Digital technology has infiltrated all aspects of life: political, economic, social, and religious. It has become an integral part of human existence, indispensable, and impossible to ignore or take an antagonistic stance against. This excessive digital dominance has two significant facets: one that offers significant facilitation, prosperity, and speed in accomplishment, while the other exercises almost total control over humanity.

Among the areas touched by digital technology are governance and politics, in pursuit of what is known as “good governance” through resorting to “automation.” Despite the absence of a precise definition of the concept of good governance, it can be summarized as “all the governance processes, institutions, operations, and practices through which decisions are made and regulated regarding matters of common concern.” Therefore, good governance provides ruling standards for assessing authority practices and performance by adhering to human rights: political, cultural, social, and economic.

The “automation” goal is to improve the efficiency of governmental processes to facilitate citizens' access to services

As for the goal of “automation,” it is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental processes by facilitating citizens' access to government services and information, assisting government employees in working more efficiently, and enhancing the quality of government services.

Values of Good Governance

The values of good governance presuppose the availability of a set of values, including transparency, accountability, participation, and commitment to human rights. The relationship between human rights and good governance manifests in several areas, including:

• Democratic institutions: Such as parliaments and unions, where respect for human rights enables public participation in decision-making processes and oversight,.
• Public services: Good governance implies providing government services to people, enhancing the government's capacity to serve people, fulfilling government obligations towards citizens, providing basic rights to citizens, and facilitating their access to them within a framework of transparency, equality, and participation.
• Rule of law: This necessitates the existence of a constitution in which society participates in its making, everyone is equal before the law, and institutions work to uphold and ensure its sovereignty.
• Combating corruption: Corruption thrives only in the absence of transparency, justice, equality, and oversight and in the presence of authoritarianism.

“Automation” is a means and not an end, and its detachment from the higher values ​​of governance turns the state into a monster

“Automation” has affected the way governments manage the machinery of the state. In advanced countries where transparency, accountability, administrative efficiency, political freedom, and respect for human rights exist, “automation” has added comfort and prosperity for citizens in their dealings with the government and its institutions. Citizens are more informed about the government's efficiency in administration and have more oversight over its ability to accomplish tasks, contributing to improving government performance and the delivery of government services to the vast majority of citizens quickly and effectively.

In these experiences, “automation” has provided a significant level of transparency by providing information to citizens, facilitating their access to it, interaction with it, and benefiting from it. “Automation” has also remarkably reduced corruption, largely enabling its detection and allowing citizens to exercise oversight by reporting corruption and conveying errors to higher administrative levels and the media, which play an influential role in oversight in democratic countries.

One of the most significant benefits of “automation” in achieving the concept of good governance in advanced states is the revelation of the government's responsiveness to citizens' needs, concerns, complaints, and problems raised through digital mechanisms. It has allowed higher administrative and political levels to be fully aware of citizens' true opinions about the services provided by the state through clear indicators, away from any manipulation in opinion polls that may be conducted in a manner favorable to the government without revealing the true position of citizens. 

The Flip Side of “Automation”

Automation of governance does not necessarily mean achieving good governance. This implies that the mechanisms of governance practices are transformed into values and means of achieving the highest values of society through authority, becoming independent values. There are concerns that “automation” may turn into a value in itself and an endeavor by the authority to achieve it without being preoccupied with realizing the higher values of governance, such as justice, transparency, freedom, and equality.

 Despite its benefits, it may lead to the consolidation of authoritarian values, with authorities marginalizing freedoms in society 

 Perhaps this is what the scholar Abdel Wahab El-Messiri warned of in his book “Partial Secularism and Total Secularism,” affirming that “the precise formulation of scientific laws, scientific knowledge, and good organization may all help us find appropriate ways to achieve social goals, but they do not help us choose between absolute values or conflicting objectives, or make ethical decisions. In the end, science has nothing to do with the issue of choosing a virtuous life; there is a vast gap between rational knowledge and ethical judgment.”

As for the second threat, “automation” remains a means and not an end; separating it from the higher values of governance such as justice, equality, and freedom turns the state into a monster that tightens its grip on society almost completely by controlling all interests and resources and manipulating them. Indeed, “automation” may turn power into a “Leviathan state,” as described by “Thomas Hobbes” in the seventeenth century, where citizens relinquish their rights and freedoms in exchange for maintaining their safety and security. According to “Hobbes,” the state obtains absolute authority, embodying the will of the collective, and such a “Leviathan” state cannot be resisted!

Despite being the trend of the times and despite its great benefits, “automation” may lead to the consolidation of authoritarian values, with governance suppressing freedoms in society. Here, “automation” becomes a tool for complete control and subjugation, one of the power's instruments for suppressing freedom and stifling it, and a technique of tyranny, turning power into an invisible entity, a situation previously unknown to humanity.

Despotism, despite its cruelty and severity, was practiced within the limits of human energy, not within the power of the immense machine controlled by very few programmers, power holders, and senior officials governing and managing millions of people invisibly. This situation may lead to a displacement of the concept of life for millions of people, with life revolving around that “automation” and its complex invisible programs.

Data and statistics confirm that two-thirds of the global economy relies on services rather than goods and that “automation” is a rising trend in the world, especially since more than 40% of jobs worldwide can be automated in the coming years.

A report by the International Federation of Robotics indicates an increase in the density of robots in industries, reaching 126 robots capable of replacing 10,000 workers in 2021. This trend has been warned against by United Nations reports, suggesting that digital technologies may threaten privacies, reduce security, intensify inequality, and have negative implications for human rights, especially considering that digital technologies have reached half of the populations of developing countries.

“Automation” remains nothing but a management method; however, it is the responsible authority that respects human rights

On the other hand, there are indications of a global decline in democracy, with studies linking “automation” to this decline. This was evident in a study by Oxford University during the 2016 US presidential elections. Other studies affirm that the impact of “automation” extends beyond the economic aspect to the political realm.

The reality is that “automation” does not go beyond being a tool or a management method. It is responsible and prudent governance that respects human rights, adheres to transparency in its practices, upholds justice, prioritizes the rule of law, and adopts successful and effective developmental policies. Such policies aim to combat poverty and improve the living standards of citizens. Poverty and impoverishment create environments unsuitable for democracy and good governance. These environments are characterized by authoritarianism, high levels of corruption, and low administrative efficiency. Implementing “automation” in such wretched scenarios only aggravates the suffering of citizens and hinders the achievement of good governance. Therefore, human rights come before “automation” and resorting to smart machines to manage failed states. “Automation” is not a magical solution for achieving sound governance.

-------------------------------------------------------------

• “Automation” is a modern term defined by Western dictionaries as the replacement of individuals with computers and machines to perform tasks while reducing human elements and intervention to the minimum level.

Read the Article in Arabic