controlling actors [50-53][58-66]. He proposed four layers of governance-public-institutional, technological, civic and global-to ensure AI aligns with democratic values and cited the need for collective intelligence across sectors [70-78][91-92].


Deputy Speaker Lázos Oláhaji warned that AI’s “black-box” nature and cross-border reach create unprecedented risks of deep-fake manipulation, loss of accountability and a gradual erosion of democratic norms [109-113][119-124][125-138]. He called for common ethical standards and international cooperation, stressing that responsibility lies with human actors rather than the technology itself [141-144][151-158]. Martin Chung reinforced this view, noting that AI-driven power is already concentrated in a handful of corporations and that parliaments must lead transparent, accountable debates on trade-offs between innovation and equity [179-186][190-197][210-213]. He urged global, inclusive AI governance, arguing that without coordinated parliamentary action the technology could either renew democracy or become a tool for authoritarian control [224-236][241-244].


Indian Speaker Om Birla described national initiatives to digitize legislative proceedings, use AI for metadata search, and involve citizens in law-making, presenting India as a potential model for AI-enabled democratic practice [281-288][290-296]. He emphasized that technology must be guided by spiritual and political values to avoid misuse and highlighted the role of youth and education in shaping a responsible AI future [300-307][311-317]. Dr Fadi Dao added that AI development should be treated as human capital, with safety, inclusion and universal digital-AI literacy embedded as rights [331-338]. Lord Rawal concluded by stressing the importance of adaptability and preparedness for rapid technological change as a democratic safeguard [346-352].


Across the plenary, participants agreed that AI presents both transformative opportunities and existential threats, and that multi-level, internationally coordinated governance is essential to ensure AI strengthens rather than undermines democracy [36-41][70-78][119-124][224-236]. The session closed with a collective call to embed ethical AI within democratic institutions, promote inclusive participation, and pursue coordinated global action as the path forward [241-244][354-356].


Keypoints


Major discussion points


AI must be governed by democratic principles and global, binding agreements.


Jimena Sofia-Veverosi stressed that AI should “serve democracy instead of eroding democracy” and called for “inclusive participation, … global governance that moves beyond voluntary commitments into binding agreements… measurable standards and benchmarks” [18-25].


AI presents both opportunities and serious risks for democratic systems.


Dr. Chinmay Pandya highlighted AI’s promise to improve service delivery, reduce corruption and aid policymakers [50-53], while also warning that AI can “amplify misinformation, deepen polarization, manipulate public opinion… concentrate power in the hands of a few” [58-66].


Mr. Lazos Olahaji echoed these dangers, describing AI as a “black box” that can “cross national borders … without meaningful state oversight” and warning of a “gradual erosion of democratic systems” and loss of accountability [109-124][125-138].


Four layers of governance are needed to keep AI democratic.


Pandya outlined the need for (1) public-institutional governance, (2) technological governance (values encoded in AI), (3) civic governance (digital literacy), and (4) global governance because AI “has no reason to respect national borders” [70-78].


Parliaments and international cooperation are essential to shape AI policy and prevent power concentration.


The Hungarian Deputy Speaker stressed that “politicians … often ask, who bears responsibility? … The responsibility lies with the actor, not with the tool” and called for “shared solutions” and “ethical AI” [151-159][160-168].


Martin Chung of the Inter-Parliamentary Union argued that “parliaments are pivotal to ensuring coherence between domestic legislation, human rights and evolving international standards” and urged collective action to embed democratic accountability, human rights and the rule of law in AI [180-210][241-243].


Overall purpose / goal of the discussion


The session was convened to re-imagine governance in the age of artificial intelligence by examining how AI can be aligned with democratic values, identifying the risks of unchecked AI, and proposing concrete governance frameworks and international cooperation to ensure that AI becomes a tool for democratic renewal rather than a threat to it.


Overall tone and its evolution


– The meeting opened with a ceremonial, celebratory tone, welcoming dignitaries and emphasizing the symbolic importance of holding the summit in India’s “largest democracy” [1-7][10-12].


– It then shifted to a serious, analytical tone, as speakers outlined the technical and ethical challenges of AI for democracy, citing concrete risks such as misinformation, deepfakes, and power concentration [58-66][109-124].


– A constructive, solution-oriented tone emerged when participants described multi-level governance models and the role of parliaments, stressing collaboration and the need for binding standards [70-78][180-210].


– The discussion concluded on an optimistic, forward-looking tone, highlighting India’s own AI-driven legislative innovations and urging continued international cooperation and collective responsibility [281-289][241-243].


Overall, the conversation moved from formal inauguration → critical appraisal of risks → proposal of governance solutions → hopeful outlook for democratic AI futures.


Speakers

Lord Rawal – Member of the House of Lords; devout member of Gayatri Parivar; expertise in the British parliamentary system and spiritual values [S1].


Jimena Sofia-Veverosi – President, Human AI Foundation (Mexico); expertise in AI for democracy, critical challenges of AI and global AI governance [S4].


Om Birla – Speaker of Parliament of India (Lok Sabha); expertise in parliamentary procedures and democratic governance in India [S6].


Martin Chunggong – Secretary-General, Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU); expertise in the role of parliaments in AI governance and international cooperation [S9].


Speaker 1 – Event moderator/host representing All World Gayatri Parivaar, Dev Sanskriti Vishwadyale and India AI Mission; role as chair/host of the session (no external citation).


Dr. Fadi Dao – Chairman, Globe Ethics; expertise in AI ethics, safety and inclusion [S15].


Mr. Lazos Olahaji – Deputy Speaker, Parliament of Hungary; expertise in AI governance and democratic institutions [S17].


Dr. Chinmay Pandya – Deputy Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament; chair and host of the event; expertise in AI for democracy, governance and policy implications [S19].


Additional speakers:


(None)


Full session reportComprehensive analysis and detailed insights

The summit opened at Delhi’s Bharat Mandapam, emphasizing the theme “re-imagining governance” and the significance of holding the event in the world’s largest democracy, India [1-12]. After a brief pause for the arrival of the chief guest, the host thanked participants on behalf of the World Gayatri Parivaar, Dev Sanskriti Vishwadhyālaya and the India AI Mission, framing democracy as a collective family that begins with the individual and expands to society [4][6].


Ms. Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, President, Human AI Foundation (Mexico), set the normative agenda by asking “AI for democracy – how can AI actually serve democracy instead of eroding it?” [13-15][18-20]. She argued that the pillars of democracy – accountability, rule of law, transparency, inclusivity, equity and justice – must also guide the global governance of AI [20-21]. To prevent concentration of AI power in a handful of firms and states, she called for “inclusive participation” and for global governance that moves beyond voluntary pledges to binding agreements with measurable standards, benchmarks and clearly defined red-lines [22-26].


Dr. Chinmay Pandya, chair and host of the session from All World Gayatri Parivaar, traced India’s democratic lineage from the ancient Lichchavi-Ghanaraj tradition to its present status as the world’s largest democracy [27-33]. He quoted an ancient rishi who described democracy as a river that constantly evolves [84-86]. Pandya described AI’s dual promise: it can improve public-service delivery, curb corruption and help policymakers navigate complexity [50-53]; yet it also risks amplifying misinformation, deepening polarization and manipulating public opinion [58-66]. To reconcile these tensions he proposed a four-tier governance model – public-institutional oversight, technological governance of AI values, civic governance through digital literacy, and global governance because AI “has no reason to respect national borders” [70-78]. He stressed that no single sector can solve the problem; a collective intelligence of technologists, policymakers and civil society is required [91-92]. After his introductory remarks, Pandya asked Dr. Fadi Dao a one-minute question about India’s linguistic and cultural diversity [322-326].


Mr. Lázos Olaji, Deputy Speaker, Parliament of Hungary, expanded on the risks, describing AI as a “black-box” technology whose inner workings are opaque to most politicians and citizens [109-112]. He warned that AI can cross borders unchecked, erode accountability, and become an “invisible transformer” that gradually undermines democratic institutions [113-124][125-138]. Olaji highlighted the danger of deep-fakes eroding trust in political discourse and noted that without internationally accepted ethical boundaries, AI could accelerate the shift toward strong-handed, authoritarian leadership [121-130][131-138]. He called for shared ethical standards, noting that responsibility ultimately lies with the human actors who design, deploy and govern AI, not with the algorithm itself [151-158][160-168].


Martin Chung-Wong, Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, linked the technical challenges to democratic accountability. He noted that a few corporations now possess market capitalisations larger than whole economies, concentrating power and threatening the social contract [202-208]. He argued that parliaments must lead AI governance through hearings, specialised committees and cross-party groups, ensuring that trade-offs between innovation, safety, equity and public interest are debated openly and transparently [210-213][219-240]. Chung stressed that AI is already reshaping election campaigns, public-service decisions and surveillance, and that parliamentary oversight can turn AI into a tool for detecting deep-fakes, enhancing transparency of public funds and expanding citizen participation [190-197][160-166]. He called for inclusive, international cooperation to create binding standards, warning that fragmented national approaches would allow unethical AI to find footholds [145-149][224-236][241-244].


Mr. Om Birla, Speaker, Lok Sabha (India), presented concrete national initiatives that illustrate how AI can be harnessed for democratic renewal. By 2026 India aims to digitise all state legislative assemblies, creating a unified, paper-less platform where debates are searchable via AI-driven metadata, thereby widening public access and enabling citizens to engage directly with law-making [281-288][290-298]. Birla framed this technological rollout within India’s spiritual and cultural heritage, asserting that Vedic and moral values must guide AI deployment to prevent misuse [267-270][299-307]. He highlighted the country’s youthful demographic as a strategic asset, emphasizing that harnessing this talent responsibly will help address global challenges and position India as a model for AI-enabled democratic practice [311-317].


Dr. Fadi Dao of Globe Ethics added a human-capital perspective, stating that AI should be treated not merely as a frontier technology but as a means of capitalising on intellectual, social and ethical intelligence for a flourishing future [331-334]. He called for safety and inclusion to be embedded in all AI systems and argued that digital/AI literacy should be recognised as a universal human right [335-338]. Dao pledged that Globe Ethics will build on the summit’s outcomes and contribute to the next gathering in Geneva in 2027 [340-342].


Lord Rawal, representing the House of Lords and a member of the Gayatri Parivār, reminded participants that adaptability to rapid technological change is a core organisational value. He suggested that preparedness can contain public uncertainty and act as a democratic safeguard [346-352].


Across the plenary, speakers converged on several points of agreement. All endorsed the need for comprehensive, multi-level AI governance that translates democratic principles into binding rules and oversight mechanisms [20-26][70-78][145-149][151-158]. They concurred that concentration of AI power and the opacity of black-box systems pose existential threats to accountability and public trust [109-118][202-208]. Moreover, participants agreed that parliaments are uniquely positioned to lead this governance, to foster transparency, and to coordinate international cooperation [210-213][219-240][224-236].


Nevertheless, notable disagreements emerged. Jimena Sofia-Veverosi advocated for global, binding treaties that set universal red-lines [22-26], whereas Martin Chung-Wong emphasised parliamentary-centric, nationally-driven oversight with cross-border coordination [145-149][219-240]. Lázos Olaji placed primary responsibility on individual actors rather than on treaty frameworks [151-158]. A further divergence concerned the philosophical foundation of AI governance: Om Birla invoked Vedic and spiritual values as guiding principles [267-270], while other speakers (e.g., Jimena, Pandya) framed the discussion in secular, rights-based terms [20-26][70-78].


Key take-aways from the session include:


* AI must be governed through inclusive, binding international agreements that define measurable standards and clear red-lines [22-26].


* Ethical responsibility rests with designers, deployers and regulators, not with the algorithm itself [151-158].


* Parliaments are central to AI governance, capable of legislating, holding hearings and ensuring democratic accountability [210-213][219-240].


* Safety, inclusion and universal digital/AI literacy should be recognised as fundamental human rights [335-338].


* AI presents serious risks – misinformation, deep-fakes, power concentration and erosion of accountability – but also offers opportunities for better service delivery, corruption reduction and enhanced transparency [50-53][58-66][160-166].


* A four-tier governance model (public-institutional oversight, technological governance of AI values, civic governance through digital literacy, and global governance) is required to manage AI’s impact on democracy [70-78].


* India’s plan to digitise all state legislatures and deploy AI-driven metadata search by 2026 provides a practical model for other democracies [281-288][290-298].


* International cooperation is essential; the Inter-Parliamentary Union pledged support for capacity-building across more than 60 parliaments [237-240].


The summit concluded with a collective call to embed ethical AI within democratic institutions, promote inclusive participation and accelerate coordinated global action [241-244]. Attendees were invited to scan a QR code for a commemorative gift [354-356].


