Working Together for a Human-Centred Digital Future – Parliamentary Cooperation for Democratic Digital Governance – Opening Plenary 2025

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Parliamentarian session on invitation by PACE

12 May 2025 | 16:00 - 17:15 CEST | Hemicycle | Transcript
Consolidated programme 2025

Session teaser

As digital technologies increasingly shape our democracies, economies, and societies, parliaments and parliamentarians are central to ensuring that this transformation reflects shared values. This session brings together elected representatives from across the world to exchange experiences and explore how to shape digital governance that upholds human dignity, enables innovation, and supports inclusive development. It will highlight the role of parliaments in translating international standards -such as those of the Council of Europe, the EU, OECD, and the United Nations etc. - into national policies that both manage risks and harness opportunities offered by artificial intelligence and internet technologies. Rather than focusing solely on challenges, the event and ensuing exchange aim to explore how digital tools, when guided by clear democratic principles, can help advance transparency, scientific progress, participatory governance, and the protection of human rights.

Session description

16:00 – 16:02 Welcome by the Moderator

Ms. Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, Vice Chair of PACE Brief welcome and framing of the session, stressing the importance of parliamentary leadership and international cooperation for digital governance rooted in democracy and human rights.

16:02 – 16:15 Protecting Rights in the Age of AI: A Treaty for Everyone

Mario Hernandez Ramos, Chair of the Council of Europe Committee on Artificial Intelligence: Introduction of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and its role in advancing democratic standards in tech governance.

16:15 – 16.30 Steering Digital Innovation with Values – A Parliamentary Perspective

How parliaments are translating standards into action: oversight, legislation and fostering digital innovation aligned with democratic values.

Short input statements from key parliamentary bodies on their priorities, practices, or challenges in democratic digital governance:

  • Zeynep Yıldız, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Türkiye
  • Neema Lugangira, Chair, African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance (APNIG), Tanzania
  • Hon. Ray Abela, Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM), Malta
  • Other invited parliamentary bodies (tbc)

(European Parliament (EP), Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), OECD Global Parliamentary Network, Parliamentary Assembly of La Francophonie)

16:30 - 17:00 Parliamentary Roundtable: Making It Work in Practice

Moderated open exchange

  • All present parliamentarians are invited to share insights, good practices, and challenges in shaping digital governance. Focus on peer exchange and identifying shared approaches and good practice.

Suggested topics to guide discussion:

  • Making AI accountable: Parliamentary oversight and ethical frameworks
  • Securing democratic participation - Digital resilience and inclusive online engagement
  • Regulating without censoring: Rights-based approaches to content and data governance
  • Aligning with international standards: Translating multilateral treaties, /conventions/standards into national laws
  • Unlocking opportunity: Digital tools for innovation, accessibility and service delivery

17:00 - 17:10 Open Exchange with the Audience

17:10 - 17:15 What’s Next? Shared Priorities for Action

  • Moderator wraps up with key takeaways, opportunities for cooperation and next steps for working together to build a democratic digital future.

Format

Moderated open exchange with in-put keynotes from parliamentarians.

Interpretation in English and French.

Further reading

Links to relevant websites, declarations, books, documents. Please note we cannot offer web space, so only links to external resources are possible. Example for an external link: Main page of EuroDIG

People

Focal Point:

Moderator:

  • Ms / Mme Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI (Finland, SOC / Finlande, SOC), Vice Chair of PACE

Ad hoc committee of the Bureau to participate in the meeting of the European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG)

  • Ms / Mme Zeynep YILDIZ (Türkiye, NR / Türkiye, NI)
  • Mr / M. Emanuelis ZINGERIS (Lithuania, EPP/CD / Lituanie, PPE/DC)
  • Ms / Mme Belén HOYO (Spain, EPP/CD / Espagne, PPE/DC)
  • Ms / Mme Marijana PULJAK (Croatia, ALDE / Croatie, ADLE)
  • Ms / Mme Maria-Nefeli VASILEIOU CHATZIIOANNIDOU (Greece, EPP/CD / Grèce, PPE/DC)

Key participants:

  • Mario Hernandez Ramos, Chair of the Council of Europe Committee on Artificial Intelligence
  • Zeynep Yıldız, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Türkiye
  • Neema Lugangira, Chair, African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance (APNIG), Tanzania
  • Hon. Ray Abela, Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM), Malta

Transcript

Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.

The Geneva Internet Platform will provide transcript, session report and additional details shortly after the session.


Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: OK. Dear participants. Let me have an introduction for the session we will have now. It is the Parliamentary Cooperation for Digital Governance, led by this house. So if I introduce myself very shortly, my name is Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, I’m a member of the parliament in Finland and I’m vice president of this assembly when we gather here together from 46 parliaments, Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. So it’s an honour to take part in this EuroDIG. I have been a veteran for that and I must introduce myself also that I was a member of the European Parliament for 10 years until last summer. So I have been a veteran taking part in the EuroDIG and IGF also, which many of you also have been actively working on. So very warmly welcome to our plenary hall where we have the next session in June. Very good speeches, I’m happy you stay with us and after a few introductory speeches we will have an opportunity for a dialogue. So with me I have parliamentarians here and then also in the audience they will take floor. So idea is that we can really have a dialogue with parliamentarians and pass on the message via parliaments as well. So many good speeches in the opening session, so I will not take your time here long. We all know that digital technologies increasingly shape our life daily. Our democracies, economies and societies are full of opportunities but we also see flaws already and as in more than 20 years I have been legislator, so I also say to many people I’m not afraid also to do some regulation because never has any sector to come to please that please regulate me. It was not environment, it was not climate change, it was not pushing the human rights aside if it was benefited by some big companies. So we need to have this dialogue, we need to have democracies to take the decisions where the society go. But as explained here it is not always very simple but I pass on the message that we were doing in the European Parliament also. What is illegal offline, what is illegal on the streets should not be legal in the digital sphere. Most of the issues are developed together in the society via democratic decision making so that we have the rights that we enjoy today, so why to destroy that when we go online. So building democracies inclusive and human-centered also in the digital governance should be grounded in the cooperation and anchored in the international standards. So today’s session is about what works, not just identifying challenges but also highlighting the positive roles parliamentarians can play to harness digital tools for transparency, participation and rights protection. So let’s explore together how we can collectively shape a digital future that serves all. So the first speaker on the introducing the AI treaty, a treaty for everyone. We will look the most important recent developments into international digital governance. The adoption mentioned in the opening session framework convention on the artificial intelligence by Council of Europe, which is the first international treaty to regulate AI based on human rights, privacy and rule of law. So this blueprint offers for ensuring that AI development puts people first, give parliamentarians a unique role for translating these standards into the national actions. So we invite Mario Hernandez-Ramos on the right from my side, Chair of the Council of Europe Committee on the Artificial Intelligence to give his introductory speech, please.

