By Alhagie M. Dumbuya, Director of Research and Library Services, National Assembly
In a recent address at the Peace and Security Council Ministerial Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on Peace, Security, and Governance in Africa, held in Morocco, the Gambian Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation, and Gambians Abroad highlighted the critical need for responsible governance of artificial intelligence (AI). He warned of the potential dangers AI could pose if misused, especially within the realms of security and military operations, and emphasized that Africa must not be left behind in the technological revolution. His call for comprehensive legal and policy frameworks to regulate AI, along with stronger public-private partnerships, underscores the importance of using AI for sustainable development and peacebuilding.
The Minister’s remarks align with a growing global consensus that while AI presents vast opportunities for enhancing governance, its deployment must be guided by ethical standards, regulatory oversight, and human judgment—particularly in areas of national security and legislative decision-making. This perspective reflects a shift in understanding AI, moving beyond its portrayal as a futuristic concept to recognizing it as a transformative force shaping societies today. From revolutionizing healthcare to optimizing business processes and streamlining public administration, AI is already influencing nearly every sector, including governance.
In the context of governance, parliaments—widely considered the heart of democratic decision-making—are not immune to this technological wave. AI is already being used to improve legislative processes, assist with policy drafting, and provide real-time fact-checking during debates. These tools promise to enhance efficiency, but they also raise important questions about how to balance AI’s capabilities with the essential role of human judgment in the legislative process.
In The Gambia, while AI has not yet been formally integrated into parliamentary proceedings, there are signs that it is being informally utilized by parliamentary staff. Researchers, legislative drafters, and information managers increasingly rely on AI-powered tools to analyze large volumes of legal texts, summarize complex legislative issues, and assess public sentiment on proposed policies. AI-driven language models are also helping transcribe debates, generate reports, and refine legislative documents. These applications enhance productivity but also raise concerns about their accuracy, the need for oversight, and the risks of becoming overly reliant on AI-generated content in official proceedings.
It is important to acknowledge that, while AI has immense potential, it fundamentally differs from human decision-making. AI cannot understand reality in the way humans do. Unlike people, who have the capacity for reasoning, emotional intelligence, and contextual judgment, AI works by identifying patterns in data and making predictions based on probabilities. It operates within a controlled, data-driven environment—where policies are viewed in isolation from history, human struggles, and societal complexities. In contrast, governance is inherently a balancing act, full of trade-offs, ethical dilemmas, and unintended consequences.
This article focuses specifically on parliaments because they are the institutions responsible for making laws that directly affect people’s lives. AI may assist by generating policy suggestions, summarizing debates, and offering statistical insights, but it lacks the ability to place policies in the context of lived experiences. AI is a tool—not a decision-maker. Relying too heavily on AI-generated recommendations without critical human oversight risks detaching the legislative process from the realities it seeks to address. It is the responsibility of legislators to understand the complexities, consider ethical implications, and apply human judgment. AI can process vast amounts of information, but only humans can think, reflect, and ultimately govern.
AI’s Growing Role in Parliaments
AI is playing an increasingly significant role in parliaments around the world as governments seek to enhance legislative efficiency and decision-making. AI applications are already being integrated into various parliamentary functions, transforming how laws are researched, debated, and implemented. One key area is legal research and policy drafting, where AI can rapidly analyze extensive legal databases to identify inconsistencies in proposed legislation, compare international best practices, and even assist in drafting laws by suggesting improvements.
Another important use is real-time fact-checking during parliamentary debates, where AI tools can instantly verify statements made by lawmakers or ministers when they appear before parliament, helping to curb misinformation and ensure discussions are grounded in accurate data. AI also enhances public engagement by using sentiment analysis to gauge constituent opinions, processing inputs from social media, news reports, and direct feedback to better represent the people’s voice.
Additionally, AI improves accessibility through advanced translation tools, breaking down language barriers and ensuring legislative materials are available in multiple languages. As these technologies continue to evolve, their adoption in parliamentary systems is expected to grow, making governance more efficient, transparent, and responsive.
Case Studies of AI in Action
The use of AI in parliamentary systems is expanding globally, with different countries adopting the technology in ways that reflect both its potential and its challenges. In the United Kingdom, AI has been employed to analyze legislative trends and provide MPs with data-driven insights, enhancing research capabilities. However, British lawmakers remain cautious, acknowledging the risk of algorithmic bias and insisting on maintaining human oversight to ensure accountability.
Meanwhile, Brazil has experimented with AI-powered chatbots to improve public engagement by answering citizen inquiries about legislation. Early trials, however, exposed flaws—such as the chatbot providing misleading responses due to biased training data—underscoring the dangers of over-reliance on AI without proper safeguards.
Estonia, often a pioneer in digital governance, has taken a more structured approach with its KrattAI initiative, which assists in legal drafting while keeping human officials in charge of final decisions. This balanced model ensures that AI aids efficiency without overriding ethical and social considerations in policymaking. These examples illustrate that while AI can enhance legislative processes, its implementation requires careful management to mitigate risks and preserve democratic accountability.