Session transcriptComplete transcript of the session
Speaker 1

I think in the stream of various sessions, I think we have got a few moments for contemplation, to know, to understand, to revise and to kind of going, diving deeper into the concept which we are discussing from past three and four days. And today, when we are in Delhi, when we are in the largest democracy of the world, when we are in Bharat, so I think each one of us being here, part of this fantastic session, when the term is re -imagining governance, so we all can re -imagine in our own way. and in a short while from now our honourable chief guest and honourable guest of honours and all the dignitaries are going to arrive in the stage and we will start the session immediately.

Thank you. Now our honourable chief guest has arrived in Bharat Mandapam. In next 60 seconds he will be here with us on the dais and we will start the session. So once again we would like to welcome you all on behalf of all world Gayatri Parivaar, Dev Sanskriti Vishwadyale and India AI Mission. When we talk about democracy there is a wonderful concept, that each individual plays a very vital role because together we make it. an individual, when individual join hand together they become family when families join hand together they become a society and their society is also named as democracy and the very fantastic example of smallest democracy could be a family and this is the thought which we got to learn from the philosophy of all world Gayatri Parivaar and India, Bharat, Rishis tradition and you will be happy that today in this deliberation if you are here you are going to get something very unique our honourable chief guest is about to arrive and we are about to start the session music music music music Thank you.

Thank you. being happy is a natural state of being human and with that happiness on your faces and with zeal, enthusiasm and positive vibes we are about to start artificial intelligence for democracy, reimagining governance in the age of intelligence when we have some eminent dignitaries in the panel and they have various responsibilities so amidst those responsibilities they are making out their time and they are about to arrive in the auditorium and we are about to start the session thank you Thank you. Thank you. © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon our guest of honour Mr. Martin Chungungji Secretary General IPU Mr. Lazos Olaji Deputy Speaker Parliament of Hungary Dr. Chinmay Bandyaji from All World Gayatri Parivaar and Sophia Geminiyaji from Mexico please put your hands together and let’s welcome, kindly rise up and we welcome our honourable chief guest honourable Om Birlaji Speaker of Parliament of India our honourable Dr.

Chinmay Bandyaji chair and host of the event from All World Gayatri Parivaar the team is requesting for a good photograph in the initial session so that they can present it as a memento so our honourable speakers are requested to kindly join for a good photograph and then further we will proceed to the next session Mr. Chintanji. So if you can kindly. Okay. So let’s start the session here for democracy. And now I would like to invite Ms. Honorable Jimena Sofia -Veverosi, President, Human AI Foundation, Mexico, to address us on the theme, Critical Challenges in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Please welcome Honorable Ms. Jimena Sofia -Veverosi.

Jimena Sofia-Veverosi

Hello. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be back here in India. As a fellow citizen of the Global South, I am very happy to see these discussions taking place here. So thank you. Thank you to the government of India for hosting us and the organizers of this event. we’re here to discuss a very important topic, AI for democracy. And I want to emphasize the phrasing of this. It is AI for democracy. How can AI actually serve democracy instead of eroding democracy? If we think about the pillars where any democracy lies and can bear fruits, from accountability, rule of law, oversight, transparency, inclusivity, equity, justice, just to name a few, these are the same principles that should guide us in the quest for global governance of AI.

Global governance of AI is a precursor for a democratic development and evolution. And we need to continue to develop and they’re still being concentrated in a few, very few companies and even less countries. So the way to democratize these technologies is through inclusive participation, through global governance that moves beyond voluntary commitments and into binding agreements. It goes from principles and guidelines into measurable standards and benchmarks and different commitments that at a global stage can actually materialize democratic principles. We need guardrails that are clearly defined and we also need clearly defined red lines. Especially for the benefit that can be reaped from these

Dr. Chinmay Pandya

Deputy Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament, dear Jimena, all the distinguished dignitaries present here, brothers and sisters from different parts of the world, good afternoon to everyone and my respectful pranams from Haridwar. First of all, being an Indian, I extend my warmest welcome to everyone who has travelled all the way from different parts of the world to Bharat. And not only I extend my warmest welcome on behalf of Bharat, I also extend my warmest welcome on behalf of Gayatri Parivar. We have 150 million members, 5 ,000 centres, and it’s an absolute delight to have you here. And today we have got a scintillating session on the AI for democracy, India being the largest democracy in the world and also the first country to have established a democratic foundation, Lichchavi Ghanaraj Jinn Vaisali, and also India playing a very significant role in the artificial intelligence.

I believe this had been the most important event. We are more or less actually reaching to the… culmination of this historical AI summit. So nothing could have been a better kind of end than thinking about AI for democracy. And we have chosen this title because the title itself signals both promise and provocation. Promise because AI offers unprecedented tools for governance. And provocation because democracy, if we all think about it, at its very heart, is not a technical system. It’s a deeply human one. And we are living through the historical times where technology is evolving faster than the political institutions. And AI is sitting at the very heart of this transformation. Now AI algorithms can allow you and I to see the information.

It can also ensure that how services are delivered, how resources are allocated, how decisions are made. So that is why the fundamental question that is in front of our most wonderful panel is to think about AI. To think about whether AI would strengthen the democracy or would it quietly erode it. And the reason to ask that question is very simple. Democracy is built on the principles of participation, honesty, equality, trust, transparency. And AI is built on the principles of data, automation, optimization. And no one can truly predict that if these two very contrasting looking systems intersect, then what would be the outcome? It totally depends upon who is designing AI, who is deploying AI, who is governing AI and by whom.

So on one hand, we have got unprecedented promise offered to us by the AI for democratic renewal. It can make government’s service delivery better. It can reduce the corruption. It can help civil servants, policy makers to navigate the complexities of a system that no human mind can deal on their own. But on the other hand, as we say in Gita, Wherever there is fire. There is also some smoke. Wherever there is something good, you also need to be concerned about something. And what we are concerned about are a multitude of things. AI has got capacity to amplify the misinformation. It has got a power to deepen the polarization. It has got a capacity to manipulate the public opinion.

Two years ago, this would have been a speculation, but now it has become a reality. I mean, look at the news from last year in Romania. The constitutional court had to cancel the presidential elections. Presidential elections because AI was fiddling with the election. So imagine that. It has a capacity to concentrate the power in the hand of few, those who control data, those who control technology, those who control the algorithms. And democracy is meant to distribute the power among everyone, not to concentrate in the hand of few. So the real question is, the real question that we are asking is not how AI is going to be used for democracy. but it should be used democratically.

It should be used by everyone. And that’s why the second title, like in the second part of our theme is reimagining governance. Because what we essentially need is four types of governance. We need a governance at the level of public institutions, laws, regulatory bodies, public institutions. They should not only be able to understand the AI system, they should be able to oversee it. We need a technological governance because whose values are encoded into the AI? We just need to think about that. We need a civic governance. The digital literacy should be at par with the digital power. And also we need global governance because AI has no reason to respect the national borders and democracies largely confined within them.

So how cross -border AI platforms would affect the democratic foundations, no one knows. And I know as a host that these are not the very easy questions and they don’t have any quick fixes. But it is important for us to remember that democracy, when it was built in India, the rishi who wrote the foundation of it, he said democracy is like a river. It’s constantly evolving and constantly developing. And AI has, like democracy, has survived through multiple challenges. It has passed through public media, print media, mass media, radio, television, internet, and now AI is the new challenge. But unlike previous technologies, it is not only a supplier of the information. It is not merely transmitting it.

It can manipulate, it can predict, it can act, it can modify. So stakes are higher. Technologists alone cannot design it. Policy makers alone cannot control it. And civic society alone cannot criticize it. It requires collective intelligence. And that’s why precisely we have got this dynamic panel from all sectors of the society. I remember Gurudev in 1987 when he was writing the famous book Parivartan Ke Mahanshan, he wrote that current times may look dark and gloomy, but they should not bring fear or despair to us. Rather, we should embrace them like a call of action because they are a sign that we are born at a very special time when entire humanity has been called to accomplish that was never accomplished before, which is to fight together the misfortunes of today’s world together.

Together as one single race, together as one single civilization, together as one single humanity, and together as one single family. And that is what we intend to do. Because AI… has got something very special. It is critically embedded in every infrastructure of human civilization. So its power is growing. And as the power is growing, so does our collective responsibility to ensure that this power is aligned with the human values, social stability, and planetary well -being. and as host, my duty is not to provide the answer but to raise the right question and the right question that we have got today is not how AI would influence democracy because it already does. The real question is that how democracy would influence the artificial intelligence and that is what we are asking here today and I am delighted that we have got the most wonderful panel here.

Speaker 1

Thank you, Dr. Pandya, chair and host of the event from all old Gayatri Paribhar for this powerful message. In democratic institution, Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Deputy Speaker, Parliament of Hungary.

Mr. Lazos Olahaji

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, Honourable Speaker Omvirla, Namaskar. First of all, please give a big applause to the Honourable President of Hungary, for the organizers. What they have done is tremendous. First conference in the South, which one is important for the whole world. Thank you so much for organizing this. For the first time in human history, we are confronted with a technology whose inner workings are not understood by the vast majority of population, including many politicians like me. Its internal processes largely remain a black box. For the first time, humanity faces a technology in which hundreds of millions of people may come to believe that there are scenarios in which they themselves are no longer necessary.

For the first time, a technology may reach a stage at which individuals can no longer reliably determine whether what they see is real. For the first time, a technology can cross national borders with unprecedented ease, largely unconstrained by traditional regulatory frameworks. For the first time, private companies are able to influence the direction of the world. For the first time, a technology can cross national borders with unprecedented ease, largely unconstrained by traditional regulatory frameworks. For the first time, a technology can cross national borders with unprecedented ease, largely unconstrained by traditional regulations. For the first time, a technology can cross national borders with unprecedented regulations. For the first time, a technology can cross national borders with unprecedented to an abnormal extent without meaningful state oversight or democratic accountability.

Ladies and gentlemen, technological development does not automatically equal to social development or progress. The history of democracy demonstrates that major technological revolutions create new power structures and can profoundly disrupt existing social consensus. The worst -case scenario is not that artificial intelligence makes mistakes. But that it functions especially well at a moment when there is no internationally accepted consensus on democratic and ethical boundaries. Under such conditions, AI would not serve as a tool of democracy, but rather as its invisible transformer. We should not expect a sudden revolutionary collapse, but instead a gradual erosion of democratic systems. The gravest outcome will not be that citizens believe a deepfake, but that they eventually believe in the future. nothing at all.

An increasing number of fabricated yet convincing videos will circulate while genuine political scandals will be dismissed as deepfakes. Voters will lose not only the ability but also the motivation to distinguish truth from falsehood. In this undesirable scenario elections will remain formal intact but technically functional yet their main meaning will disappear. Political campaigns will become foggy, messaging will consist of individual manipulation and no one will know what promises made to others. Elections will resemble psychological experiments rather than democratic contest. Political debates will erode and accountable political programs will cease to exist. In such circumstances manipulation will always be cheaper and faster than defending ourselves against them. Public also will be more likely to be the target of the public’s attention.

Authorities and independent media will lag behind while malicious actors remain behind. one step ahead. Accountability will gradually vanish. There will be no clear responsible actors, no effective legal remedies, and no opportunity for institutional learning. The democracy cannot function in the absence of accountability. If it happens, people can expect increasing demands for strong -handed leadership, declining tolerance, and a diminishing commitment to pluralism. Dictatorial models may appear more efficient to ordinary citizens, offering faster decisions, fewer debates, and less disorder by parliamentary systems by their very nature seem slow and chaotic. When we assess the current situation, it becomes clear that substantial work lies ahead, not at the national level alone, but collectively. Success is possible only if we acknowledge that we do not share a single understanding of ethical AI.

Nor do we hold identical views on democratic institutions. Thank you. We face a choice, either we step back or allow the worst -case scenario to unfold, or we seek at least a minimal common denominator and begin laying the foundations of ethical artificial intelligence, which is capable of supporting democratic systems. Fostering international cooperation in the field of AI governance is a complex task. Over the past six months from Hungary, my colleagues and I have engaged with institutions in more than 50 countries to assess their approaches to AI and electoral integrity. What we have observed is a highly uneven level of preparedness. While some countries are developing comprehensive guidelines, strategies, ethical frameworks, and competitive capacities, others due to limited expertise, infrastructures, or resources are only beginning these discussions.

Nonetheless, we must pursue shared solutions. Without them, unethical AI will always find a foothold. We must put somewhere. from which it can undermine even those systems that strive to operate ethically. Ladies and gentlemen, politicians are often asked, who bears responsibility? One answer is certainly wrong. The algorithm decides. Here we may turn to centuries of Indian philosophical thought for guidance. Its message is clear. This responsibility lies with the actor, not with the tool. Artificial intelligence may function as a library of knowledge, but it’s not a guru. It can follow ethical rules encoded within it, but it does not live or comprehend them like us, humans. Decision makers must both understand and internalize these ethical principles. Ladies and gentlemen, if political leaders demonstrate courage and genuine capacity for international cooperation, as this conference clearly illustrates, we will realize, the positive potential of artificial intelligence.

