Political Automation: Alumnus Eduardo Albrecht Publishes New Book on AI
JCU alumnus Eduardo Albrecht (class of 1999, International Affairs and History) has recently published his new book, titled Political Automation: An Introduction to AI in Government and Its Impact on Citizens (Oxford University Press, 2025), which investigates the increasing governmental use of AI and theorizes the changing role of citizens in policy making.
Eduardo had previously published the book Alter-globalization in Southern Europe: Anatomy of a Social Movement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). Currently, he is an associate professor at Mercy University, NY, and also an adjunct professor at City University of New York (CUNY) and at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA). He is a senior fellow at the United Nations University’s Centre for Policy Research, where he conducts research on AI technologies and their uses in the UN conflict prevention and response architecture. Additionally, he has an ongoing collaboration with JCU’s Guarini Institute for Public Affairs.
What prompted you to write this book? How did you conduct your research on the impact of AI on people and what was the outcome?
I was driven to write this book by the significant transformation we are witnessing in the use of AI by governments around the world. As a political anthropologist, I see that states are increasingly implementing AI systems to make consequential decisions about their citizens, fundamentally altering the relationship between people and their governments. This shift is not merely technological but also represents a profound change in how citizenship itself functions.
For my research, I conducted fieldwork across multiple regions and governmental systems, engaging directly with the environments where these technologies were being implemented. A critical aspect of my approach involved in-depth interviews with civil rights activists who are at the forefront of confronting the systemic use of AI. These interviews provided invaluable perspectives on the practical impacts of algorithmic governance and the grassroots responses to address them.
My research revealed a striking power imbalance that is developing between citizens and AI-enhanced governments. The data collected shows that traditional democratic safeguards are proving inadequate against the speed, scale, and opacity of AI systems. The outcome of this research is not just academic documentation but has led me to develop concrete solutions for new democratic mechanisms specifically designed to address these emerging challenges. I believe we need innovative approaches that operate at the same technological level as the systems they aim to oversee.
In your book, you propose a counter idea to the automation that is being implemented in governmental policy and decision-making, which you call “Third House.” What does it mean exactly, and how is this a solution?
The Third House represents an additional layer to traditional governmental structures. It would be a virtual legislative chamber dedicated exclusively to AI oversight and governance. Unlike conventional upper and lower houses of government, which handle a broad spectrum of issues, this specialized chamber would focus solely on ensuring democratic accountability for AI systems used in governance.
What makes this concept unique is that it would exist entirely in a digital space and be populated by what I call “digital citizens,” sophisticated avatars that represent our individual values, preferences, and interests. These digital representatives would function as our emissaries in the automated realm, interacting with millions of other citizen avatars to collectively negotiate and decide on appropriate boundaries and operations for governmental AI systems.
This approach acknowledges a fundamental reality about AI in governance: we cannot easily regulate it by using existing institutions. As I explain in my book, AI’s influence is like an avalanche that cannot be stopped with a simple fence of regulations. Instead, the Third House would allow us to “ride the avalanche” by ensuring broad citizen participation.
During your last interview with JCU, you reassured us about the benign nature of AI. In Political Automation you mention the threat of “algocracy.” What does that entail? What has changed now to warrant the creation of a “Third House”?
The concept of “algocracy” describes a system of governance where algorithmic processes increasingly make or heavily influence decisions that were previously the domain of human judgment and democratic deliberation. This represents a fundamental shift in how authority operates within society – one that potentially sidelines not just individual human judgment but also collective democratic processes.
I see the creation of a Third House as necessary given the fundamental change in the relationship between citizens and state. This shift isn’t primarily driven by AI itself, but by the unprecedented volume of data now generated about individual citizens and accessible to governments. Now, governments can access detailed digital profiles. This enables what I describe as “driverless government,” or automated systems making consequential decisions based on citizen data patterns.
In your opinion, how will AI and its implementation in our daily lives and democratic activities improve our future and secure our place in society?
I maintain the same fundamentally optimistic view about AI that I shared with JCU News in 2019. I recognize that the programming behind the algorithm remains human. I believe we have the potential to enhance our democratic future if we construct proper institutional vehicles for that. Just like any tool, AI can be used to benefit a community or to accrue state power and corporate profits. That is a decision we make as humans. AI, at least for the foreseeable future, is rather neutral on this issue, in my opinion.
Now, my argument is that by offloading certain routine aspects of political mental work to AI, we can actually free up valuable cognitive resources, time, and space for more meaningful human conversations and deliberations about our collective values and priorities. This is comparable to how AI already enhances our daily lives by handling routine tasks – from email composition to content recommendations – allowing us to focus on more significant activities. In the political realm, AI could similarly handle lower-level functions while enabling humans to focus on the values-based deliberations that should remain at the heart of democratic society.
However, this positive outcome is contingent on ensuring that all citizens (not just technical experts or policy professionals) have access to AI augmentation. If governments have enhanced their power through AI systems, citizens must similarly be “augmented” to maintain a balance of power. This technological empowerment must be universally accessible by virtue of citizenship, not limited by technical knowledge or economic means. The key challenge we face is preventing a new form of social division based primarily on one’s access to AI systems. This potential new divide would separate those who understand and can influence AI from those who merely receive its outputs without comprehension or recourse.
By establishing proper institutional frameworks like the Third House, we can secure citizens’ place in an increasingly automated society while preserving democratic principles. The goal isn’t to resist technological progress but to harness it in ways that enhance rather than diminish human agency, letting citizens engage more deeply with the philosophical questions that guide our societies.