The Risks of Over-Reliance on AI in Governance
Despite AI’s remarkable capabilities, blindly trusting its outputs can lead to significant challenges, particularly in parliamentary discourse, which thrives on human judgment, debate, and negotiation—qualities that AI fundamentally lacks. If left unchecked, AI could introduce new risks to governance, undermining the very democratic processes it seeks to enhance.
One major limitation of AI is its inability to grasp political and social contexts. AI-generated policy recommendations rely purely on data analysis, yet governance is about more than numbers. For instance, an AI system assessing housing policies might logically suggest demolishing old, inefficient buildings to pave the way for modern infrastructure. While this may appear sound on paper, such a decision could result in mass displacement, the loss of cultural heritage, and social unrest—factors that AI does not inherently recognize. Human legislators, on the other hand, consider the historical, ethical, and societal implications of policy choices, making nuanced decisions that balance logic with lived realities.
Additionally, algorithmic bias presents a serious threat to fair and equitable governance. AI systems learn from historical data, which often carries deep-rooted biases. For example, predictive policing models have been criticized for disproportionately targeting marginalized communities due to biases embedded in law enforcement data. If such biases infiltrate legislative AI tools, they could reinforce systemic discrimination rather than resolve it. This raises concerns about the fairness and inclusivity of AI-driven policymaking, emphasizing the need for human oversight to ensure justice and equity in governance.
Another critical issue is the risk of AI “hallucinations”—a phenomenon where AI generates inaccurate or misleading information. If lawmakers rely on AI-generated reports without thorough verification, they risk basing policies on false premises. In governance, where precision and factual integrity are paramount, such errors could lead to flawed legislation with far-reaching consequences. The role of human intelligence remains irreplaceable in ensuring that parliamentary decisions are grounded in verified information, not algorithmic guesswork.
Beyond technical limitations, AI also lacks the moral and ethical judgment essential for lawmaking. Governance is not merely about efficiency; it is about compromise, ethical deliberation, and long-term societal impact. AI does not comprehend moral dilemmas, human emotions, or the intricate nature of political negotiation. Laws must be debated, revised, and contested—not simply optimized by an algorithm. The legislative process is inherently human, requiring empathy, historical awareness, and the ability to foresee unintended consequences—qualities that AI does not possess.
Finally, there is the looming danger of political manipulation. In the wrong hands, AI could become a tool for authoritarian regimes to manufacture consent, suppress dissent, or manipulate public opinion. If AI-generated analyses dominate parliamentary discourse, they could narrow the range of perspectives in legislative debates, ultimately eroding democratic principles. The strength of democracy lies in its openness to diverse viewpoints, something AI cannot authentically generate or uphold.
While AI can be a valuable tool in legislative processes, it must be approached with caution. The reliance on AI should never come at the cost of human judgment, ethical decision-making, and democratic integrity. Policymakers must recognize AI as an aid, not a substitute, ensuring that its application in governance is guided by oversight, transparency, and accountability.
How Parliaments Can Use AI Responsibly
To ensure that AI enhances rather than undermines governance, parliaments must establish clear and enforceable guidelines for its use in legislative processes. A fundamental requirement should be the mandate for human oversight. Every AI-generated recommendation must undergo rigorous review and verification by human experts before influencing policy. While AI can assist lawmakers by providing data analysis, identifying trends, and suggesting policy options, it cannot replace human judgment, ethical reasoning, or lived experience.
Mandating human oversight ensures that AI’s outputs are critically examined within the broader political, economic, and social contexts in which policies are made. It also safeguards against automation bias—the tendency to accept AI-generated information uncritically—which can lead to flawed decision-making. For example, in 2016, a predictive policing tool used in the United States was found to disproportionately target minority communities, demonstrating how biases in AI models can exacerbate social inequalities if not carefully monitored. By maintaining a balance between technological innovation and human discernment, parliaments can harness AI’s potential while ensuring that governance remains grounded in accountability, ethical considerations, and the realities of those it seeks to serve.
Parliamentarians must be equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to critically assess AI-generated reports rather than blindly accepting them. This requires tailored training programs that familiarize lawmakers with how AI functions, its limitations, and its potential biases. Without sufficient AI literacy, legislators risk becoming overly dependent on AI-generated insights without questioning their reliability. Training should also focus on distinguishing between AI’s strengths—such as processing large datasets—and its weaknesses, including its lack of contextual awareness and ethical reasoning. In 2018, the UK’s House of Commons held a series of training sessions for MPs on AI, helping them better understand the technology and assess its role in policy decisions. By fostering AI literacy among lawmakers, parliaments can make informed decisions about when and how to integrate AI into their work without compromising democratic principles.
AI as a Tool, not a Replacement for Human Judgment
To conclude, it is important to reiterate that AI has the potential to revolutionize parliamentary discourse by improving efficiency, enhancing access to information, and streamlining bureaucratic processes. However, it must never replace human judgment, ethical reasoning, and contextual understanding. AI perceives the world through the lens of structured data, but real governance is messy, unpredictable, and deeply intertwined with history and culture.
Parliaments must recognize AI for what it is—a powerful assistant, but not an autonomous legislator. The future of governance must embrace AI as a tool to support well-informed, critically evaluated, and ethically sound policymaking—not as a substitute for the wisdom, experience, and moral responsibility that only human legislators can bring.