Truths will not disappear. AI can assist in the detection of deep fakes. AI can significantly enhance institutional transparency. Citizens can gain deeper insight into administrative and decision -maker processes. AI can play a crucial role in making the use of public funds more transparent, thereby strengthening public trust. It can support better, more informed public policy decisions. It can expand citizen participation through feedback analysis, online consultation, and participatory budgeting, bringing the will of voters closer to those who govern. Ethical artificial intelligence will never replace democratic institutions, but it can reinforce them if it’s guided by the principles of transparency, accountability, human oversight, and civic participation. The question, therefore, is not whether AI will be able to be used within democratic systems, but what kind of values will shape its use.

Let me be optimistic. If those values are clearly defined, artificial intelligence will not threaten democracy. It will become one of its instruments and, in the end, potentially a means of its renewal. Dear honorable guests, do not be afraid to use AI, cooperate, and do not forget to be human. Thank you so much.

Speaker 1

Thank you, Mr. Lazarus. And now moving further for guest of honor’s address, who programs democracy when AI enters governance. It’s our great honor and pleasure to invite Secretary General, Inter -Parliamentary Union, Mr. Martin Chung -Wong.

Martin Chunggong

at the AI Summit here in Delhi. I am deeply honored to be here today in the presence of the honorable speaker to address you today at this last MAC Summit. India’s decision to host the AI Impact Summit here in New Delhi sends a powerful signal. It proves that the conversation about artificial intelligence cannot be confined to capitals of a few nations or the boardrooms of technology companies. This dialogue must belong to all of humanity. Ladies and gentlemen, India has a track record of technological innovation and technological development. including in the area of AI. And as has been mentioned earlier this afternoon, it is also the largest democracy in the world. So where could we find a better venue for a meeting that would bring democracy together with technology and AI?

I say this because the theme of this session, AI for Democracy, cuts to the heart of the matter. We are not simply debating a new technology. We are debating the future shape of power. Who will hold it? Who will be accountable for it? And will the institutions that citizens depend upon, institutions built… over generations to protect rights, resolve disputes, and represent the will of the people be strengthened or sidelined in the age of artificial intelligence? Let me be very direct about what is at stake. Artificial intelligence is not a future challenge. It is transforming our societies now. Artificial intelligence generated content already features in election campaigns across multiple continents. Deepfakes have been used to discredit political actors, disproportionately affecting women, algorithmic systems are making decisions about who receives public services, who qualifies for a loan, or who is flagged for surveillance.

Those who design, train, and deploy these systems will influence not only over individual users, but also the information environment of democracy itself. So, at the first inter -parliamentary conference on responsible AI last November in Malaysia, members of parliament raised cases that brought this risk into sharp focus. In Amsterdam, an automated traffic management system inadvertently routed congestion into the city of Malawi, which was a major problem for the government. It was a major problem for the government, even through low -income neighborhoods, because the algorithm had learned that those communities lacked the political influence. to object. Examples like this will scale rapidly if governance does not keep pace, perpetuating harms against those historically excluded from decision -making.

Yet, democratic governance is not keeping pace. Power is accumulating rapidly in the hands of those at the forefront of AI development. A handful of technology corporations now command market capitalizations exceeding the entire equity markets of major industrialized nations, while millions of workers in the global south are paid little to annotate the data sets on which the systems are trained. The benefits of AI are increasingly concentrated. While many of the costs fall on those who are not able to afford the services of the with the least power to shape the technology. This is not merely an economic concern. It is a democratic concern. When the systems that govern aspects of people’s daily lives, their access to information services and economic opportunity are controlled by a small number of actors without meaningful public oversight, then the social contract itself is under strain.

That is why we must frame this not simply as technology policy, but as democratic governance. The choices made today about how AI is developed, deployed and regulated involve trade -offs between innovation and safety, efficiency and equity, profit and loss. And the public interest. In any healthy democracy, those trade -offs are debated openly, decided transparently, and subject to accountability. The parliamentary community declared in Malaysia that we do not accept the concentration of power in the hands of a few actors. They called on all stakeholders to agree upon red lines that this technology cannot cross. They insisted on an equal voice for the global south. And they called on all parliaments to engage actively with AI governance efforts at every level.

Thank you. The principle that elected legislatures shape the rules governing society is… the cornerstone of democracy. But the contribution of parliaments to AI governance goes beyond that basic principle. Parliaments are where the real -world impact of AI meets political accountability. Members of parliament hear directly from workers affected by automation, from communities concerned with algorithmic decision -making, from parents navigating their children’s relationship with technology. This connects governance to lived experience and informs the AI debate through the values of the people. Parliaments can and must stimulate that broader societal conversation through hearings, consultations, and multi -stakeholder dialogues. I believe you heard what the Deputy Speaker of Hungary said about the practice… in his country, which I believe is the path down which we would want to travel.

This brings me to the international dimension. AI is a truly global challenge whose effects transcend national borders. As we would say, AI doesn’t have a national passport. While the risks are real, from job displacement to environmental costs, so too are the opportunities. AI has genuine potential to improve healthcare, expand access to education, and accelerate progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. But those benefits will not be shared equitably by default. That requires deliberate, collective effort. It requires collective action, and it requires that the countries with the most to gauge the potential of the system are not shut out of the conversation. Yet, international AI governance remains fragmented and short on binding commitments. Geopolitical competition risks fracturing governance efforts further.

That is why this summit, I say this summit, and those which will follow, must embody the inclusive participatory approach that the equitable governance of AI demands. Parliaments are pivotal to ensuring coherence between domestic legislation, established human rights, and evolving international standards, and to holding their governments accountable, for the commitments made at summits like this one. The Inter -Parliamentary Union… is committed to supporting that engagement. In the past two years, over 60 parliaments have taken action on AI, from comprehensive legislation to oversight inquiries. Across the world, parliaments are forming cross -party groups, establishing specialized committees, and building capacity. The foundations are being laid, but they need to be built on faster, with increased coordination across borders. Parliaments are also beginning to explore how AI can support their own work, and those that experience its promise and limitations firsthand will bring far greater understanding of the role of AI in the future.

They are responding to the task of governing it. let me return to the principle at the heart of what I have said today democracy cannot be automated it must be shaped by every one of us through our democratic institutions through open debate through laws made transparently and enforced fairly and through international cooperation in which every every nation can participate the choices we make will determine whether AI furthers democracy or erodes it if we succeed AI can become a tool for inclusion participation, human rights and better governance if we fail it risks becoming for for for becoming a fool which concentrates power, weakens accountability, and erodes trust in public institutions, including parliaments. The task before us is to embed democratic accountability, human rights, and the rule of law at the heart of how AI is designed, deployed, and governed.

This summit is a critical opportunity to advance that mission. Let us make the most of it together. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Speaker 1

Thank you, Mr. Jungbong. And now, in this momentous occasion, it’s our great honor and pleasure, as today we have with us as chief guest, Honorable Mr. Om Bhildaji, Speaker of Parliament of India. When democracy meets AI, what are the opportunities for that? For deliberation, please put your hands together and we invite Honorable Om Bhildaji. Thank you.

Om Birla

Secretary General, IPU is one of the most important institutions in the world. It is one of the most important institutions in the world. It is one of the most important institutions in the world. It is one of the most important institutions in the world. It is one of the most important institutions in the world. It is one of the most important institutions in the world. It is one of the most important institutions in the world. It is one of the most important institutions in the world. It is one of the most important institutions in the world. It is one of the most important institutions in the world. It is one of the most important institutions in the world.

It is one of the most important institutions in the world. to make an answer for the people. For this, all the parliaments of the world are discussing this issue at regular intervals. I welcome the Secretary -General of the IPU, Martin Csuk -Ok. Parliament of Hungary’s Parliament’s Deputy Chairman I welcome the Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Assembly.My grandfather, Acharya Shri Ram Sharma, and his mother have made the life of many people in the world, not just in India, but in the whole world. And this organization is continuously working to bring this spiritual value to many countries of the world, from small villages to big cities. And along with this, the Dev Sanskriti Vidyalay here, which is amazing where in Dev Sanskriti Vidyalaya the moral values of the spiritual values are taught but at the same time in modernity, technology whatever is the new education system of the world that education system also by giving education to Indian moral values and spiritual values for the establishment of a moral society this Vidyalaya has a very big role I have been there many times inside the Vidyalaya if you go there you will see that there Vedic values also and political education also Adhyatmik Gyan Bhi Yog Bhi Sabhi Tareke Ki Shikshaon Ke Saath Saath Duniya Ki Badalti Shiksha Vyasta Ke Andam Takni Ki Shiksha Aur Takni Ki Shiksha Ke Madhyam Se Samaj Jeevan Me Parivartan Karte Hue Ek Netik Rasht Ke Nirman Ki Liye Isvish Dhyale Me Adhbut Shiksha Di Jati Aur Mujhe Kushi Hai Ki Aap Ne Aaj AI for Democracy Aur Bhish Me Loktanthi Sansthaon Loktanth Ke Andar Hum Savvadur Ki Paramparaon Ko Sabhi Tareke Ki Aage Bada Kar Kis Tariqe Se Aap Ne Aaj technology ka upyog karke in Lok Tantrik Sansthaon ko janta ke prati jawab dey Lok Tantrik Sansthaon ke andar pardhashita Lok Tantrik Sansthaon ki jawab dey aur Lok Tantrik Sansthaon ke andar chiniwe janpratidiyon ki shamta ko barana technology ka upyog karke wo kis tarike se janta aur Lok Tantrik Sansthaon ke beech mein ek better samvad kar sakte hai ta ki ek jawab dey sanstha ke saath ek jawab dey netik mulli wale janpratidiy desh ke vikas me yogdan kar seke aur mujhe kushi hai iske liye duniya bhar ki sansudhey are working on their own level.

Recently, the assembly of the speakers of the Commonwealth countries to organize the CSPOC was given to the Indian Assembly. And in this assembly, the Commonwealth Parliament, the speakers of the country, the deputy speakers, the representatives, and there was a long discussion about how we can bring together the international organizations and the international community. We can use AI, we can use an answer -based technology, we can use an answer -based technology, technology ka upyog karen. Ta ki hum desh ki sabhi loktanti sansataon ko unki kaare sanskati ko samvaat ko, charcha ko ek better bana seken. Aur iske liye Bharat ki sansat bhi bade star par kaam kar rahe hain. Bharat ki sansat ke saath hamari raja ki vidhan samvayen.

Wo bhi technology par kaam kar rahe hain. Aur Bharat ke andar vidhan samvayen lok samvayen. Saari vidhan samvayen lok samvayen aaj pe padhle so chuki hain. Ye hum sab ke liye kyunki Bharat duniya ki sabse badi demokrasi wala desh hai. Demokrasi bhi sabse hamari adbuta We have different languages, our language, our culture, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our language, our culture, our language our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our language, our culture, our language, our culture, our language, our language, our culture, our language, our language, our culture, our language, our language, our culture, our language, our language, our culture, our language, our language, our language, our culture, our language, our language our language, our language, our language, our culture, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language, our language you can see it on a platform.

And that is why we have started working on a large scale. Today, most of our Vidhan Sabha, not just Jatara, all of our Vidhan Sabha have become paperless. All of their debates, all of their discussions, all of their budget passes, all of their budgets, all of the issues of the state, all of the issues of the central government, all of those debates have been digitized from the beginning of the Vidhan Sabha. the work of digitization has been done. And till 2026, the remaining Vidhan Sabha after this whole work we will give a model in the country that all the institutions of the world from the Vidhan Sabha of the state of India to the Vidhan Sabha of the state of India to the Vidhan Sabha of the state of India to the Vidhan Sabha of the state of India to the Vidhan Sabha of the state of India to the Vidhan Sabha of the state of India to the Vidhan Sabha of the state of India on one platform and it will be a new innovation.

With that innovation, we have also tried to use AI in it. Because when you go to the subject, topic, discussion on metadata, how will you be able to search in all those debates? With AI technology, you will be able to use all the state’s legislations and public opinion platforms and you will be able to see and read all the subjects and issues of the state through metadata. This will increase the capacity of our people in our democratic institutions, the level of debate and discussion will be higher, and while making laws, people will be able to participate in it. We will be able to reach the full people. will improve the law by making the thoughts of the people more comprehensive.

