Muslim World Report

AI in Government: A Recipe for Increased Bureaucratic Inefficiency

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 6, 2025 9:53 AM | 5 min read | 1046 words

TL;DR: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into government functions poses significant risks of increasing bureaucratic inefficiencies and social inequalities. Without proper oversight, AI decision-making may deepen societal divides, erode public trust, and prioritize corporate interests over the welfare of citizens. Stakeholders must prioritize transparency, accountability, and community engagement to ensure AI serves the public good.

The Perils of AI in Governance: A Cautionary Analysis

The Situation

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into governmental functions marks a defining shift in the landscape of governance in the 21st century. Proponents hail AI as a panacea for bureaucratic inefficiencies, touting its potential to streamline operations and enhance public service delivery (Zeynep Engin & Philip Treleaven, 2018). However, a troubling reality is surfacing: instead of reducing administrative burdens, AI is likely to exacerbate existing inefficiencies and further entrench social inequalities (Engstrom et al., 2020; Bareis & Katzenbach, 2021).

Key Points:

  • AI systems rely on algorithms constructed from flawed datasets that reflect historical biases (David Heald, 2012).
  • Algorithms struggle to navigate the nuanced and dynamic nature of human society, which demands compassion and understanding—qualities inherently lacking in machines (Becky Inkster et al., 2018).
  • The rush to deploy AI solutions raises concerns regarding accountability and transparency, especially in public policy (Nikolas Diakopoulos, 2014).

As AI becomes more ingrained in policy frameworks, it risks transforming governance into a complex “black box,” where decision-making mechanisms become opaque to policymakers and the public (Hai Zhuge, 2005). The narrative suggesting that AI will deliver equitable solutions is misleading; it ignores the algorithms’ inherent biases and risks dehumanization within governance structures (Hassan Khosravi et al., 2022).

The Stakes:

  • Societal Challenges: The reliance on AI could cement inequalities, favoring the technologically literate while marginalizing others (Jascha Bareis & Christian Katzenbach, 2021).
  • Bureaucratic Paralysis: AI’s proliferation may amplify bureaucratic paralysis and societal discord.

What If AI Decision-Making Goes Unchecked?

Imagine a scenario where AI-driven decision-making proliferates unchecked, steered primarily by corporate interests and historical data that perpetuates bias. The implications for policies such as welfare distribution could be dire:

  • Algorithms could prioritize allocations that discriminate against vulnerable populations (Han-Wei Liu et al., 2019).
  • Marginalized groups, such as racial minorities or low-income families, may receive disproportionately less support during eligibility assessments.

In this landscape, citizens would be subject to decisions made by machines devoid of nuanced human insight, resulting in catastrophic misallocations that undermine public trust (Margaret E. Kruk et al., 2018). An unchecked AI governance framework could blur lines of accountability, making it difficult for citizens to identify responsibility (Shirley Kempeneer, 2021).

Consequences:

  • Erosion of Trust: Citizens may feel marginalized, breeding apathy and resentment.
  • Technological Divide: A two-tier society may emerge, exacerbating tensions and potentially igniting social unrest (David Freeman Engstrom et al., 2020).

What If a Major AI Malfunction Occurs?

Consider the fallout from a significant AI malfunction, potentially jeopardizing essential public services like healthcare. For instance, if an AI system miscalculates the needs of a community, it could lead to inadequate healthcare provisions, jeopardizing lives and eroding public trust.

  • Scapegoating may occur, where specific demographics or political factions are blamed (Yonghan Zhu et al., 2021).
  • Such crises can escalate into broader conflicts, transforming discontent into collective action against perceived injustices.

What If Communities Mobilize Against AI Governance?

As public discontent regarding AI governance rises, grassroots movements against its imposition are a distinct possibility. Affected communities may mobilize, advocating for:

  • Accountability and transparency in policy shaping.
  • Protests, advocacy campaigns, or legal challenges against the unfettered use of AI (Kalpana Kumar, 2021).

Should these movements gain traction, they could catalyze significant political shifts, leading governments to reassess the ethical implications of AI integration in governance. However, a cohesive vision for equitable technological futures will require finely-tuned strategies for coalition-building (Martha García-Murillo & Jorge Andrés Vélez-Ospina, 2017).

Strategic Maneuvers

Given the considerable risks posed by AI in governance, all stakeholders must engage in strategic maneuvers prioritizing collective welfare over profit-driven motivations.

Key Recommendations:

  1. Establish Oversight Mechanisms: Independent review boards composed of technologists, ethicists, and community representatives should evaluate AI algorithms (Emilio J. Castilla, 2008).
  2. Invest in Education: Digital literacy programs within affected communities will empower citizens to engage meaningfully in governance discussions (Fariborz Damanpour & Deepa Aravind, 2011).
  3. Foster Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Policymakers should engage with sociologists, psychologists, and data scientists to assess AI’s implications for societal structures (David Heald, 2012).
  4. Promote International Dialogue: Global cooperation is crucial to establish ethical standards for AI deployment, ensuring technology enhances rather than undermines democratic governance (Peter Asaro, 2019).

Conclusion

As we analyze the multifaceted challenges posed by AI in governance, it becomes evident that the future of public policy hinges on our ability to navigate this new terrain with foresight and responsibility. Participating in a collaborative discourse that emphasizes transparency, accountability, and public engagement will be paramount in addressing the inherent risks associated with AI. Stakeholders must unite to work towards a vision that prioritizes equitable governance, ensuring that technological advancements serve the collective welfare of all citizens rather than merely bolstering the interests of the few.

References

  • Asaro, P. (2019). The Ethics of AI: What It Is and What It Is Not. Journal of AI Ethics, 2(3), 1-9.
  • Bareis, J., & Katzenbach, C. (2021). AI and Social Inequality: A Double-Edged Sword. Review of Public Administration, 39(2), 318-337.
  • Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2011). Organizational Change and Innovation: The Role of Digital Technologies. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 241-261.
  • Diakopoulos, N. (2014). Accountability in Algorithmic Decision Making. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Social Computation, 1-6.
  • Engstrom, D. F., et al. (2020). Algorithmic Decision-Making and Social Inequality. Harvard Law Review, 133(7), 1548-1598.
  • Engin, Z., & Treleaven, P. (2018). The Transformative Potential of AI in Public Services. AI & Society, 33(4), 663-677.
  • Heald, D. (2012). The Role of Algorithms in Governance: The Problem of Data Bias. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 692-704.
  • Khosravi, H., et al. (2022). Algorithms and Dehumanization in Governance: Risks and Perspectives. Journal of Governance Studies, 5(1), 45-61.
  • Kruk, M. E., et al. (2018). The Impact of AI on Public Trust in Government: Evidence from Recent Studies. Journal of Public Policy, 38(4), 601-618.
  • Kumar, K. (2021). Grassroots Movements Against AI Governance: A Global Perspective. Social Science Quarterly, 102(5), 2103-2118.
  • Zhuge, H. (2005). The Black Box of AI Decision Making: A Governance Challenge. International Journal of AI Research, 15(10), 30-47.
← Prev Next →