Mario Hernandez Ramos: Thank you very much. Thank you very much to the Parliamentary Assembly for the invitation to be here and also to the Eurodig organization, it’s a pleasure. So any time when I start talking and giving a lecture about artificial intelligence and democracy, I always cast a question. Are we really aware how present is artificial intelligence in our daily lives? The answer is quite weird because we don’t really think about it. We use it. We use it daily. Sometimes we use it without being aware that we are using these artificial intelligence systems and sometimes we don’t know that we are using these systems. So in the essence, we don’t have a critical view to the role that artificial intelligence is playing in our daily lives and this is crucial for democracy values. Why is this? Because artificial intelligence systems give us easy solutions for complex problems. So we don’t get into a conversation, a critical conversation, we just accept them. But sometimes that can be a little bit problematic. We solve problems without trading off. But this is a misconception behind this way of thinking. We think that artificial intelligence is like maths, mathematics. Maths are natural, maths are objective, but this is wrong. Artificial intelligence is not natural, is not objective, not at all. There are interests of the designers, they are biased. Not only the design, also on the data set. So even many people, many legal actors, even in the public sector, because they don’t have this critical thinking or critical view, they use artificial intelligence without being aware of the consequences and the risk that the use of artificial intelligence systems pose to fundamental rights, fundamental democracy, and rule of law principles. Once we are very clear that artificial intelligence pose risk on fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law, it is clear that we need to regulate it. But this need for regulation is not a specific debate. Sometimes there has been a debate whether to regulate or not to regulate artificial intelligence. The reason for that is that maybe regulation undermines the innovation of the technology. And of course, this is a false dichotomy like the Human Rights Commissioner and the Secretary General just pointed out. Since artificial intelligence is everywhere and every time, sooner or later the problems will arise. If there is not specific regulation, judges will have to innovate in their solutions, will have to innovate legal standards. And that is quite problematic from several principles of the rule of law and also from the democracy. The Court of Europe is leading the regulation on these matters. Now we have the first ever legally binding international treaty on artificial intelligence and human rights, democracy and rule of law. But it was not an easy task. Committee on Artificial Intelligence faced different dilemmas and very difficult ones. For the sake of time, please allow me to focus on the two mains from my point of view. The first one is that we have to face is how detailed should the convention be? The more detailed or the more legally detailed, the better for the sake of principle of legality and legal certainty. The Committee of Artificial Intelligence is composed of a wide branch of actors. There are 64 representatives of industry, academy and civil society, 46 European countries of the Council of Europe, the European Union itself, and very different countries with very different… different backgrounds, legal backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, economic backgrounds like USA, Canada, and Australia, Latin American countries like Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Peru, and other countries like Holy See, Israel, and Japan. So the more legally specific the Framework Convention is or will be, the more difficult to reach an agreement among these different countries. So the final decision, it was not an easy one, was to uphold and agree on common and general principles more than a detailed regulation. But those principles are essential to any kind of regulation for artificial intelligence focused on human values. Principles like human dignity, individual autonomy, transparency, accountability, responsibility, equality and no discrimination, reliability, and procedural, several procedural safeguards. So the second challenge, and this is even a more difficult one, was the issue about the scope of the Framework Convention. There was an issue regarding national security. Surprisingly, this issue was solved not very easily, but quite, not fast, we cannot say fast, but most of the countries were quite in agreement to leave the national security out of the scope, but also making reference that any kind of action for the sake of national security should respect human rights, democracy, and rule of law. But the main problematic point regarding the scope was regarding the private sector, how to regulate the private sector, the activity of the private sector when they are dealing with artificial intelligence. One position was that there was the public and the private sector should have the same standards and the same principles. The other position was in favor of allow different regulation for private sector and public sector. The final decision was to agree on a minimal obligation for private sector, different from the public sector, and this is about to address risk and impact assessment. But this is a minimal that the state can accept, but the states can increase, so it’s not compulsory minimal standards. It’s a minimal standard, but the states can increase obligations for their private sector. So everybody, every party, sorry, had to trade off in order to reach an agreement and in order to become the treaty a reality. But above all, there was a leading idea in the negotiation and drafting process. We needed to be able to agree on common standards and principles on regulating artificial intelligence to give a united and universal political message to the world, that we could agree on common perception about the risk of AI and that we don’t need to depend on national frontiers and legal perceptions. Now that the Framework Convention is finished, another step must be taken. So far, 14 countries, including USA, United States of America, Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, Israel, European Union, on behalf of 27 countries, have signed the Framework Convention, but we need five ratifications in order that the Framework Convention gets enforced. We need five ratifications, at least, that these principles will become compulsory, and the national parliamentarians play a key role in this key step. Also, in taking into account the Framework Convention in the national legislation about artificial intelligence, only if we are truly convinced that we must protect human rights and defend democracy and rule of law with a common and shared understanding, will it be possible for us to protect humanity and its way of life based on human values and respect from dangers that artificial intelligence poses. Those we already know, but above all, those are yet to come. Thank you very much.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much, and remember, it’s good to have an expert on the Convention with us for the debate later on, so be prepared to pose questions and comments. Next phase, we have the parliamentary perspective, and not only from Europe, but also from Africa. How the parliamentarians guide this change on the ground. So next speakers will have insights from the regional and international perspective. The first, let me give the floor to Zeynep Yildiz, is that the way to pronounce? My colleague from this plenary hall, representing Turkey, Member of Parliament of Turkey, and she will have the first round, and then we go for Neema, please.