And while making the law, the discussion will be good in the parliament and parliament of the people. For this, India technically I can say that in the form of AI, India will become a new model of technical practices for the parliament. I am happy that in the leadership of the Prime Minister, today, the world’s largest AI conference is taking place here. In which more than 100 people from different countries have come, representatives have come, the President has come, the parliament’s and how do we change the world using AI, how do we increase the productivity of people’s capacity to build industries, be it the agricultural sector or the energy sector, and how do we make India the youngest country in the world.

Today, the youth of India is doing new things in the form of technology, and that is why this youth population is the biggest strength of India. And that is why using this strength in the right direction is the only way to solve the challenges of the world. And in this direction, we are moving forward. I hope that our talent is abundant in the world. Our youth’s ability, concentration, self -confidence, self -confidence is amazing. Because it has spiritual and political value. And Dev Sanskriti Vidyalaya, where in the form of technology, in the technical knowledge, the youth are being taught Vedic and Devic knowledge, along with that they are being taught modern technology. But that knowledge should be on political values, it should be for everyone’s development, it should be trusted, it should be trustworthy.

Because, while using technology, if we do not use all the technology, then its direction can also be wrong. And that is why a student who studies in the spiritual, religious and cultural fields can use AI technology as a response and answer. And in this direction, India is definitely working because India has power. India has energy. We are growing rapidly in the world by having clean energy. We have young people, young people with political values. And their thinking is amazing. And their belief and self -confidence is also amazing. And that is why our speed and scale is growing rapidly. And that is why the world is looking at India. You have also seen. The view of all the national leaders is also towards India.

and he has also said that definitely in India’s technology, in the AI sector, he is doing a good job. And the speed at which We will use AI in machines, but our human resources will work in the right direction. I again give a lot of appreciation to all the people who have come here. And we will get a new direction from this discussion and discussion. And we will be able to use AI in India on the basis of political values, with inclusive development, with inclusive democracy. Thank you very much. Jai Hind. Thank you very much. Jai Hind. Thank you very much. Jai Hind. Jai Hind. Jai Hind. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Dr. Chinmay Pandya

Dr. Fadi Dao here. He is the chairman of the Globe Ethics. And there is one single question that I wanted to ask you, Dr. Dao, that you just listened to the excellent deliberation by the Honorable Speaker and the variety of voices here. And India is a country with 27 official languages, 19 ,500 dialects. We have got more than 400 documented cultures. And we go with the belief and value of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. So how do you see the way forward from here? If I can hear from you in one minute, please.

Dr. Fadi Dao

Thank you, dear Dr. Honorable Speaker, Excellencies, dear moderator and friend, Dr. Chinmay Pandeya, thank you for the question and the opportunity. I would like to highlight that the AI Impact Summit in India is organized around seven chakras. And the first one of these chakras is about human capital. And this, my first part of my answer, is the following. Artificial intelligence should not only be about a new technological frontier, but also and mainly about a new way of capitalizing on the human intellectual, social, and ethical intelligence for a flourishing future for all. And then the title of our panel is on AI for and not against democracy. And this is my second and last conclusion, is that safety and inclusion should be embedded in the development and the deployment of all AI systems.

But also, we need digital and AI literacy for all people as a universal human right. And I’m grateful for India, the largest nation in the world, for reminding us that we need to develop a system that is inclusive, inclusive, and inclusive. that through this summit and the purpose of AI democratization is not people’s manipulation or domination. India is reminding us also today that the purpose of AI is the social empowerment and participation of all people. To conclude, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say on behalf of Globe Ethics, my organization that is based in Geneva, that we are committed to capitalize on the outcomes of this summit and this panel. In the perspective of the 2027 summit in Geneva, where we would like to welcome you all.

Thank you.

Dr. Chinmay Pandya

Thank you, Dr. Dow. And very shortly, Lord Rawal is with us from House of Lords, also a devout member of the Gayatri Parivar. If you could kindly shed a light on the way that India should take now for democracy.

Lord Rawal

Thank you, Paya. Ladies and gentlemen, one of the tenets of Gayatri Parivar that I grew up in, is the adaptability to change. Change is such an intrinsic part of the entire fraternity. And that is, I think, a real advantage. Because what will happen, the big cost of AI, is the speed with which technology is advancing, which can really make people unsettled. And the uncertainty, as a politician, I need to contain people’s uncertainty. And I think this preparedness for change, Chimabaya, which is a cardinal value of your organization, will really help people. There’s other things I could say, but I’ll leave it at that, because we’re pressed for time. Thank you.

Dr. Chinmay Pandya

Thank you. Now it’s time for felicitations. On behalf of India AI Mission, Government of India, and all the world Gayatri Parivaar, Dev Sanskriti Vishwadyalaya please put your hands together for wonderful session and we express our gratitude towards our honorable chief guest honorable guest of honors and Dev Sanskriti Vishwadyalaya, all the world Gayatri Parivaar in itself started a very wonderful program like when we are integrating artificial intelligence with spirituality we are talking about future of faith in interfaith dialogues worldwide Dr. Chidambar Pandya ji is representing the thought and today on this very wonderful gathering we once again thank our honorable guest of honors, honorable distinguished speakers and all the participants thank you, thank you once again do visit Shantikunj Haridwar, Dev Sanskriti Vishwadyalaya and you can scan the QR code on the screen so that you can get a very wonderful gift afterwards once you scan and you put your please put your hands together once again we thank you with a big applause our honorable speaker Lok Sabha, Adar Nishri Om Birla ji and our honorable guests once again a big round of applause thank you all thank you the next stage is beginning you all please be there for the co -operation thank you QR code which you can see in front of you, scan it so that you can be given special gift for this program.

Thank you.

Related ResourcesKnowledge base sources related to the discussion topics (30)
Factual NotesClaims verified against the Diplo knowledge base (6)
Confirmedhigh

“The summit opened at Delhi’s Bharat Mandapam, emphasizing the theme “re‑imagining governance”.”

The knowledge base references the same theme “Reimagining Governance” in the AI for Democracy discussion and notes the India AI Impact Summit 2026, confirming the summit’s focus and location in India [S1] and [S104] and [S71] and [S114].

Confirmedhigh

“The event was held in the world’s largest democracy, India.”

Sources highlight India’s democratic heritage and reference a rishi who wrote about democracy in India, confirming the country’s status as a large democracy and its relevance to the summit [S4] and [S105].

Confirmedmedium

“The pillars of democracy – accountability, rule of law, transparency, inclusivity, equity and justice – must also guide the global governance of AI.”

UNCTAD’s analysis lists accountability, transparency, rule of law and explainability as essential AI governance principles, and other sources stress inclusive governance, supporting the claim about democratic pillars guiding AI policy [S110] and [S109].

Confirmedmedium

“AI can improve public‑service delivery, curb corruption and help policymakers navigate complexity, but it also risks amplifying misinformation, deepening polarization and manipulating public opinion.”

The knowledge base identifies misinformation, disinformation and surveillance as key AI risks, aligning with the reported concerns about misinformation and manipulation, while also noting the need for good governance to harness AI benefits [S116] and [S108].

Additional Contextlow

“An ancient rishi described democracy as a river that constantly evolves.”

A source mentions a historic rishi who wrote about the foundations of Indian democracy, providing background for the metaphor, though it does not specify the river analogy [S4].

Additional Contextlow

“AI is a “black‑box” technology whose inner workings are opaque to most politicians and citizens.”

While the knowledge base does not use the term “black-box,” it highlights challenges of transparency, explainability and accountability in AI systems, which underlie the described opacity [S110].

