The institutional use of artificial intelligence (AI) in parliamentary work is expanding from transcription, translation and document management to research assistance, amendment analysis and public input processing. Yet the accountability mechanisms governing such use remain underdeveloped. Existing responsible-AI frameworks emphasise transparency, human oversight and risk management, but they are largely designed for public administration, market actors or generic public-sector deployment and only partially address parliaments as autonomous legislative institutions. This article asks who governs AI use within parliaments and where democratic accountability gaps arise when algorithmic systems mediate legislative work. Using a conceptual-normative approach grounded in theories of democratic legitimacy, political accountability and algorithmic governance, the article argues that the central problem is not algorithmic autonomy but the displacement of politically relevant choices into infrastructural systems that shape information, options and procedural conditions before formal legislative decisions are made. The article develops a four-part typology: epistemic opacity, institutional attribution, procedural oversight and democratic-legal contestation gaps.
The central claim is that constitutional and democratic requirements should not be treated as external compliance burdens when embedded into institutional design, they operate as productive constraints that improve legitimacy, implementation discipline, and the long-term trustworthiness of AI-enabled public decision-ma...
C. Oliveira· Open Access Journal of Data...· 0 citations
This Policy and Practice Review concludes that AI-enabled administration remains legitimate only where public authorities retain the capacity to understand, justify, correct, suspend and democratically control the systems they use.
A. Dragomir, Iulea Bulea, Lucian Tarnu· Frontiers in Political Scien...· 2 citations
The article demonstrates how labour markets and migration governance function as "stress-test" domains in which continuous classification, automated risk assessment, worker scoring, and fragmented data environments can amplify existing structural inequalities.
A. Sinchev, Svetlana Bekmambetova· Work· 0 citations
A normative analysis of thirteen recent studies on the challenges of technology implementation, ethical trust, and legal regulation suggests that the current governance dilemma stems not only from technological limitations but also from institutional neglect, which enables accountability avoidance.
It is argued that public uses of AI should not be evaluated primarily through technical efficiency, ethical compliance, or procedural safeguards, but through democratic legitimacy, and that societies retain the democratic authority to shape, question, supervise, correct, and, when necessary, reject their use.
A. Duche-Pérez, Marco Tulio Falconí Picardo, Emmanuel Neptalí Augusto Chávez Urquizo et al.· Frontiers in Political Scien...· 0 citations
This Article argues that legitimacy is an autonomous regulatory objective, distinct from alignment and not secured by it, which seats consequential AI rule-setting in venues a polity already treats as authoritative.
Gilad Abiri· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.