Zeynep Yıldız: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, actually, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, actually, this is a really great honor for me to be there. Let me introduce myself, firstly, I’m Zeynep Yildiz, I’m representative of Ankara, Turkey, and also I’m representing Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe here, and again, it’s a great honor to be with you today, and to speak on behalf of Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe, a unique platform that brings together parliamentarians from all 46 member states, we represent different countries, cultures, and political views, but we share common commitment to democracy, human rights, and rule of law, values that are more important than ever in the digital age. Now, it had been a significant time since Alan Turing or Cahit Arif first asked, can machines think? The dynamic between society, law, and the economy has long been at the core of humanity’s most profound intellectual inquiries. But now, as the digital world continues to evolve at a rapid speed, as parliamentarians, we need to take concrete steps to make sure this AI economy evolves human-centered. We know that the dynamic between society, law, and the economy has long been discussed which one follows the others, and our assembly has worked hard to make sure that this transformation is grounded on democratic principles. We have long believed that artificial intelligence and digital technologies must serve people, not replace or undermine them. To have legal regulation with enforcement is only a possibility to make decisions collectively on the global level. PACE was actually one of the first parliamentary bodies to call for a binding international treaty on artificial intelligence. In our reports and debates, we have highlighted the need for strong safeguards, human oversight, clear accountability, and full transparency in how these technologies are developed and used. I’m proud that assembly support played an important part in shaping the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, the first international treaty of its kind. It’s a big step forward, and one we will continue to support by ensuring parliaments play their role for its ratification and implementation. But we know that our work doesn’t stop at AI. We have also looked closely at how digital technologies affect democracy more broadly, and in particular, how the freedom of expression and digital inclusion are influenced by content moderation practices, algorithmic biases, and online surveillance. To name but a few, we have sounded the alarm about threats such as online propaganda, disinformation, defects, and spyware. And we’ve spoken out. As parliamentarians, we have a special role to play. We are not just observers of the change, we are shapers of it. We turn principles into laws, and we help make sure that democratic accountability keeps up with technological innovation. Looking ahead, we will keep building partnerships with international parliaments, with civil society, and with international networks to make sure that digital governance remains truly democratic. We fully support digital progress, but even more than that, we believe in protecting human dignity, freedom and equality. Let’s make sure technology works for people and not the other way around. I would like to thank again the Presidency of Luxembourg for gathering us today under the umbrella of EuroDIG, and also the Council of Europe for having CAI, because we know that the Council of Europe is also one of the first international institutions directly focusing on artificial intelligence. We know that a global legal framework is needed in order to have enforcement power. Thank you for your participation.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much, and welcome from African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance. I know, very active network, very concrete also. Now the Chairwoman Neema Lugangira, my good friend, welcome on board and bring us greetings from your network and activity. Neema is a Member of Parliament from Tanzania.