External Sources (116)
S1
AI for Democracy_ Reimagining Governance in the Age of Intelligence — -Lord Rawal: Member of House of Lords, devout member of Gayatri Parivar – expertise in British parliamentary system and …
S2
Subrata K. Mitra Jivanta Schottli Markus Pauli — An analysis of India’s foreign policy over seven decades will inevitably reveal evidence of both change and continuity i…
S3
WS #184 AI in Warfare – Role of AI in upholding International Law — Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez : Perfect. Well, first of all, thank you for the organizers for inviting me. I think I …
S4
https://dig.watch/event/india-ai-impact-summit-2026/ai-for-democracy_-reimagining-governance-in-the-age-of-intelligence — So if you can kindly. Okay. So let’s start the session here for democracy. And now I would like to invite Ms. Honorable …
S5
Open Forum #73 The Need for Regulating Autonomous Weapon Systems — Jimena Viveros: Hello. I hope you can all hear me. Perfect. Well, first of all, I would like to thank our Austrian and…
S6
AI for Democracy_ Reimagining Governance in the Age of Intelligence — -Om Birla: Speaker of Parliament of India (Lok Sabha) – expertise in parliamentary procedures and democratic governance …
S7
Impact & the Role of AI How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing Everything — -Om Birla- Speaker of Parliament of India (Lok Sabha)
S8
Building Trusted AI at Scale Cities Startups & Digital Sovereignty – Keynote Ananya Birla Birla AI Labs — -President Obama: Role/Title: Former U.S. President; Area of expertise: Politics, governance (mentioned in reference to …
S9
High-Level Dialogue: The role of parliaments in shaping our digital future — – **Doreen Bogdan-Martin** – Role/Title: Secretary-General of ITU (International Telecommunication Union) – **Martin Ch…
S10
IGF Parliamentary track — – Martin Chungong: Secretary General of Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)
S11
Parliamentary Roundtable Safeguarding Democracy in the Digital Age Legislative Priorities and Policy Pathways — – **Martin Chungong** – Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (appeared via video message)
S12
Keynote-Martin Schroeter — -Speaker 1: Role/Title: Not specified, Area of expertise: Not specified (appears to be an event moderator or host introd…
S13
Responsible AI for Children Safe Playful and Empowering Learning — -Speaker 1: Role/title not specified – appears to be a student or child participant in educational videos/demonstrations…
S14
Building Trusted AI at Scale Cities Startups & Digital Sovereignty – Keynote Vijay Shekar Sharma Paytm — -Speaker 1: Role/Title: Not mentioned, Area of expertise: Not mentioned (appears to be an event host or moderator introd…
S15
Impact & the Role of AI How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing Everything — -Dr. Fadi Dao- Chairman of Globe Ethics (organization based in Geneva)
S16
Inclusive AI For A Better World, Through Cross-Cultural And Multi-Generational Dialogue — Diana Nyakundi:Thanks, Fadi. Good morning, everyone. I am Diana Nyakundi. I am based in Nairobi, Kenya. I work as a seni…
S17
https://dig.watch/event/india-ai-impact-summit-2026/ai-for-democracy_-reimagining-governance-in-the-age-of-intelligence — Thank you, Dr. Pandya, chair and host of the event from all old Gayatri Paribhar for this powerful message. In democrati…
S18
AI for Democracy_ Reimagining Governance in the Age of Intelligence — – Dr. Chinmay Pandya- Mr. Lazos Olahaji- Martin Chunggong – Jimena Sofia-Veverosi- Mr. Lazos Olahaji- Martin Chunggong-…
S19
AI for Democracy_ Reimagining Governance in the Age of Intelligence — – Dr. Chinmay Pandya- Martin Chunggong
S20
HIGH LEVEL LEADERS SESSION I — Junhua Li:your thoughts on this? Thank you. I just want to follow the comments by Minister Connell. We all recognize tha…
S21
Opening — Alain Berset: Ministers, colleagues, friends, great pleasure to see you today. It’s a pleasure really to be here today a…
S22
Importance of Professional standards for AI development and testing — Olufuye argues that professionals must maintain accountability and follow ethical guidelines regardless of how advanced …
S23
Closing remarks — This comment provides the conceptual foundation for the standards discussion that follows. It explains why technical sta…
S24
Agenda item 5: discussions on substantive issues contained inparagraph 1 of General Assembly resolution 75/240 (continued) – session 5 — Bangladesh:Mr. Chair, thank you very much for your extraordinary hard work in presenting the final draft of the third AP…
S25
Agenda item 5: Day 1 Afternoon session — Philippines:Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. As this is the first time I’ll speak for my delegation, our d…
S26
Tackling disinformation in electoral context — Audience: OK. I’m Kosi. I’m a student from Benin. From my understanding, it’s not normal to say platform will be re…
S27
Large Language Models on the Web: Anticipating the challenge | IGF 2023 WS #217 — The analysis highlighted that machine learning models (LLMs) trained on biased data can perpetuate these biases, posing …
S28
Military AI and the void of accountability — In her blog post ‘Military AI: Operational dangers and the regulatory void,’ Julia Williams warns that AI is reshaping t…
S29
High-Level Session 1: Navigating the Misinformation Maze: Strategic Cooperation For A Trusted Digital Future — – Tools to analyze video and audio content to detect manipulated media Esam Alwagait: Sure. So to fight misinformatio…
S30
Table of Contents — 2. (O) “A means of restricting access to objects based on the sensitivity (as represented by a label) of the information…
S31
#205 L&A Launch of the Global CyberPeace index — Marlena Wisniak: Yeah, thanks so much Vinit. And I’ll keep it short because I know we’re running out of time. Congrats o…
S32
WS #300 Information Integrity through Journalism & Alternative Platforms — This comment reveals a critical paradox in platform regulation – that solutions designed to support journalism might act…
S33
The JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION — o n July 30, Xi Jinping oversaw a meeting of the Politburo to discuss economic reform, ahead of the widely-anticipated d…
S34
BETWEEN — 1. The Parties shall cooperate with the objective of identifying and employing effective methods and means for the imple…
S35
Contents — Even so, there are examples of international cooperation taking place between countries that are still on a path to deve…
S36
WSIS Action Line C10: The Future of the Ethical Dimensions of the Information Society — During a UNESCO session focused on the interplay between artificial intelligence (AI), disinformation, misinformation, a…
S37
Safe Digital Futures for Children: Aligning Global Agendas | IGF 2023 WS #403 — Overcoming these deeply ingrained biases and stereotypes is crucial for creating a safer and more equitable online space…
S38
Safe, secure, and trustworthy AI: What is it and how do we get there? — While global agreements on core principles are welcome, they need to turn into concrete action. So what does it mean to …
S39
How to make AI governance fit for purpose? — Given that AI technologies are inherently global, effective governance requires international engagement and cooperation…
S40
How can the UN ensure the impartiality of its AI platforms? — This moment presents both a challenge and an opportunity. By committing to an open, transparent, and inclusive AI framew…
S41
9821st meeting — Ecuador:Mr. President, I thank the United States for convening this important meeting. I also thank the Secretary Genera…
S42
Multistakeholder Partnerships for Thriving AI Ecosystems — Robert Opp stresses that AI can be a powerful driver for sustainable development, but also warns that without responsibl…
S43
Democratizing AI Building Trustworthy Systems for Everyone — “of course see there would be a number of challenges but i think as i mentioned that one doesn’t need to really control …
S44
Interdisciplinary approaches — AI-related issues are being discussed in various international spaces. In addition to the EU, OECD, and UNESCO, organisa…
S45
Laying the foundations for AI governance — Legal and regulatory | Economic Power Concentration and Democratic Governance Power concentration as a critical threat…
S46
Artificial Intelligence & Emerging Tech — In conclusion, the meeting underscored the importance of AI in societal development and how it can address various chall…
S47
Keynote Adresses at India AI Impact Summit 2026 — -Strategic partnership between democracies: Multiple speakers emphasized the alliance between the world’s oldest and lar…
S48
Opening Remarks (50th IFDT) — The overall tone was formal yet warm and celebratory. Speakers expressed pride in the IFDT’s accomplishments and gratitu…
S49
Opening Ceremony — The tone is consistently formal, diplomatic, and optimistic yet cautionary. Speakers maintain a celebratory atmosphere a…
S50
World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Closing Remarks: Summary — The tone is consistently positive, celebratory, and grateful throughout the discussion. It begins with formal appreciati…
S51
AI for Democracy_ Reimagining Governance in the Age of Intelligence — That is why we must frame this not simply as technology policy, but as democratic governance. The choices made today abo…
S52
Impact & the Role of AI How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing Everything — “When the systems that govern aspects of people’s daily lives, their access to information services and economic opportu…
S53
Briefing on the Global Digital Compact- GDC (UNCTAD) — In this analysis, several important points are raised by the speakers. The first speaker argues that the power of corpor…
S54
Main Session 2: The governance of artificial intelligence — The speakers demonstrated significant consensus on key principles including the need for multi-stakeholder participation…
S55
From principles to practice: Governing advanced AI in action — Strong consensus on fundamental principles including multi-stakeholder collaboration, trust as prerequisite for adoption…
S56
Inclusive AI governance: Universal values in a pluralistic world — For example, Confucianism stresses how moral duties arise from roles and relationships, not abstract individuals or deit…
S57
Inclusive AI For A Better World, Through Cross-Cultural And Multi-Generational Dialogue — AI policies in Africa should ideally espouse a context-specific and culturally sensitive orientation. The prevailing ten…
S58
The Digital Town Square Problem: public interest info online | IGF 2023 Open Forum #132 — Cultural, religious, and policy differences among African countries were emphasized in the context of data generation. T…
S59
Zurich researchers link AI with spirituality studies — Researchers at the University of Zurich havereceiveda Postdoc Team Award for SpiritRAG, an AI system designed to analyse…
S60
Shaping AI’s Story Trust Responsibility & Real-World Outcomes — Yeah, absolutely. I think it’s really important that we don’t frame it as like trust versus innovation. It’s actually a …
S61
AI-driven Cyber Defense: Empowering Developing Nations | IGF 2023 — Babu Ram Aryal:Thank you, Waqas. Actually, I was supposed to come on capacity and Waqas, you just mentioned the capacity…
S62
RECOMMENDATIONS ON TERMS OF SERVICE & HUMAN RIGHTS — The digital environment is characterized by ubiquitous intermediation: most of the actions we take on the web are enable…
S63
Global Governance of Digital Technologies: A Contemporary Diplomacy Challenge — While IGOs can and do conduct multistakeholder consultations towards informed decision-making, as is the ca…
S64
review article — There are many working definitions of global health. Some emphasize certain types of health problems (e.g., co…
S65
Multi-stakeholder Discussion on issues about Generative AI — Thus, collaboration, dialogue, and capacity-building around AI are encouraged. Collaboration is necessary due to the cro…
S66
AI Impact Summit 2026: Global Ministerial Discussions on Inclusive AI Development — And this requires proactive and coherent policy responses. First, people must be at the center of AI strategy, as we hea…
S67
Tech Transformed Cybersecurity: AI’s Role in Securing the Future — The panel also addressed the complex issue of global collaboration in establishing regulations for AI. Despite differing…
S68
Viewing Disinformation from a Global Governance Perspective | IGF 2023 WS #209 — Disinformation has the potential to undermine democracy, although its impact varies depending on the context. While ther…
S69
Main Session 3: Internet Governance and elections: maximising potential for trust and addressing risks — Misinformation and disinformation as major threats The use of AI and deepfakes to create misleading content, such as fa…
S70
Welcome Address — This comment introduces a major policy position that distinguishes India’s approach from other major powers. It shifts t…
S71
Powering AI Global Leaders Session AI Impact Summit India — This analogy is particularly insightful because it demonstrates how the same transformative technology can lead to compl…
S72
Shaping AI to ensure Respect for Human Rights and Democracy | IGF 2023 Day 0 Event #51 — However, there is significant apprehension surrounding the perceived industrial domination in the AI policymaking proces…
S73
Keynote-Dario Amodei — “of AI models, their potential for misuse by individuals and governments, and their potential for economic displacement….
S74
AI for Democracy_ Reimagining Governance in the Age of Intelligence — “So the way to democratize these technologies is through inclusive participation, through global governance that moves b…
S75
Ethics and AI | Part 5 — The principles stipulated by the Convention do not come with anything that would deal with issues which we have identifi…
S76
Safe, secure, and trustworthy AI: What is it and how do we get there? — While global agreements on core principles are welcome, they need to turn into concrete action. So what does it mean to …
S77
9821st meeting — Ecuador:Mr. President, I thank the United States for convening this important meeting. I also thank the Secretary Genera…
S78
Pre 2: The Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI and Guidance for the Risk and Impact Assessment of AI Systems on Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law (HUDERIA) — Hernandez Ramos frames the discussion by acknowledging the dual nature of AI technology – its transformative potential a…
S79
(Day 1) General Debate – General Assembly, 79th session: morning session — Muizzu discusses the potential impacts of technological advancements, particularly artificial intelligence. He argues th…
S80
WS #255 AI and disinformation: Safeguarding Elections — The speaker expresses concern about platform owners potentially using AI to influence election outcomes. This is seen as…
S81
Artificial intelligence (AI) and cyber diplomacy — Jovan Kurbalija:Great to see you all. It’s great to be back. The purpose of the next 40 minutes is to demystify AI. One …
S82
Laying the foundations for AI governance — This comment introduced a completely new dimension to the discussion – the possibility that AI could be part of the solu…
S83
Open Forum #17 AI Regulation Insights From Parliaments — Sarah Lister: Thank you very much. And as we conclude this open forum on AI regulation, I’d like to start by thanking, f…
S84
Impact & the Role of AI How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing Everything — “Parliaments are where the real world impact of AI meets political accountability.”[6]. “But the contribution of parliam…
S85
World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Closing Remarks: Summary — The tone is consistently positive, celebratory, and grateful throughout the discussion. It begins with formal appreciati…
S86
Summit Opening Session — The tone throughout is consistently formal, diplomatic, and collaborative. Speakers maintain an optimistic and forward-l…
S87
Opening Remarks (50th IFDT) — The overall tone was formal yet warm and celebratory. Speakers expressed pride in the IFDT’s accomplishments and gratitu…
S88
Connecting the Unconnected in the field of Education Excellence, Cyber Security & Rural Solutions and Women Empowerment in ICT — The discussion maintained a consistently positive and celebratory tone throughout, with speakers expressing pride in Ind…
S89
Opening Ceremony — The tone is consistently formal, diplomatic, and optimistic yet cautionary. Speakers maintain a celebratory atmosphere a…
S90
Open Forum #16 AI and Disinformation Countering the Threats to Democratic Dialogue — The discussion maintained a serious, analytical tone throughout, reflecting the gravity of the subject matter. While spe…
S91
Delegated decisions, amplified risks: Charting a secure future for agentic AI — The tone was consistently critical and cautionary throughout, with Whittaker maintaining a technically informed but acce…
S92
Parliamentary Roundtable Safeguarding Democracy in the Digital Age Legislative Priorities and Policy Pathways — Chungong emphasizes that artificial intelligence has fundamentally transformed the misinformation landscape through deep…
S93
Rethinking Africa’s digital trade: Entrepreneurship, innovation, & value creation in the age of Generative AI (depHub) — Ethical risks related to privacy, data protection, copyright violations, and disinformation are highlighted. It is point…
S94
Revamping Decision-Making in Digital Governance and the WSIS Framework — The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with speakers building upon each other’s poi…
S95
High-Level Dialogue: The role of parliaments in shaping our digital future — The discussion maintained a tone of cautious optimism throughout. Speakers acknowledged significant challenges and risks…
S96
WS #302 Upgrading Digital Governance at the Local Level — The discussion maintained a consistently professional and collaborative tone throughout. It began with formal introducti…
S97
WS #148 Making the Internet greener and more sustainable — The tone of the discussion was generally constructive and solution-oriented. Speakers approached the topic seriously but…
S98
WS #278 Digital Solidarity & Rights-Based Capacity Building — The overall tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with panelists offering constructive ideas and acknowledging c…
S99
Panel Discussion AI in Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) India AI Impact Summit — The tone was consistently optimistic and forward-looking throughout the conversation. Speakers expressed excitement abou…
S100
Driving Indias AI Future Growth Innovation and Impact — The discussion maintained an optimistic and forward-looking tone throughout, characterized by enthusiasm for India’s AI …
S101
AI for Good Technology That Empowers People — The tone was consistently optimistic and collaborative throughout, with speakers demonstrating genuine enthusiasm for so…
S102
From India to the Global South_ Advancing Social Impact with AI — The discussion maintained an overwhelmingly optimistic and energetic tone throughout. It began with excitement about you…
S103
Trusted Connections_ Ethical AI in Telecom & 6G Networks — The discussion maintained a consistently optimistic and forward-looking tone throughout. Speakers expressed confidence i…
S104
Partnering on American AI Exports Powering the Future India AI Impact Summit 2026 — But today, nobody would want to go back to a horse and buggy. They would want to go back to a horse and buggy. They woul…
S105
Leaders’ Plenary | Global Vision for AI Impact and Governance Morning Session Part 1 — Artificial intelligence requires enormous competition. Artificial capacity, which in turn requires unprecedented amounts…
S106
AI Innovation in India — -Tarunima Prabhakar- Role: Event moderator/host The session’s centrepiece featured three extraordinary young entreprene…
S107
WS #110 AI Innovation Responsible Development Ethical Imperatives — Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. It is an honor to be here and share a refle…
S108
Parliamentarians at IGF 2025 call for action on information integrity — At theInternet Governance Forum 2025in Lillestrøm, Norway, global lawmakers and experts gathered to confront one of the …
S109
We are the AI Generation — In her conclusion, Martin articulated that the fundamental question should not be “who can build the most powerful model…
S110
The digital economy in the age of AI: Implications for developing countries (UNCTAD) — The accountability mechanisms, transparency, rule of law, and explainability are crucial
S111
Building Inclusive Societies with AI — Arundhati points out that reports and recommendations lack a clear execution authority, leaving implementation unaccount…
S112
https://dig.watch/event/india-ai-impact-summit-2026/partnering-on-american-ai-exports-powering-the-future-india-ai-impact-summit-2026 — But today, nobody would want to go back to a horse and buggy. They would want to go back to a horse and buggy. They woul…
S113
Kautilya in Modern Governance and Diplomacy — All these things help us argue that Kautilya’s Arthashastra has transmitted itself through generations all the way into …
S114
https://dig.watch/event/india-ai-impact-summit-2026/building-trusted-ai-at-scale-cities-startups-digital-sovereignty-keynote-ebba-busch-deputy-prime-minister-sweden — Thank you so much, Excellencies, distinguished guests, dear friends. Namaste, ap kärsahein. And let me begin by expressi…
S115
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION: — I subscribe to his conclusion that in addition to the fact that the democracy in Africa is not genuine, the individualis…
S116
AI: The Great Equaliser? — Another key point highlighted is the need for good governance to effectively manage the risks associated with AI. The ri…
Speakers Analysis
Detailed breakdown of each speaker’s arguments and positions
J
Jimena Sofia-Veverosi
1 argument106 words per minute242 words136 seconds
Argument 1
Global binding governance needed
EXPLANATION
She argues that AI must be governed through inclusive, binding international agreements that turn high‑level principles into measurable standards and clear red lines. This approach is necessary to ensure AI serves democratic values rather than undermining them.
EVIDENCE
She highlighted that the pillars of democracy-accountability, rule of law, oversight, transparency, inclusivity, equity, and justice-should guide global AI governance, moving from voluntary commitments to binding agreements with measurable standards and benchmarks, and establishing clear guardrails and red lines for AI use [20-26].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
The AI for Democracy session stresses the need for inclusive, binding international agreements and a global framework for AI governance, and the AI in Warfare workshop highlights that AI impacts both wartime and peacetime, underscoring the urgency of global binding rules [S1][S3].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Global binding governance needed
