For a democracy resilient to the digital age

Our societies have never been so connected, our administrations never so automated, our services never so rapid. In two decades, we have digitalised our lives. We declare our income, pay for our essential goods, book our travel, consult our medical records in a few clicks. This transformation has always been presented as progress. It is, no doubt. But it is also the methodical construction of a technical infrastructure that could permit tomorrow what we refuse today.

I am neither technophobic nor nostalgic for the past. Technology fascinates me as much as its malicious use horrifies me. But let us remain clear-sighted. Every database we create, every file we interconnect, every surveillance system we deploy “for our security” remains available for whoever comes to power tomorrow.

Now, the question is no longer who will be in power tomorrow, but what tools will be at the disposal of authoritarian governments when they arrive. For we cannot ignore the rise of extremes across the world. Several European countries already have far-right governments or far-right parties in their coalitions¹. Countries, once democratic pillars, are today moving away from the substantive principles of democracy: equality, human dignity, rule of law. In a few weeks, a US federal agency can locate and mass arrest people thanks to technologies that we, Europeans, have contributed to developing ².

History suggests caution.

For authoritarian drift never announces itself as such. It is built through small touches, in the name of efficiency, security, modernity. One begins by registering migrants “to better manage flows”. One continues by interconnecting databases “to fight terrorism”. One ends by monitoring public space “to ensure order”. Between the beginning and the end, there is no spectacular rupture, just a gentle slope, almost imperceptible.

And Europe? We believe ourselves safe. We have the GDPR, the AI Act, the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But these safeguards only protect us in a democracy that chooses to respect them.

EURODAC, this European biometric database, already stores millions of fingerprints. It was intended for asylum. It is now accessible to law enforcement. The collection age has dropped from fourteen to six years. Facial recognition is being added. It is being interconnected with other files³. Each extension is presented as a “common sense measure”. And perhaps it is, in current hands. But in other hands?

So what is to be done? We will not renounce progress, but we must draw red lines, not to the use of dangerous systems, but to their very existence. Identify what, in our digital arsenal, could tomorrow serve a massive and systematic oppression, and dismantle it. Now. Whilst we still can.

Certain infrastructures should never exist. Centralised biometric databases. Facial recognition in public space. Generalised interconnection of state files. Forced abandonment of cash in favour of all-digital. Electronic voting. These are not neutral tools that can be regulated. They are dangerous in the wrong hands.

Am I alarmist? some will say that our institutions are solid! That is what was thought in many countries that have seen their democracies weakened. That is what all those thought who, throughout history, saw too late what they could have seen in time.

The totalitarian regimes of the nineteen-thirties had to construct their surveillance apparatus. We have perfected it with good intentions. It is ready to support far less noble causes.

We still have the choice. We can decide that certain efficiencies are not worth the risk they entail. That certain slownesses, imperfections, or compartmentalisations are not problems but safeguards.

Cash is inefficient, subject to theft, but it guarantees the anonymity of our daily transactions, works without electricity, and resists any mass surveillance. Separate files are redundant, costly, but they prevent total profiling. Paper voting is slow, but it is verifiable by all and resistant to massive fraud. These “inefficiencies” are the price of our freedom.

We face a civilisational choice. Must we accept a society slightly less “efficient” but structurally resistant to authoritarianism, or pursue optimisation at the risk of creating the technical conditions for a perfect tyranny?

This is the question of our generation, for we may be the last able to answer it.

In writing these lines, old readings resonate: Stéphane Hessel, Albert Jacquard, Noam Chomsky.

Notes: 🔗