Neema Lugangira: Thank you very much. I would like to first obviously recognize my dear friend, Honorable Omia Petra, Vice President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, and I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate you on this important role, but I must also express our sincere gratitude to the Council of Europe through the great leadership of the Secretary General, Alan, for ensuring that during this session we will also be able to include those of us coming from the Global South, and for recognizing the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance, and I would like to recognize my colleague, Honorable Esther Posaris, Member of Parliament from Kenya, and believe it or not, we have literally just arrived from a 20-hour flight and two stops of train station, and do not ask where did we change to look this fabulous. Don’t ask us that question. But we are here and looking good. But that goes to show the commitment of parliamentarians in making sure that we make it here on time, and we are part of this conversation. I would also like to thank Albina and your entire team from the Council of Europe, and also my good friend Sandra from the EuroDIG for all your support. I also see in the room that we have Mr. Chengetai from the IGF Secretariat. You know, the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance was established through the endorsement of the UN IGF Secretariat, so we are very grateful for the continued support. Now, today’s conversation is very important because we’re talking about a critical component, and as my colleagues have mentioned, we have a number of moving factors. We have the Council of Europe Convention on Artificial Intelligence, which was endorsed on 17th May 2024. But we also have the Inter-Parliamentary Union Resolution on Artificial Intelligence that was adopted on 17th October 2024, of which I am one of the co-rapporteurs. But we also have the African Union Artificial Intelligence Strategy that was endorsed on 18th July 2024. And alongside that, because the topic here today is about democracy, the Association of African Election Authorities also recognized the role that digital tools play in elections. And on 27th February 2024, the Association of African Election Authorities endorsed guidelines for digital and social media use in African elections. So all of these moving things, and there’s a number of other things that are ongoing. And I think the most important factor here is to make sure that all of these don’t go in silo. We need to bring it together because artificial intelligence, digital, it’s cross-border. And I think having such a conversation whereby we can have parliamentarians from different parts of the world coming together, sharing experiences and learnings, it will make sure that when we’re trying to implement these different conventions and policies and acts, there will be synergy between the parliamentarians so that we can make sure whatever we aim to put in place can actually be implemented. For example, a lot of the digital companies and AI companies come from the Global North, that is developed countries, whereas they also operate in the Global South, where we are developing countries. And we may not have in place the same policy and regulatory framework. So I can take, for example, within the EU, we have the EU AI Act. And tech companies will operate in a certain way, adhering to the EU AI Act. But the very same companies, if they operate in the African continent, where we do not have similar act in place, all of those regulations and good behavior is thrown out of the window. But if we are working together and we have this synergy, we can try and say how can we also include, perhaps within the EU Act and other acts that are being developed, that there should be a minimum level of acceptable global behavior, irrespective of where the company operates, as long as the company originates from a certain country. So those are things that we can discuss together. But also going very quickly, we recognize that there is great potential of using digital tools to enhance digital governance. And very quickly, I’ll just share a few important opportunities. First opportunity, and this is linked to us as parliamentarians in our parliaments, the use of digital tools can strengthen participatory democracy by reaching a wider audience in the society, as well as, and that will strengthen civic participation. But it can also be cost effective. Instead of having to go and have rallies in each and every ward or each and every area, you could perhaps hold those using digital tools, so it will reduce the costs. But it also increases engagement, as well as reach that I just mentioned, it supports informed decisions, and it strengthens community partnerships, improves transparency, but also attracts the younger generation to participate in civic education. However, like anything, there are challenges. And challenges for democracy in particular, is that it can increase, you know, the inequality in digital civic engagement, especially those coming from rural areas, or those who have limited internet connectivity. But at the same time, you know, the digital divide can be even broader. There can be information overload, as well as misinformation. But there can also be issues of silencing and surveillance. That is another challenge. And the other challenge is that it creates an opportunity for a scary level of technology facilitated gender-based violence, in particular, on women in politics. Very recently, we have seen, I’m not sure if that is the case on this side of the world, but we have seen on our side of the world, there is the AI known as Grok on the Twitter X. And this Grok, a person can take a picture of a female leader and post it on the Twitter X, rather, and tell Grok, excuse the language that I’m going to use, tell Grok, I want you to undress, make her wear a bikini. And the Grok would do it. And this has been done for a number of women leaders from the African continent, which is something that should not be allowed to happen. But it is happening. And when leaders see that, how are you going to protect yourself as a leader? Our photos, this is a professional photo, you have been dressed professionally, someone uses it, and if it goes to your constituency in your region, how are you going to say that it wasn’t me? It’s a created picture. So, in the long run, what does that do? It will diminish, and it will take us, the democratic space of increasing the number of women in democracy will be taken back. Young women are not going to want to put themselves through that. More women are not going to want to put themselves through that. And those of us that are there, you’re constantly now scared, what do you do? You’re in the public eye, but you’re just waiting for Grok to undress you and place you wherever you have to. And they can time it. If that happens when you’re at the peak of your election campaign, people can lose seats, especially in the African continent where the culture and the norms and the others. Those are the downsides of this topic. Obviously, as much as there’s great potential of use of digital tools, artificial intelligence towards accelerating social economic development, this is across sectors, health sector, education sector, agriculture, disaster risk reduction, you name it. But we also have to address and talk about these risks. In order for us to harness the benefits of emerging technologies such as AI and others that will come forward, we need to have a clear policy and regulatory framework in place. A policy and regulatory framework in place that will not hinder the innovative side, but it will protect and ensure that there is safe use of emerging technology, there is ethical use, and we protect the users. The users and the non-users are also protected. So as I conclude, what I would like to call for is to see how can we make sure that all of these different efforts that are ongoing can be domesticated at national level. How can we support developing countries to take all of these different moving blocks and come up with robust national artificial intelligence policies and national artificial intelligence legislation that will contribute towards strengthening the AI and the use of the digital era, ensuring that we harness the benefits while we protect democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. And with that said, I think it creates a good opportunity for the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to collaborate with other parliamentary networks such as the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance so that we can continue to have exchange and learning with each other, and by doing so, we will be able to address these ethical issues, to leverage on emerging technologies such as AI, and to foster collaborative governance. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much. Yes, as many said, it is not something in the future, but it is where are we now. Could have something done before by regulating or framework or just good attitude of everyone on board? Are we too late or are we doing something too early? All that is a lively debate everywhere. We go further now with some exchange with parliamentarians in the audience, and then we open the floor for everyone. But then parliamentary voices here prepared with us are some, so that I will give the floor now first to Marijana Puljak, who is also in her room, she knows, she is a member of parliament in Croatia and also a member of the PASE delegation and this assembly. So Marijana, please.