AGREED WITH
Martin Chunggong, Dr. Chinmay Pandya
DISAGREED WITH
Om Birla, Dr. Chinmay Pandya
M
Mr. Lazos Olahaji
4 arguments141 words per minute1097 words463 seconds
Argument 1
Human responsibility over tools
EXPLANATION
He stresses that ethical accountability for AI lies with the humans who design, deploy, and govern it, not with the algorithm itself. Decision‑makers must understand and internalise ethical principles to guide AI use.
EVIDENCE
He explained that responsibility rests with the actor, not the tool, noting that AI may follow encoded ethical rules but does not comprehend them, and decision-makers must understand and internalise these principles [153-158].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Professional-standards discussions argue that developers and operators retain accountability for AI outcomes, supporting the view that responsibility lies with humans rather than the algorithm itself [S22].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Human responsibility over tools
AGREED WITH
Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Dr. Fadi Dao, Om Birla
DISAGREED WITH
Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Martin Chunggong
Argument 2
Misinformation and deep‑fakes
EXPLANATION
He warns that AI can amplify misinformation, create convincing deep‑fakes, and erode public trust in political discourse. This threatens the integrity of elections and democratic debate.
EVIDENCE
He described a worst-case scenario where AI functions well while there is no international consensus on democratic and ethical boundaries, leading to gradual erosion of democratic systems, deep-fake proliferation, and voters losing the ability and motivation to distinguish truth from falsehood [121-128].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Sessions on misinformation describe how AI-generated deep-fakes threaten public trust and electoral integrity, and participants note the lack of consensus on democratic boundaries amplifies these risks [S29][S26].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Misinformation and deep‑fakes
AGREED WITH
Martin Chunggong, Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Jimena Sofia-Veverosi
DISAGREED WITH
Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Om Birla
Argument 3
Black‑box opacity and accountability loss
EXPLANATION
He points out that AI’s inner workings are often a black box, making it hard for citizens and politicians to verify outcomes, which can lead to a loss of accountability and democratic erosion.
EVIDENCE
He noted that for the first time humanity faces technology whose internal processes remain a black box, that many people-including politicians-cannot understand it, and that this opacity hampers accountability and democratic oversight [109-118].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Analyses of large language models point to the opacity of black-box AI systems as a major obstacle to accountability and democratic oversight [S27].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Black‑box opacity and accountability loss
Argument 4
Detection of manipulation
EXPLANATION
He argues that AI can also be a tool to combat manipulation by detecting deep‑fakes and enhancing transparency in institutions, thereby reinforcing public trust.
EVIDENCE
He listed concrete benefits such as AI assisting in deep-fake detection, increasing institutional transparency, providing citizens deeper insight into decision-making, and making public-fund usage more transparent [160-166].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Tools for detecting manipulated video and audio content, as well as dedicated manipulation-detection code, are presented as ways AI can help combat misinformation [S29][S30].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Detection of manipulation
AGREED WITH
Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Martin Chunggong, Om Birla
M
Martin Chunggong
4 arguments97 words per minute1245 words763 seconds
Argument 1
Parliamentary leadership
EXPLANATION
He contends that national parliaments must lead AI governance, ensuring transparency, accountability, and coordination across borders. Parliaments are the venue where real‑world AI impacts meet political accountability.
EVIDENCE
He explained that parliaments hear directly from workers, communities, and parents about AI impacts, and that they can stimulate broader societal conversation through hearings, consultations, and multi-stakeholder dialogues, linking governance to lived experience [219-240].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
High-level dialogues and the IGF parliamentary track emphasize that national parliaments are central venues for AI governance, providing transparency, accountability and cross-border coordination [S9][S10][S11].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Parliamentary leadership
AGREED WITH
Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Dr. Fadi Dao
DISAGREED WITH
Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Mr. Lazos Olahaji
Argument 2
Concentration of power
EXPLANATION
He warns that a handful of technology corporations now control market capitalisations larger than whole national economies, concentrating economic and political influence and threatening democratic balance.
EVIDENCE
He highlighted that a few tech firms command market capitalisations exceeding the equity markets of major industrialised nations while millions of workers in the Global South receive low wages for data annotation, leading to a concentration of benefits and democratic concerns [202-208].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Concentration of power
AGREED WITH
Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Jimena Sofia-Veverosi
Argument 3
Parliamentary mechanisms
EXPLANATION
He outlines specific parliamentary tools—hearings, consultations, cross‑party groups, and specialised committees—that enable democratic scrutiny and oversight of AI systems.
EVIDENCE
He described how parliaments worldwide are forming cross-party groups, establishing specialised committees, and building capacity to oversee AI, thereby providing mechanisms for democratic scrutiny [219-240].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Parliamentary mechanisms such as hearings, consultations, cross-party groups and specialised committees are highlighted as effective tools for democratic scrutiny of AI systems [S9][S10][S11].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Parliamentary mechanisms
Argument 4
International cooperation
EXPLANATION
He stresses that AI challenges transcend borders and that shared, binding solutions are essential, noting the uneven preparedness of nations and the risk of fragmented governance.
EVIDENCE
He reported that over the past six months Hungarian colleagues engaged with institutions in more than 50 countries, observing highly uneven levels of preparedness, and argued that without shared solutions unethical AI will always find a foothold [145-149].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Calls for a global data-governance framework, cooperative implementation of AI norms, and examples of multilateral coordination illustrate the need for shared, binding solutions across nations [S20][S34][S35].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
International cooperation
AGREED WITH
Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Dr. Chinmay Pandya
D
Dr. Fadi Dao
1 argument131 words per minute272 words123 seconds
Argument 1
Safety, inclusion, digital literacy
EXPLANATION
He asserts that AI systems must embed safety and inclusion, and that universal digital/AI literacy should be recognised as a human right. These elements are essential for democratic, equitable AI deployment.
EVIDENCE
He highlighted that AI should not only be a new technological frontier but also a way to capitalise on human intellectual, social, and ethical intelligence, and that safety, inclusion, and digital/AI literacy must be embedded and treated as universal human rights [332-338].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Inclusive AI initiatives and discussions on safe digital futures stress that safety, inclusion and universal digital/AI literacy should be recognised as fundamental human rights [S16][S37].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Safety, inclusion, digital literacy
AGREED WITH
Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Om Birla, Mr. Lazos Olahaji
L
Lord Rawal
1 argument128 words per minute115 words53 seconds
Argument 1
Need for institutional adaptability
EXPLANATION
He emphasizes that institutions must be prepared and adaptable to the rapid speed of AI advancement, helping to contain public uncertainty and maintain stability.
EVIDENCE
He referred to the Gayatri Parivar tenet of adaptability to change, noting that the speed of AI can unsettle people and that politicians need to manage that uncertainty, which preparedness for change can help address [346-352].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Need for institutional adaptability
D
Dr. Chinmay Pandya
3 arguments163 words per minute1548 words569 seconds
Argument 1
Improved service delivery and transparency
EXPLANATION
He argues that AI offers unprecedented tools to make government service delivery more efficient, reduce corruption, and increase transparency in public‑fund usage, thereby strengthening democracy.
EVIDENCE
He stated that AI can make government service delivery better, reduce corruption, and help civil servants navigate complexities that no human mind can handle alone, implying greater transparency and efficiency [51-53].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Improved service delivery and transparency
AGREED WITH
Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Martin Chunggong, Om Birla
DISAGREED WITH
Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Om Birla
Argument 2
Four‑tier governance model
EXPLANATION
He proposes a four‑layer governance framework—public‑institutional, technological, civic, and global—to ensure AI is overseen, its values are examined, citizens are digitally literate, and cross‑border impacts are managed.
EVIDENCE
He outlined the need for governance at the level of public institutions, a technological governance to consider encoded values, a civic governance for digital literacy, and a global governance to address cross-border AI effects [70-78].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
The AI for Democracy report outlines a four-layer governance approach-public institutional, technological, civic and global-mirroring Pandya’s proposed framework [S1].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Four‑tier governance model
AGREED WITH
Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Martin Chunggong, Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Dr. Fadi Dao
DISAGREED WITH
Om Birla, Jimena Sofia-Veverosi
Argument 3
Collective intelligence
EXPLANATION
He stresses that solving AI‑democracy challenges requires collaboration among technologists, policymakers, and civil society, leveraging collective intelligence rather than relying on any single group.
EVIDENCE
He noted that technologists alone cannot design AI, policymakers alone cannot control it, and civil society alone cannot criticize it; the challenge requires collective intelligence [90-92].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
The standards discussion stresses that technical standards must be embedded in cooperative social processes, highlighting the necessity of multi-stakeholder, collective intelligence to address AI challenges [S23].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Collective intelligence
O
Om Birla
3 arguments112 words per minute1952 words1044 seconds
Argument 1
Legislative digitisation and citizen participation
EXPLANATION
He describes India’s move to digitise all state and national assemblies, creating a paper‑less, AI‑enabled platform that allows metadata search of debates, enhancing accessibility, debate quality, and public participation in law‑making.
EVIDENCE
He explained that all Vidhan Sabhas have become paper-less, debates are digitised, and AI will enable metadata-based search across state legislatures, increasing capacity for public engagement and improving law-making [281-288].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Legislative digitisation and citizen participation
AGREED WITH
Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Dr. Fadi Dao, Mr. Lazos Olahaji
DISAGREED WITH
Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Mr. Lazos Olahaji
Argument 2
Integration of spiritual and cultural values
EXPLANATION
He frames AI deployment within Vedic and moral teachings, asserting that spiritual and cultural values should guide technological development to ensure ethical direction and societal harmony.
EVIDENCE
He referenced the role of Dev Sanskriti Vidyalaya in teaching Vedic values alongside modern technology, emphasizing that AI must be used with spiritual and moral guidance for a trustworthy democratic society [267-270].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Integration of spiritual and cultural values
DISAGREED WITH
Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Dr. Chinmay Pandya
Argument 3
Model for global AI‑democracy
EXPLANATION
He positions India as a leading example of AI‑driven democratic practice, showcasing its large‑scale digital transformation as a model for other nations to emulate.
EVIDENCE
He stated that India’s unified AI-enabled parliamentary platform will serve as a new innovation and a model for the world, highlighting India’s leadership in hosting the world’s largest AI conference and its ambition to set a global example [279-283].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Model for global AI‑democracy
S
Speaker 1
1 argument76 words per minute708 words557 seconds
Argument 1
Collective democratic participation
EXPLANATION
He frames democracy as a collective effort that starts with individuals and families, emphasizing that re‑imagining governance is a shared responsibility of all citizens.
EVIDENCE
He used the metaphor that an individual joins hands to become a family, families become a society, and society is democracy, presenting the family as the smallest democracy and urging participants to re-imagine governance together [6-7].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Collective democratic participation
Agreements
Agreement Points
All speakers stress the need for comprehensive, multi‑level AI governance frameworks that translate democratic principles into binding rules and oversight mechanisms.
Speakers: Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Martin Chunggong, Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Dr. Fadi Dao
Global binding governance needed Four‑tier governance model Parliamentary leadership Human responsibility over tools Safety, inclusion, digital literacy
Jimena calls for inclusive, binding international agreements that turn principles into measurable standards [20-26]; Pandya proposes a four-layer governance model covering public, technological, civic and global levels [70-78]; Martin argues that parliaments must lead AI governance and coordinate across borders [219-240][145-149]; Lazos emphasizes that responsibility lies with humans, not algorithms, requiring ethical oversight [109-118]; Fadi stresses that safety, inclusion and universal digital literacy must be embedded in AI systems [332-338].
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
The call aligns with UN-led AI for Democracy discussions that frame AI governance as a democratic governance challenge and emphasize translating democratic values into binding rules and oversight mechanisms [S51], and reflects the consensus on multi-stakeholder, transparent frameworks reported at IGF sessions [S54][S55].
There is shared concern about the concentration of power in a few tech actors and the resulting loss of accountability and democratic erosion.
Speakers: Martin Chunggong, Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Jimena Sofia-Veverosi
Concentration of power Misinformation and deep‑fakes Improved service delivery and transparency (as a counter‑balance) Global binding governance needed
Martin warns that a handful of corporations control market capitalisations larger than whole economies, threatening democratic balance [202-208]; Lazos describes how AI can amplify misinformation, deep-fakes and erode trust, leading to democratic decay [121-128]; Pandya notes that AI’s principles differ from democratic ones and outcomes depend on who designs and governs it, highlighting the risk of power concentration [46-48]; Jimena argues that binding global governance is required to prevent such concentration from undermining democracy [23-26].
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Analyses warn that dominance of a small number of technology firms strains the social contract and threatens democratic structures, echoing concerns about corporate power and calls for new control measures [S52][S53][S72].
AI is seen as a tool that can enhance transparency, improve public service delivery and help combat misinformation when properly governed.
Speakers: Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Martin Chunggong, Om Birla
Improved service delivery and transparency Detection of manipulation Transparency and accountability benefits Legislative digitisation and citizen participation
Pandya highlights AI’s potential to make government services better, reduce corruption and aid complex decision-making [51-53]; Lazos lists AI’s ability to detect deep-fakes and increase institutional transparency [160-166]; Martin points out AI can assist in deep-fake detection, boost transparency of public funds and enhance citizen insight [160-166]; Om Birla describes digitising all state assemblies, using AI for metadata search to broaden public access and participation in law-making [281-288].
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Research highlights trust as a prerequisite for innovation and notes AI’s potential to counter disinformation threats to democracy, supporting its role as a transparency and public-service enhancer when governed responsibly [S60][S68][S69].
Developing digital literacy and fostering civic participation are essential for democratic AI deployment.
Speakers: Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Dr. Fadi Dao, Om Birla, Mr. Lazos Olahaji
Four‑tier governance model (civic governance) Safety, inclusion, digital literacy Legislative digitisation and citizen participation Human responsibility over tools
Pandya’s governance model includes a civic layer to ensure citizens are digitally literate and can engage with AI [70-78]; Fadi calls for universal digital/AI literacy as a human right to ensure safe, inclusive AI [332-338]; Om Birla explains how AI-enabled digitisation of parliamentary debates will allow citizens to search, engage and participate in law-making [281-288]; Lazos stresses that many politicians cannot understand AI’s inner workings, underscoring the need for broader AI literacy [109-118].
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Capacity-building recommendations stress investment in digital skills, lifelong learning and public engagement to place people at the centre of AI strategies, reinforcing the importance of digital literacy and civic participation [S61][S66].
International cooperation and shared solutions are necessary to address AI’s cross‑border challenges.
Speakers: Martin Chunggong, Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Dr. Chinmay Pandya
International cooperation Global binding governance needed Four‑tier governance model (global governance)
Martin reports uneven AI preparedness worldwide and calls for shared, binding solutions to prevent unethical AI from finding footholds [145-149]; Jimena stresses that AI governance must move beyond voluntary commitments to binding international agreements [23-26]; Pandya includes global governance as a fourth tier to manage cross-border AI impacts [70-78].
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Calls for cross-border collaboration and multistakeholder coordination in AI governance appear in global digital compact analyses and IGF discussions, underscoring the need for international cooperation [S65][S54][S55].
Similar Viewpoints
Both advocate for a global, binding framework that translates democratic values into enforceable AI standards, moving beyond voluntary pledges [20-26][70-78].
Speakers: Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Dr. Chinmay Pandya
Global binding governance needed Four‑tier governance model
Both warn that AI’s opacity and the concentration of power in a few actors threaten democratic accountability and can enable large‑scale manipulation [109-118][121-128][202-208].
Speakers: Martin Chunggong, Mr. Lazos Olahaji
Concentration of power Misinformation and deep‑fakes Black‑box opacity and accountability loss
Both see digitising legislative processes and providing AI‑driven access to debates as a way to empower citizens and strengthen democratic participation [281-288][70-78].
Speakers: Om Birla, Dr. Chinmay Pandya
Legislative digitisation and citizen participation Four‑tier governance model (civic governance)
Both stress that safety, inclusion and universal digital/AI literacy must be embedded in AI governance to ensure equitable democratic outcomes [332-338][70-78].
Speakers: Dr. Fadi Dao, Dr. Chinmay Pandya
Safety, inclusion, digital literacy Four‑tier governance model (civic governance)
Unexpected Consensus
Integration of spiritual/cultural values with AI governance
Speakers: Om Birla, Jimena Sofia-Veverosi
Integration of spiritual and cultural values Global binding governance needed
While Om Birla frames AI deployment within Vedic and moral teachings, Jimena calls for inclusive, binding international agreements. Both converge on the idea that AI governance must be rooted in shared human values that transcend purely technical considerations, an alignment not obvious given their different emphases [267-270][20-26].
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Scholars link AI policy with relational ethics from Confucianism and other traditions, advocating culturally sensitive governance models that incorporate spiritual and cultural values [S56][S57][S58][S59].
Adaptability of institutions to rapid AI change
Speakers: Lord Rawal, Martin Chunggong
Need for institutional adaptability International cooperation
Lord Rawal highlights adaptability as a core tenet for managing AI-driven uncertainty [346-352], while Martin stresses the need for coordinated, adaptable international mechanisms to keep pace with AI developments [145-149]. Their agreement on the necessity of flexible, responsive institutions was not explicitly foregrounded elsewhere.
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Recommendations call for contextual adaptation of AI governance frameworks and risk-management approaches that enable institutions to keep pace with fast-moving technology [S54][S55][S66].
Overall Assessment

