Â鶹Éç

Available for over a year

Good morning. I’m fascinated to discover that politicians are now using Artificial Intelligence to write public policy. In layman's terms, the AI asks people what they want, collates the data and then finds points of consensus. The Taiwanese government has used it to formulate policy on relations with China or the use of electric scooters - and one candidate in a British by-election has been using it to help him write a manifesto. At a time when we're so divided, I can see the appeal of taking politics out of partisan boxes: left vs right, brexit vs remain. And isn't democracy all about giving people what they want? On the other hand, what people want isn't necessarily a coherent plan for government. For example: I want to see new homes built. I also don't want a single one of them built near me. For the country to run well, politicians sometimes have to persuade us to make choices, even sacrifices. The party system, for all its faults, is supposed to provide a workable manifesto wrapped up in a philosophy that gives a sense of motive and mission. Adding AI to the mix risks reducing politics to administrative technique, and it hardly stirs the imagination. I prefer Harold Wilson's definition of Labour as a crusade. Margaret Thatcher said economics was "the method" but her goal was to "change the heart and soul". If a democracy is simply about doing what the people want, then what if the people are immoral? A nation of thieves would presumably tell AI that they want to legalise burglary. This wouldn't make it moral or wise to do. The late Pope Benedict argued that democracy by itself is not enough to guarantee virtue - or even its own survival. The qualities that help a democracy thrive - tolerance, honesty, charity - come from a cultural inheritance, and are policed by strong institutions and intelligent constitutions. When people ask me, as a Christian, what role religion now plays in a secular democracy, this is my answer: it provides a moral treasury from which to draw. I'm not arguing that its utility is exclusive: I'd be happy if people were reading atheists and agnostics such as Voltaire or David Hume, just so long as they are reading someone - that they are engaging not just with the question of what is expedient but also what is virtuous. History is full of examples of people who stood for something that today we consider axiomatic, but at the time was controversial: women's rights, anti-racism, sexual liberty. They risked their reputations and their careers, and thank heavens for it. The success of democracy rests not just on clever winners but also upon courageous losers.