Self-driving cars in streets, automated x-ray diagnosis at hospitals, search engines that seem to know what you're looking for before you have completed your search term. Artificial intelligence is present almost everywhere and affects society in many different ways. Some point to how AI technologies make our lives far easier and more convenient. Others claim that AI is a disruptive technology and worry that AI is emerging as a threat to the functioning of democracy. But when everyone has a voice and a platform on social media, isn't that a good thing for democracy? Is AI a threat to democracy, or could it help give people a voice? Is democracy even something to strive for. Sir Winston Churchill famously said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. But what makes democracy a superior form of government? Let's take a look at the case for democracy. One way to argue for democracy is to look at the good outcomes of democratic government. It's often claimed that democracies don't fight each other. It's certainly not true that democracies don't go to war, but they don't start a war with other democracies. At least that is what supporters of the democratic peace theory claim. Critics of this theory point to weaknesses in the causal chain between democracy and war, and is that consensus on how to define war and democracy. Another argument focusing on the outcomes of democratic government is that democracy tends to correlate with economic prosperity, with India as the exception that proves the rule. But non-democracies also show economic growth and increasing material well-being of their citizens. China is perhaps the most obvious example. Living in the democracy doesn't always mean that every citizen has the highest standard of living. In the USA, the world's economic superpower, more than 10 percent of the population lives in poverty. The outcomes of democratic government might not be a very good argument for why democracy is the superior form of government. Another way to argue is to look at the democratic process. The democratic process builds on the principle of self-determination. People should have the right to make binding decisions on matters that concern them. This builds on the view of every individual's equal worth and the belief that every individual is capable of knowing their own interests and desires. For Robert Dahl, a giant within democratic theory. Democracy is superior because it's better than any other system, considers the interests and be wishes of each individual. In his own words, I think any human being is a better person for having the opportunity and ability to reflect on the relative worth, desirability, or goodness of the choices he or she confronts, and then acting responsibly to bring about what is best. Some important choices, collective choices, in particular, are best made in consultation with the other persons involved and in accordance with just principles for making collective decisions. Democracy is the only political system that can fully meet this test, even though in practice it often fails to. This quotation is from an article called justifying democracy published in 1998. In this text, Dahl points to the value of self-determination. This is a value that most of us appreciate. We often prefer to make our own choices. But what Dahl texts also points to is the collective character of democracy. When it comes to common matters in society in a democracy we decide together. For common issues each and every one of us cannot get exactly our way. But in a democracy every citizen is always included in the process and has the right to have a say. Each and every one of us has an equal say. But to reach a common decision, we all need to give and take, but we do not result to violence on the way to settlement. We talk peacefully. We can say that democracy is about how we make these agreements in a peaceful way. Exactly how we do that may vary. For instance, representative democracy can include more or less participatory elements, or the power balance between public authority experts and government ministers can differ between countries. But as long as the citizens themselves agree on the process, and as long as everybody respects the rules of the process, there's room for variation. In other words those concerned, the citizens via their representatives decide on the rules of the game. So far we've come up with three good reasons for democracy when we look at a democratic process. The right to self-determination, a peaceful way to reach agreement, and the right for those concerned to shape the rules for the democratic process itself. Another reason to be in favor of democracy is that it lets us remove a bad leader. These points not only to the democratic principle of the right to opposition, but also to the principle of accountability, a cornerstone in representative government. At election day we reward or punish our representatives for what they have done during their time in office. Some systems have limitations for how long an elected official can stay in office. For instance, in the United States, a President can be re-elected once. But also in democratic systems without such limitations, leaders cannot stay forever if the people don't want them to. Finally, democracy is a system that allows the people to decide which society they want. Political decision-making is about balancing between different values. For instance, between tax levels and the levels of welfare services, where the schools should be public or private or weighing the value of efficient AI surveillance systems against the value of individual privacy. Most often more than two values need to be balanced, but the point is that we always need to make a choice. In a democracy, the people are the ones that ultimately make this choice. There are many good reasons to prefer democracy to systems in which someone else chooses what your society should look like, and how this should be settled, and in which you cannot get rid of a bad leader in a peaceful way. But wait a moment doesn't this sound a bit too good? Is democracy really this perfect? When we look at democratic processes in the real-world, do we really see people included on equal terms, having an equal voice? Do we see institutions that guarantee the freedom of opinion, and the freedom of press that are basic conditions for a well-functioning democracy? Do we see the rule of law applied equally to everyone, no matter who you are? Do we see freedom of association applied equally to all associations no matter what they stand for? Well, in some places we do, and sometimes we do, but not everywhere and not all the time. It's important to keep in mind that what we're talking about here is an ideal picture of democracy. In real-world democracies or systems we normally call democracies things are not always like the ideal, sometimes not even close. Robert Dahl doesn't even call the countries we usually call democracies, democracies instead, he calls them Polyarchys, the rule of many. Still an ideal of democracy is necessary, a democratic ideal gives us something to strive for.