The panel displayed a strong consensus that AI must be governed through multi‑level, inclusive frameworks that combine global binding agreements, parliamentary leadership, civic participation and digital literacy. Participants uniformly warned about the dangers of power concentration, opacity and misinformation, while also recognising AI’s potential to enhance transparency, service delivery and democratic participation when properly overseen.

High – The convergence across speakers from different regions and backgrounds on governance structures, accountability, and the need for international cooperation suggests a solid foundation for coordinated policy action. This consensus reinforces the urgency of establishing binding AI norms and capacity‑building measures to safeguard democratic values.

Differences
Different Viewpoints
Governance mechanism: global binding agreements vs parliamentary‑led national governance vs responsibility placed on individual actors
Speakers: Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Martin Chunggong, Mr. Lazos Olahaji
Global binding governance needed Parliamentary leadership Human responsibility over tools
Jimena calls for inclusive, binding international agreements that turn high-level principles into measurable standards and clear red lines for AI [20-26]. Martin argues that national parliaments must lead AI governance through hearings, specialised committees and cross-border cooperation, stressing shared solutions rather than necessarily binding treaties [145-149][219-240]. Lazos stresses that ethical accountability rests with the humans who design, deploy and govern AI, not with the algorithm itself, implying a focus on national or institutional responsibility [153-158].
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
The debate mirrors differing views on multistakeholder versus intergovernmental governance models discussed in IGF and UN reports, highlighting tensions between global binding regimes, national parliamentary oversight, and individual responsibility [S63][S67].
Expected impact of AI on democracy: tool for strengthening services and participation vs risk of misinformation and erosion of trust
Speakers: Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Om Birla
Improved service delivery and transparency Misinformation and deep‑fakes Legislative digitisation and citizen participation
Pandya highlights AI’s promise to make government service delivery better, reduce corruption and increase transparency [51-53]. Lazos warns that AI can amplify misinformation, create convincing deep-fakes and gradually erode democratic systems, undermining trust and accountability [121-128]. Om Birla describes a nationwide digitisation of state and national assemblies, using AI-enabled metadata search to boost public access, debate quality and citizen participation in law-making [281-288].
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Research on AI-driven disinformation and deep-fake threats to election integrity contrasts with arguments that AI can strengthen public services when responsibly governed, illustrating the divergent expectations [S68][S69][S60].
Foundations for AI governance: spiritual/cultural values versus secular democratic principles and multi‑layered institutional models
Speakers: Om Birla, Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Dr. Chinmay Pandya
Integration of spiritual and cultural values Global binding governance needed Four‑tier governance model
Om Birla frames AI deployment within Vedic and moral teachings, insisting that spiritual and cultural values must guide technology for a trustworthy democratic society [267-270]. Jimena bases AI governance on democratic pillars such as accountability, rule of law, inclusivity and justice, calling for binding global frameworks [20-26]. Pandya proposes a four-tier governance structure (public-institutional, technological, civic and global) without reference to spiritual doctrines, focusing on institutional and civic mechanisms [70-78].
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Comparative studies on AI ethics juxtapose relational, culturally rooted values with universal human-rights-based, secular democratic frameworks, highlighting the tension between spiritual/cultural foundations and secular institutional models [S56][S57][S58].
Unexpected Differences
Spiritual/cultural framing of AI versus secular democratic/legal framing
Speakers: Om Birla, Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Dr. Chinmay Pandya
Integration of spiritual and cultural values Global binding governance needed Four‑tier governance model
Om Birla’s extensive reference to Vedic teachings and moral values as the guiding principle for AI deployment is not reflected in the secular, rights-based approach advocated by Jimena (democratic pillars) and Pandya (institutional governance layers). This contrast between a spiritual foundation and a secular, rights-based framework was not anticipated given the otherwise technical focus of the session [267-270][20-26][70-78].
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Interdisciplinary work linking AI with spirituality and cultural ethics underscores the contrast between culturally grounded policy approaches and secular legal frameworks for AI governance [S59][S56].
Optimistic model of India as a global AI‑democracy exemplar versus warning of AI as an “invisible transformer” eroding democracy
Speakers: Om Birla, Mr. Lazos Olahaji
Model for global AI‑democracy Misinformation and deep‑fakes Black‑box opacity and accountability loss
Om Birla presents India’s AI-enabled parliamentary platform as a world-leading model for democratic AI use [279-283], while Lazos warns that AI could become an invisible transformer that gradually erodes democratic institutions, accountability and truth, leading to authoritarian temptations [121-128][109-118]. The stark contrast between a celebratory exemplar and a cautionary worst-case scenario was not foreseen.
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Recent summit remarks and analyses contrast India’s potential role as an AI-democracy leader with concerns that AI could act as an “invisible transformer” undermining democratic norms, reflecting divergent views on India’s AI trajectory [S70][S71][S73].
Overall Assessment

The discussion revealed a core consensus that AI must be governed to safeguard democracy, but speakers diverged sharply on the architecture of that governance—global binding treaties, parliamentary‑centric mechanisms, multi‑tiered institutional models, or responsibility placed on individual actors. Additional tension arose around the perceived impact of AI (beneficial tool for service delivery and participation versus a catalyst for misinformation and democratic erosion) and the philosophical basis for governance (spiritual/cultural values versus secular democratic principles).

Moderate to high. While there is agreement on the need for governance, the lack of convergence on concrete mechanisms and underlying values creates significant fragmentation, which could impede coordinated policy action and risk either over‑regulation or insufficient oversight of AI in democratic contexts.