Marijana Puljak: Thank you so much. I like to start with the sentence that is behind you that says safeguarding human rights by balancing regulation and innovation. So balancing, that is the word we often hear, especially in Europe. So many times we heard that sentence that Europe likes to regulate while others innovate, but I believe this is really a false choice. We can and we must, we must do both. I must say at the beginning that I am by vocation IT engineer, so for 25 years I was working as IT engineer and then becoming member of parliament in Croatia, and I see artificial intelligence not as a threat, but as a historic opportunity to create smarter, more transparent and more inclusive democracies. Yes, of course we need ethical guardians, rights-based frameworks and democratic oversight. In that sense we have excellent tool now, Framework Convention by Council of Europe, but we also need courage to innovate in the public sector, in local communities, in education, in small start-ups. That’s where the real democratic transformation begins. I can now maybe tell an example from my city where I come from, city of Split in Croatia. We are already using artificial intelligence in city administration. We are applying data and digital tools for smart city solutions, make urban planning more transparent, improve public services and involve citizens in decision-making. These are really early steps, but they prove that digital innovation can serve democracy, not undermine it. Also in Croatia we see this contrast clearly. Our IT industry is an industry, it’s very, I would say, healthy, fast-moving, creative and internationally successful, from AI start-ups to cyber security companies, etc. But the public sector is still catching up. We need stronger political will to modernize institutions, accelerate digital transformation and build real bridges between innovation and regulation. This morning on one of the workshops here I asked how can we help small start-ups and public institutions navigate the complex web of AI regulation, including the new framework. The response was, I must say, what I hear was encouraging. Some visual interactive tools are being developed, or at least we are thinking of developing it to guide local governments and innovators through compliance. And that’s exactly what we need. Because regulation without support leads to exclusion, but regulation with right tools leads to empowerment. So I would conclude with saying let’s reject the false choice between regulation and innovation, let’s balance them with a purpose, and let’s make sure that AI doesn’t happen to democracies, but with democracy and in service for all its citizens. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Then I have another question, or ask for the floor beforehand, is Maria-Nefeli Vasileiou Chatziioannidou from Greece, also member of this Assembly. Member from Greece, your floor please.

Maria-Nefeli Vasileiou Chatziioannidou: Hello, my name is really difficult, I’m from Greece, so it’s a 14-letter surname. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a great pleasure to be here today, not only as a parliamentarian, but as someone who was born in two parallel worlds, in the digital and the analog world. For us, under the age of 40, our first, let’s say, democracy was always being part digital. Our first political debates happened in political forums, and maybe in comment sections as well. Our first movement started with hashtags, our civic identities didn’t only transform through school and public institutions, but by the messy, often thrilling, but often toxic environment of the internet. And yet, we are all very worried. We are worried because we see people engaging and disengaging, not because they don’t care about how technology is going, but because they don’t feel seen and they don’t feel safe. I see young people mobilizing around issues like climate change, human rights, artificial intelligence, but they really lose their faith in the systems meant to support them. I see people trying only to be drawn later by hate, by misinformation, and by algorithms that reward rage and hate over reason. And this, I believe, is the paradox of digital democracy we are experiencing at the moment. We are more connected than ever, but democratic participation feels more fragile, more fragmented, and sometimes futile. So what we can do, what we can do, all of us, but also as parliamentarians? First, we need to reclaim digital spaces as democratic spaces. That means platforms should not be free to operate opaque algorithms or only on profit motives of a handful of tech companies. We need transparent government, we need stronger content accountability, and clear public interest obligations for platforms that now function as our new towns, our new neighborhoods, that we interact online. Second, we need digital resilience, and by meaning digital resilience, I don’t mean only cyber security. It is social and civic resilience. We must empower citizens, especially our youth, to navigate information critically, to protect themselves from manipulation, and to engage constructively. This means more than just media literacy, it means democracy. Thank you for joining us for this evening’s discussion on the importance of digital literacy. Third, inclusion must become the design principle, not an afterthought. If our engagement strategies only reach the digitally privileged, we are excluding huge parts of our population. And finally, we need to shift from engagement to empowerment. Encouraging is not enough. Citizens must see that their digital voices do shape outcomes. That their feedback isn’t just a checkbox, but a mandate. New models of participatory democracy, digital town halls, citizen assemblies, real-time policy polling, can build actually that bridge. The future of democracy will not be decided only in marble buildings nowadays. It will be shaped by the rules, by the coding, by the culture of our online lives as well. And we as parliamentarians must rise to that challenge. Because democracy should not only survive the digital age, but it must own it. Thank you very much.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: And then one more member of parliament, and then please everyone be prepared for the debate. Mrs. Esther Passaris, member of Pan-African Parliament and representing also Parliament of Kenya. Please.

Esther Passaris: Thank you, Madam Chair. I begin by recognizing my sister and colleague and president of the African Parliamentary Network of Internet Governance, APNIC, Ms. Neema Lugangira. For the work that she’s done, for telling the truth that many prefer to ignore, we didn’t come all this way just to be heard. We came so that we can be able to shape a digital future that doesn’t just work for the North, but works for everyone. What we have heard today is that AI is both a promise and a peril. It can empower, but it can also endanger, especially women in public life. The grotesque misuse of tools like grog to dehumanize female leaders is not only an attack on our dignity. It is also a direct assault to democracy. I say this not as a woman leader in Kenya. I also say it as our silence will not protect us. We must demand AI governance that protects not just data, but dignity, not just innovation, but inclusion. The Council of Europe Framework Convention, the AEU’s AI strategy, the IPU resolutions, these are all critical. But unless they are translated into national laws, enforced across borders, and backed by real support for capacity building in the global South, they remain but noble words. We must ensure that tech companies do not apply double standards, respecting the rights of EU while disregarding them in Africa. And we must build policy frameworks that defend both the users and the non-users, especially in societies where connectivity and illiteracy gaps still exist. So I echo the call, let’s synergize these global frameworks, build capacity for implementation, and never forget that a digital future without human dignity at its core is not a future at all. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much. I’m pretty sure that now we really have food for thoughts, and then you have your participants, you have your message to take up. So I now open the floor for everyone to just like raising your hands, and we try to get the figures, the numbers. And online, do we have the one? Okay. We have one still online, which is great. We have a Maltese MP who was supposed to be here, but we will have instead Marco Emanuele, who is like Parliamentary Assembly of Mediterranean Senior Research, online participating. Yes, we see you, and I hope we can also have your message to the plenary, and then please be prepared to raise your hands. We can have a debate for 20 minutes after.

