A poll of British consumers conducted by software firm OpenText found that one in four Brits think robots would do a better job than humans as politicians. Years ago, The Muppet Show ran a segment mocking politicians for their stereotypical robotic behaviour. Last April a robot was nominated to run to be Tokyo’s mayor, promising fair and balanced representation.

In a world where reality is sometimes more bizarre than an episode of Black Mirror, what if we replaced our current politicians with algorithms? In a period where trust in politicians is low and government efficiency is questionable, might we be better off?

In 2017 The Fourth Group, an organisation I lead to shape technology for social good, ran a hackathon to automate politicians’ tasks. Coders, designers, politicians and policy experts gathered for two days and built new technologies. The winning team, Civic Triage, developed a chatbot to communicate with constituents. It aimed to replace weekly public meetings (known in Britain as “surgeries”) by texting people, acknowledging their concerns and pointing them to relevant local service providers. It’s not just hypothetical: Liam Byrne, a Labour Party MP, has met with other MPs to discuss using chatbots to engage with British citizens.

Of course, one can creatively conjure up a host of things robot-politicians can do at exponential speed and scale, from shaking hands and kissing babies to handling the fundraising “robocalls” that frustrate American voters. A robot could take over every politician’s favourite task of cutting ribbons to inaugurate new buildings. We already cede decision-making responsibility on health and finances to algorithms, why not with voting? An automated democracy could replace both politicians and ballot boxes. That may be extreme. Yet comical though it sounds, parts of our politics has already been technified. Consider reach. Both Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, and the French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, beamed holograms of themselves to speak to several groups of thousands of people simultaneously. Next, there’s the message. In America’s 2016 election, candidates used social-media advertising to target different voters with different messages. The growing automation of our government is no longer sci-fi. Instead, it’s a reality we are only beginning to grasp. So to the question, can we replace politicians with robots? The answer is a soft yes. Big data and artificial intelligence allow us to understand public issues better and faster. They may be able to identify the most effective approaches to solving problems, just as algorithms became world champions of chess and Go. Predictive analytics is used to identify potential criminals or romantic partners. It can predict voting habits from Facebook likes (country music lovers in America are more likely to be Republican, while Bob Marley fans are more likely to lean Democrat, and so on).

This raises the issue of what we want from our politicians and government. As with all technology, we should consider the social implications of innovation rather than innovating for innovation's sake.

While a chatbot can be more efficient, and may help engage people who prefer online communication or have mobility problems, would this reduce real relationships between people and their representatives? Yes, we can develop AI-enabled smart weaponry, but should we really? Yes, we can use machines to do things politicians are supposed to do, but should we really? These are not questions for futurists; these are questions for nowists.

Whatever one’s view, the debate affords us the opportunity to reflect on the true essence of politics and the humans doing it. Robert Walpole’s tenure as Britain’s de facto first prime minister was not just about understanding citizens’ views and being a messenger, it was about decision-making, human reason and emotion. These things swirl together in a pot of clashes and compromises and imperfect-but-necessary choices that make up the soup of politics. Political tasks can be technically automated, but politicking cannot. Political leadership is as much about leadership, vision and belief, as it is about information, analysis and communication.

In the age of the fourth industrial revolution where truckers, lawyers, doctors, builders and now even chefs (according to The Economist) are being automated, whether we automate our politics is up for serious discussion. However, policymakers ought to consider the essence of humanity before outsourcing human functions to silicon chips and optical fibre. The growth of AI potentially offers a more leisurely, emancipated future. But HI (human intelligence) is the basis of human progress.

___________________

Alvin Carpio (@AlvinCarpio) is chief executive of The Fourth Group, which brings together citizens to shape the fourth industrial revolution for social good. In collaboration with partners, The Fourth Group is conducting a global survey of citizens in the digital age. To participate, visit https://www.weareunitedcitizens.org/.