Partial Agreements
All four speakers agree that AI must be governed to protect democratic values, but they differ on the preferred mechanism – Jimena stresses binding international treaties, Pandya outlines a multi‑layered governance framework, Martin emphasizes parliamentary oversight and cross‑border cooperation, while Lazos focuses on human accountability rather than the technology itself [20-26][70-78][145-149][219-240][153-158].
Speakers: Jimena Sofia-Veverosi, Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Martin Chunggong, Mr. Lazos Olahaji
Global binding governance needed Four‑tier governance model Parliamentary leadership Human responsibility over tools
Both acknowledge that AI can be used to combat manipulation: Lazos warns of the danger of deep‑fakes eroding trust, while Martin points to AI’s capacity to detect deep‑fakes and increase institutional transparency, indicating a shared view that AI can serve as a defensive tool if properly applied [121-128][160-166].
Speakers: Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Martin Chunggong
Misinformation and deep‑fakes Detection of manipulation
Takeaways
Key takeaways
AI must be governed through inclusive, binding international agreements that turn high‑level principles into measurable standards and clear red‑lines. (Jimena Sofia‑Veverosi) Ethical responsibility rests with humans – designers, deployers and regulators – not with the algorithm itself. (Mr. Lazos Olahaji) Parliaments are central to AI governance: they can legislate, conduct hearings, form cross‑party groups and ensure democratic oversight. (Martin Chungong) Safety, inclusion and universal digital/AI literacy should be treated as fundamental human rights. (Dr. Fadi Dao) AI poses serious risks to democracy: misinformation, deep‑fakes, concentration of power in a few corporations, opacity of black‑box systems and erosion of accountability. (Lazos Olahaji, Martin Chungong) AI also offers opportunities: improved public‑service delivery, reduction of corruption, enhanced transparency, AI‑assisted detection of manipulation, and richer citizen participation through digitised parliamentary processes. (Dr. Chinmay Pandya, Om Birla) A four‑tier governance model is needed – public‑institutional, technological, civic and global – to manage AI’s impact on democracy. (Dr. Chinmay Pandya) India is piloting a unified, AI‑enabled, paper‑less platform for all state and national legislatures to increase accessibility, searchable metadata and public engagement, positioning itself as a model for other democracies. (Om Birla) Collective intelligence – collaboration among technologists, policymakers and civil society – is essential to align AI with human values, social stability and planetary well‑being. (Dr. Chinmay Pandya) Adaptability to rapid technological change is a critical organizational value for democratic institutions. (Lord Rawal)
Resolutions and action items
Call for the development of binding global AI governance agreements with measurable standards and red‑lines. (Jimena Sofia‑Veverosi) Commitment by the Inter‑Parliamentary Union to support parliamentary engagement on AI, including capacity‑building and coordination across more than 60 parliaments. (Martin Chungong) India’s plan to complete digitisation of all state legislative assemblies by 2026 and to launch a unified AI‑driven platform for searchable parliamentary data. (Om Birla) Globe Ethics (Dr. Fadi Dao) will contribute to the outcomes of this summit and prepare for a follow‑up summit in Geneva in 2027. (Dr. Fadi Dao) Recognition that AI literacy should be promoted as a universal right; implied need for national education programmes. (Dr. Fadi Dao) Encouragement for parliaments to establish specialized AI committees, hearings and cross‑party groups to oversee AI deployment. (Martin Chungong)
Unresolved issues
Specific mechanisms for translating global AI principles into enforceable national laws remain undefined. How to create and enforce universally accepted ‘red‑lines’ for AI use in elections and public decision‑making. Methods for ensuring equitable distribution of AI benefits and preventing concentration of power in a few corporations. Technical solutions for detecting deep‑fakes at scale and restoring public trust in information ecosystems. Details of the four‑tier governance model implementation, especially coordination between civic and global layers. Funding and capacity‑building strategies for low‑resource countries to achieve AI readiness. Concrete standards for AI transparency and accountability that can be audited across borders.
Suggested compromises
Shift from purely voluntary AI commitments to binding international agreements while allowing national flexibility in implementation. (Jimena Sofia‑Veverosi) Adopt a multi‑level governance approach that balances public‑institutional oversight, technological safeguards, civic participation and global coordination, rather than relying on a single authority. (Dr. Chinmay Pandya) Encourage private sector cooperation by setting clear ethical baselines and red‑lines, allowing innovation to continue under democratic oversight. (Martin Chungong) Promote AI‑assisted tools for transparency and deep‑fake detection as a way to mitigate risks while still leveraging AI’s benefits. (Lazos Olahaji) Integrate spiritual and cultural values into AI development as a guiding framework, aiming to align technology with societal ethics without imposing rigid technical constraints. (Om Birla)
Thought Provoking Comments
AI for democracy – how can AI actually serve democracy instead of eroding it? We need inclusive participation, global governance that moves beyond voluntary commitments into binding agreements, clear guardrails and red lines.
She reframed the debate from a generic technology discussion to a normative question of purpose, insisting that AI must be deliberately aligned with democratic values through enforceable global standards.
Her statement set the agenda for the whole panel, prompting other speakers to address governance structures, accountability, and the need for binding norms rather than voluntary codes.
Speaker: Jimena Sofia‑Veverosi
AI is built on data, automation, optimization, while democracy is built on participation, honesty, equality, trust, transparency. The outcome of their intersection depends on who designs, deploys, and governs AI.
He highlighted the fundamental mismatch between the technical logic of AI and the normative foundations of democracy, introducing the concept of four layers of governance (public, technological, civic, global).
This contrast deepened the conversation, leading the panel to explore specific governance mechanisms and to consider the river metaphor of democracy as an evolving system.
Speaker: Dr. Chinmay Pandya
For the first time humanity faces a technology whose inner workings are a black box, that can cross borders without oversight, and could gradually erode democratic accountability, leading to a world where deepfakes undermine truth and strong‑handed leadership becomes attractive.
He provided a stark, concrete worst‑case scenario, emphasizing the systemic risks of AI’s opacity and borderless nature, and called for a minimal common denominator in ethical AI.
His warning shifted the tone from optimistic possibilities to urgent caution, prompting other speakers to stress the need for international cooperation and concrete safeguards.
Speaker: Mr. Lazos Olahaji
AI is already shaping election campaigns, deepfakes, public service decisions, and the concentration of power in a handful of corporations. Parliaments must lead the debate, hold hearings, and ensure AI aligns with human rights and the rule of law.
He linked AI’s technical impact directly to parliamentary responsibility, framing AI governance as a democratic imperative rather than a purely technical issue.
His remarks galvanized the discussion around the role of legislative bodies, reinforcing the earlier calls for multi‑level governance and prompting references to parliamentary actions worldwide.
Speaker: Martin Chung (Secretary‑General, Inter‑Parliamentary Union)
Artificial intelligence should not only be a new technological frontier but also a way of capitalizing on human intellectual, social, and ethical intelligence; safety and inclusion must be embedded, and digital/AI literacy should be a universal human right.
He introduced the human‑capital perspective, positioning AI literacy as a rights issue and emphasizing inclusion as a design principle.
This broadened the conversation beyond policy to education and capacity‑building, influencing later remarks about civic governance and the need for widespread digital literacy.
Speaker: Dr. Fadi Dao (Globe Ethics)
One of the tenets of Gayatri Parivar is adaptability to change; preparedness for rapid technological advancement helps contain public uncertainty and is essential for democratic stability.
He offered a cultural‑philosophical lens, suggesting that adaptability can be a strategic asset in managing AI’s disruptive potential.
His brief insight reinforced the earlier river metaphor and underscored the importance of societal resilience, subtly shifting the dialogue toward long‑term cultural adaptation.
Speaker: Lord Rawal
India is digitizing all state legislatures, using AI for metadata search across debates, which will increase citizen participation, improve law‑making, and set a model for technical practices in parliaments worldwide.
He presented a concrete national example of AI deployment in democratic institutions, moving from abstract concerns to tangible implementation.
His example illustrated a possible path forward, grounding the earlier theoretical discussions and inspiring other participants to consider practical pilots.
Speaker: Om Birla (Speaker of Parliament of India)
Overall Assessment

The discussion was shaped by a series of pivotal interventions that moved the conversation from a broad, hopeful framing of AI as a tool for democracy to a nuanced examination of its risks, governance challenges, and concrete implementation pathways. Jimena’s opening question set the normative agenda, which Dr. Pandya deepened by contrasting AI’s technical logic with democratic values and proposing multi‑layered governance. Mr. Olahaji’s stark warning introduced urgency, prompting Martin Chung to call for parliamentary leadership, while Dr. Dao expanded the lens to human capital and rights‑based literacy. Lord Rawal’s cultural reminder of adaptability and Om Birla’s concrete Indian example provided both philosophical grounding and practical illustration. Together, these comments created a dynamic flow that oscillated between optimism, caution, and actionable solutions, ultimately steering the panel toward a consensus that AI must be governed through inclusive, multi‑level, and rights‑based frameworks to truly serve democratic societies.

Follow-up Questions
How should India move forward in AI governance given its linguistic diversity (27 official languages, 19,500 dialects) and cultural plurality?
India’s vast linguistic and cultural landscape poses challenges for inclusive AI deployment and requires tailored policies to ensure equitable access and representation.
Speaker: Dr. Chinmay Pandya (to Dr. Fadi Dao)
What global governance mechanisms (binding agreements, measurable standards, benchmarks) are needed to ensure AI serves democratic principles?
Current AI development is concentrated in few companies and countries; without binding global standards, AI could undermine accountability, transparency, and inclusivity.
Speaker: Jimena Sofia‑Veverosi
What specific guardrails and red lines should be established to prevent AI from eroding democratic values?
Clear limits are essential to protect against misuse of AI in areas such as surveillance, manipulation, and bias, thereby safeguarding democratic institutions.
Speaker: Jimena Sofia‑Veverosi
How can the four types of governance—public institutional, technological, civic, and global—be coordinated to manage AI in democracies?
Effective AI oversight requires integrated frameworks across legal, technical, societal, and international levels to address complex cross‑border challenges.
Speaker: Jimena Sofia‑Veverosi
What research is needed to understand AI’s capacity to amplify misinformation, create deepfakes, and influence electoral outcomes?
AI‑generated content can distort public discourse and threaten election integrity; systematic study is required to develop detection and mitigation strategies.
Speaker: Jimena Sofia‑Veverosi, Mr. Lazos Olahaji
How can international cooperation be fostered to develop a shared understanding of ethical AI and democratic boundaries?
Diverse national preparedness levels risk fragmented governance; collaborative standards are needed to prevent a regulatory vacuum and ensure consistent ethical practices.
Speaker: Mr. Lazos Olahaji, Martin Chung‑Wong
Who should bear responsibility for AI decisions—developers, deployers, regulators, or the algorithms themselves?
Clarifying accountability is crucial to prevent diffusion of responsibility and to enable legal remedies when AI harms democratic processes.
Speaker: Mr. Lazos Olahaji
What mechanisms can be put in place to detect and counter deepfakes and AI‑driven misinformation in real time?
Deepfakes undermine trust in political communication; developing robust detection tools is vital for preserving informed citizenry and electoral legitimacy.
Speaker: Mr. Lazos Olahaji
How can AI enhance transparency in public fund usage, institutional processes, and participatory budgeting?
Leveraging AI for financial oversight and citizen engagement can strengthen trust and accountability if implemented with proper safeguards.
Speaker: Mr. Lazos Olahaji
What strategies can ensure AI does not concentrate power in the hands of a few corporations or states, especially across borders?
Cross‑border AI platforms can bypass national regulations, risking dominance by a small set of actors; research is needed on antitrust and governance models.
Speaker: Martin Chung‑Wong
How can digital and AI literacy be established as a universal human right to support inclusive democratic participation?
Without widespread literacy, citizens cannot effectively engage with AI‑mediated services or guard against manipulation, limiting democratic empowerment.
Speaker: Dr. Fadi Dao
What are the environmental costs and job displacement risks associated with AI, and how can they be mitigated within democratic policy frameworks?
AI’s ecological footprint and impact on employment affect social equity; policy research is needed to balance innovation with sustainability and labor protections.
Speaker: Martin Chung‑Wong
How can AI be integrated into parliamentary processes (e.g., metadata search, digitized debates) to improve legislative efficiency while preserving democratic deliberation?
Digitization and AI tools can enhance access to legislative records and public participation, but require study to avoid over‑automation and maintain transparency.
Speaker: Om Birla
What models of inclusive, participatory AI governance can be scaled from India’s experience to other democracies?
India’s large‑scale digitization and AI initiatives offer a testbed; evaluating their outcomes can inform best practices for global democratic AI adoption.
Speaker: Om Birla, Martin Chung‑Wong
How can AI support civic engagement through feedback analysis, online consultations, and participatory budgeting in diverse cultural contexts?
Understanding AI’s role in amplifying citizen voices across varied societies is essential for designing tools that truly enhance democratic participation.
Speaker: Mr. Lazos Olahaji

Disclaimer: This is not an official session record. DiploAI generates these resources from audiovisual recordings, and they are presented as-is, including potential errors. Due to logistical challenges, such as discrepancies in audio/video or transcripts, names may be misspelled. We strive for accuracy to the best of our ability.