Marco Emanuele: Thank you for this opportunity. It’s a great pleasure and honor to speak in this very important session for us, for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean. The Council of Europe is a very important international subject on the asset of AI. Very briefly, I want to underline that today’s topic of discussion highlights the importance of cooperation between parliaments to ensure that digital development promotes and guarantees human rights, safeguards, freedoms, and generates human, integral human development in the context of strengthening democratic… Let me underline that the Pact for the Future, launched by the United Nations in September 2024, identifies a series of specific actions under the heading Science, Technology and Innovation and Digital Cooperation. Three points in our opinion. First, at the national level, public-private partnerships for responsible technological innovation must be improved. I agree with the past intervention, which said that there is no competition between innovation and regulation. Second, the risk faces the age of technological revolution by our parliaments to creatively rethink national security strategies. Thirdly, we need to invest in digital literacy on a global scale. This is a very sensitive risk because it jeopardizes democratic resilience and this concerns the proliferation of hate speech, extremism and radicalization online, misinformation and disinformation, and cyber attacks on strategic, physical, and digital infrastructure. All phenomena that are increasingly AI-driven. To conclude, another point is the importance of the fact that the largest social media platforms, most recently Meta, have abolished the internal fact-checking of published content. For us, in PAM, we have an ongoing work on the asset of AI and emerging technology. In particular, we publish a daily and weekly digest, which brings together updates and analysis from think tanks and specialized websites. In terms of research, on November 2025, our think tank, Center for Global Studies, published a report entitled Malicious Use of AI and Emerging Technologies by Terrorists and Criminal Groups, Impact on Security, Legislation and Governance, which was presented to the United Nations Security Council. PAM is finalizing a report entitled Resilience of Democratic Systems in Relation to the Misuse of AI, ICT and Other Emerging Technologies, currently undergoing peer review by international experts. Thank you for your attention.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: The next one is number 396. Yes please, introduce yourself.

Audience: Thank you, thank you, can you hear me? My name is Wout de Natris-van der Borght. I’m the coordinator of a dynamic coalition of the IGF called Internet Standards, Security and Safety. I’d like to reflect on the first speaker and on Ms Neema, first the convention that you had to take into consideration the private sector and their demands and Ms Neema you said that they chuck everything overboard as soon as they start talking to the global south. I’m not advocating regulation here, we’re just throwing in a devil’s advocate. There’s not a car that goes on the road without regulation in place, there’s not a plane allowed in the air without regulation and oversight, there’s not an appliance that we use in our home that does not have a form of regulation. The internet is here for over 30 years and we still allow it to go on the digital road without brakes, without a safety net, whatever, without brake lights, anything. So where is the trade-off between our individual and societal safety and security and innovation? Because cars get innovated, planes get innovated, let alone appliances get innovated, the internet will get innovated also because people just do what they do and perhaps there’s a need by now for some rules that have to come into place. So what is the trade-off? That’s one, what do you take into consideration to get to a consensus and the other is how can we make sure that other countries in the world that do not have that form of legislation can get the same sort of guaranteed security that the west or the north or whatever we call it is able to get. So I’m just curious what your answer is. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: We take a round of the MPs here on the floor, but we can take it in the end if possible but then also do I see the more floor? I see one, yes, 065.

Audience: Thank you very much. I’m from Georgia, I represent the personal data protection service of Georgia and I’m also the member of the committee of artificial intelligence. Thank you very much for such interesting presentations and I’m really happy to be here and listen to different ideas and opinions regarding the AI and especially analyzing the perspective from the different principles regarding the democracy rule of law and last week we held, we hosted the event in Batumi, Georgia regarding the AI and it was called the spring conference and multiple different data protection authorities were attending. This event held the different topics but one of the most important one was related to the artificial intelligence. During one of my speeches I mentioned that two months ago there was a huge topic related to one of the artificial intelligence that were launched back in February 2025 and Professor Wojciech Wibierowski mentioned that event as a Sputnik event that underlined the significance between the speed and race, invisible race between the scientists, IT programmers and also the legislators and lawyers were trying to catch up with each other. So my question is related to the speed that we are currently, at which speed we are currently traveling, is this the speed that will catch up with the news and with the new possibilities and challenges related to the AI? As Sam Altman mentioned, the five years is a huge time to understand where we are going and what we are going to face at the end and as we currently are at the lowest level of the AI types, what we are going to do, when we are going to upgrade this level and maybe reach the general AI or super AI models? Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much. And then 136, please.

Audience: Thank you. Also, thank you very much for this interesting panel. I’m kind of reacting to this and posing a question regarding regulation and when you, I’m concerned in data protection and when you have new ventures, you spend more money on regulatory compliance than on the invention itself. So the effort to be compliant is increasing and the European Commission tried to be ahead of technology with the AI Act and I have doubts if this is really working. So, it creates a lot of bureaucracy, it creates a lot of load on the innovators. At the same time, since we don’t know what this technology is actually going to do, we see that it does not really address the important issues. So we are regulating something because we think it might have some effects, but we don’t know these effects and at the same time, we are not addressing the real risks and we can’t other than run behind technology. We can’t be before technology. It’s simply not possible. We will run regulation in a direction that we are thinking that technology is heading, but actually technology will do other things, will have other implications than we assume with regulation. So I think this approach has to be questioned whether we can really run in front of technology with regulation. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you and you forgot to introduce yourself.

Audience: My name is Jan Erbgut. I’m a member of the program committee. I’m a consultant on data protection and new technology. I’m affiliated with the University of Geneva.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you so much. So now I think we have a panel here ready to speak and if I also act as an MP, I also take part. From the very last one, I was very much talking as I was a member of the European Parliament and also a part of this regulation of AI Act and it was a common question that you were asking here also that if can you regulate something that has not been innovated yet and I said easily because it doesn’t regulate the technology, it only regulates the use cases. When there is this risk pyramid that when you are risking with AI democracy, when you are risking a human right, then there is a quite clear framework that what is allowed and what is not. Now we of course wait a commission to prepare also codes of contact which is like to clarify it more. So my question for some lobbyists and What are you trying to innovate if you cannot respect the democracy, or what are you trying to innovate if you cannot protect human rights? So these kind of high risks have been something that the European Union has been regulating along. It’s true that AI, and what the focus is as described here also for the Council framework, that what is the AI, what are you trying to regulate, is a side question always, that once it’s machine learning and when it’s AI. But you could get rid of that a little bit when you start thinking of the use cases. I don’t like the idea that new oil, because oil is not illimited as AI is, but I like to think of something like medicines. Would you like to call the pharmacy every time and say first you give your consent, then we don’t know yet because we want to support innovations. So we don’t give you security on the medicines that they are safe to use in our markets. So with this kind of frameworking, that is it safe to use for the human good, is the principle behind the AI act and regulation. And as I said in the beginning, I’ve been the legislator for 25 years, and quite often we go back to the same regulation to shape it better if it was not perfect the very first time we did the regulation. So that’s why you still have ministries of education, ministries of social affairs, ministries of science, because the regulation is moving and new laws come and the new one should be better than the old one. So this was very close to my work before, and this is the idea behind. If it’s perfect, let’s see. Is it too much bureaucracy for small? Yes. But then also when we are regulating something that has not been there yet, it’s still a good time to start earlier than later. This is one perspective of the idea behind, and it’s still coming. For example, my national parliament of Finland will have the ratification debate on AI act this Wednesday, so the government is proposing how to put it in the national law starting the work this week. So I go back to national and localize it, as was said here before. So, other topics you want to use and take the floor, we call the same order, so do you want to pick up one of the questions that was posed?

Zeynep Yıldız: Actually, not to pick one of them, but to give a general answer covering all of the questions indeed. Actually, as you mentioned, it’s about our priorities to decide what will be the prior step to reshape the future. Actually, people face with many other difficulties regarding irregulated technological developments throughout the human history. So, we are on the turning point to reshape regulatory bodies to build up a better future indeed. For instance, when we take GDPR as an example, now we are talking about privacy, protection of personal data as a principle of democracy and human rights, because privacy is one of the basic rights. But when it comes to the usage of data, usage of personal data, it should be regulated and the European Union regulated that and also we adapted our legal framework to that legal approach as well. So, if that hadn’t been in that way, that would be harder for people to figure out how their data is used. And also, when it comes to transparency case, when we look at the convention regarding artificial intelligence, we see that transparency is a core value for having a concrete approach in artificial intelligence. And still, the algorithms are not so transparent as it should be and this is still a problem for the lawmakers, I think, to be honest, because we need to first see what we are facing. Because in order to regulate something, you need first what’s going on and I think the engineers who are developing these technologies should be much more transparent with sharing the possible results because cyber security and other points are so important. So, we need to see what’s going on to have much more concrete sanctions. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you. And Neema?

Neema Lugangira: Thank you very much. I would like to really emphasize and echo what our colleague, one of the contributors, mentioned. The fact that in other sectors, we are okay of regulations. And, you know, the car example is a very, very good example. And I think all of us need to find ways to make sure we have similar with digital tools, emerging technology, such as AI, etc. Because without doing so, then we’re kind of being hypocritical in the sense because digital technology is trans-border, cross-border. So, how do we make sure that emerging technologies, such as AI, will be used in a safe and ethical way? And the excuse that having policy and legislation, you know, shrinks innovation is not true. But we need to ensure that we also capacitate parliamentarians to understand digital technology, to understand these tools, to understand emerging technology, to understand the benefits. You know, and there’s a new initiative from the GIZ called Female AI Leaders that is focusing on the African continent. It’s starting with five countries to try and see how can they capacitate women political leaders to be champions of AI. And this is GIZ in partnership with the women political leaders. And very recently, actually just on Saturday, we had a session in Tanzania with female parliamentarians. And we hope to do it regionally, East Africa, Southern, etc. Another key point that we haven’t touched on, but I think it’s important to touch on, and this is an area of great interest to Honorable Esther Passaris, is the issue of digital economy. There’s a lot of fraud that is being done through using, you know, digital tools and emerging technology. So we need to also have some sort of mandatory digital literacy on financial scams and things like that. Third one that I wanted to highlight is also, you know, the preying on child rights, you know, child exploitation and abductions and things like that. These days, people can use technology. It’s an adult person, but talking as if it’s a child. And it’s creating even problems for even Interpol to be able to track the perpetrators because they’re using voices such as children. How do you then prove that this person was an adult? So there’s a number of things. But all in all, I think to conclude is that having such conversations is important. But more so having these conversations at the beginning, you know, the design phase of a project, at the beginning of drafting policies, at the beginning of drafting legislations, having these learnings so that our colleagues from the European side, our colleagues from other developed nations can also try and accommodate concerns from our side. Because in terms of that power, you know, power ladder, we sit on a disadvantage point compared to our colleagues. So I think it’s important having these conversations together so that we can make sure we create an enabling environment. But still an environment that will ensure that there is, you know, AI for good. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you. And the final comment from Mario Hernandez Ramos, please.

Mario Hernandez Ramos: Thank you very much. For the first question, sorry I didn’t write down your name or affiliation, but thank you very much for the question because that question is not an easy one to respond. And of course, we’re not satisfied with you at all. Since we are not satisfied with the general outcome at all, like in general terms, we are very satisfied. But from several point of views, we’ll prefer to stress on other points. But as I told you, from different legal perspectives, we need to get into an agreement. The alternative of not having the private sector regulated like this was not having Fremont Convention. So the agreement was reached in the last minute of the last day of the last plenary session to be reached because of this question. So I’m very happy that you raised this question because we still think about it. But at least we have these minimal obligations. And these minimal obligations, I’m pretty sure, will be met. We should have opened the door for more ambitious national regulations. So if you read, for instance, the new executive order about artificial intelligence of the new administration, of the Trump administration, there’s not a lot of change from the Biden administration. So sometimes we need to go through and detail legal norms in order to understand better what is the reality of the regulation. But of course, it’s a true problem. But in order to understand also this agreement of the frame of convention, it’s very important to bear in mind that there are more instruments of legal regulation, like the European Union Regulation, and all of them, from my point of view, and I’m a constitutional law professor, they have a complementary relationship, very clearly. So it’s not, from my point of view, it’s not the right way in order to focus the regulation of artificial intelligence and not to try only one piece of regulation, but in all the landscape of the regulation. We need legally binding instruments, we need United Nations regulations, we need the Council of Euroregulations, we need European Union regulations, we need software regulations in the academia, in the industry, in every place. And all these kind of pieces of regulations, I think, construe a landscape which is a list and a start for regulating a technology that we don’t know how far can go in order to make risks to fundamental rights. I would like also to comment about this affirmation that there is no innovation in Europe, or we spend more money in the government systems. From my point of view, and studying the innovations in the public sector, at least in my country but other countries, there are innovations in Europe. There are a lot of innovations in artificial intelligence. Of course, if we compare to China, to the United States, we are a little bit, sorry, we are delayed, of course, but we are doing our best and we are trying to catch up. But, I mean, talking about regulation like it’s a bad, or governments of artificial intelligence like a bad thing, from my point of view, it’s a mistake. Regulation is the answer, the European answer to solve problems after the Second World War. And we all know how the European countries solve the problems, among others, before the Second World War. So, this way of solving problems through law, through dialogue, through legal standards coming out of a democratic process, I think is a positive answer, and a positive stand that we need to recognize in a positive way. And then we can invest more money, of course, and then we can innovate, of course, but we shouldn’t undermine the initiative, the European initiative to regulate this artificial intelligence technology. And in that way, I would like also to stress the methodology that the Committee of Artificial Intelligence is developing, is approved also by the Committee of Ministers, it is human rights, democracy, and rule of law impact assessment, HUDERIA, which is to avoid running after the technology, it’s like a crystal ball, like Vadim used to call it, to foresee exactly what are the problems that did artificial intelligence systems will arise to fundamental rights, democracy, and rule of law. So from my perspective, from a constitutional lawyer, I think the European perspective is the right one. Another thing is money and investment, but we need to regulate a technology that significantly poses risk to our human values. Thank you.

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri: Thank you. This goes fine, because you are a lawyer and I’m the engineer. So I may now wrap up in minus 10 minutes, because we are a little bit late, as we started late as well. So what next? And shared spirit, it’s not the most easy minute to wrap up, but I will do it using the speeches by not MPs, because we work together and we will continue, but kind of what we heard from the participants. So what role for the parliamentarians, it is the state budgets, do we invest on the research together, universities, school, basic education, do the resources of the teachers include media literacy, AI literacy, or in Finland they call it multiliteracy, do we create a good atmosphere for the society with the freedom of press and others to support democracy? And on top you can build a more resilient AI and digital society as well. But then also, rather putting one against each other, regulation or innovation, I think all that budgets and surrounding is also bringing innovations. So if we do a cooperation, I would say the number one cooperation, so that cooperation across borders, parties, societies, sectors, we have mentioned here companies, academia, civil society and politicians, we can shape common standards when we do it internationally, that is also pro-innovation, it’s a pro-market way to do standards that can be copied and taken from one other country to another and not to separate 46 times or 50 times or 200 times. So there I see also the role for the UN digital compact that gave the pace for the whole globe, almost all the countries, that can be taken forward and then the regional cooperation is more quick and practical to do that. Second, I would say the accountability, so that the technology serves democracy and not the other way around. And then this framework convention that has been represented here is also open for other countries than only the Council of European Countries and we heard the list was quite covering globally and can be then continued and serve as a basis. So then inclusion, I think it’s very important that this is not a moment in the history to take backwards on the human rights or take backwards the inclusiveness of women in society as mentioned here many times and then also locally, so not the rural region is something left behind because of the connectivity missing or the resources missing there, so we can have the many dimensions for the gaps. Is it the locally that you cannot reach or because you come from another continent? So this is really the moment again that you think globally but have to act locally. So that where I see that governance that is for everyone and benefits are shared as well and not as a pyramid, everything goes to the one or two companies or regions, this is very important. Maybe I finish with the just very concrete idea from my own parliament and from Finland. The business of Finland has gathered now several years a state of AI and we’ll copy that to the parliament. We will have twice a year state of AI where we will look the possible flaws that has occurred in our own country so the people recognize those and we also see the state of AI, how many companies, how well new established AI companies, what is the progress taking on the knowledge and other place. So this is really I think one concrete possibility for the parliaments and the societies to look where are we and take it as a regular part of our development for the future. My pleasure to thank you all for the great number of participation here in this our plenary hall. I’m very happy that you will visit this heart and core of European democracy, really underlying and linking the human rights, rule of law and democracy together with the Internet development. Thank you for participation and have a good week in Juridic.

Retrieved from "https://eurodigwiki.org/mw/index.php?title=Working_Together_for_a_Human-Centred_Digital_Future_–_Parliamentary_Cooperation_for_Democratic_Digital_Governance_–_Opening_Plenary_2025&oldid=27191"