The digital upheaval, which evolved from the industrial revolution, has sparked serious debate on its political consequences. Recently, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in political campaigns has intensified concerns, encouraged rigorous examination of AI's political impact and raised serious questions about the future of democracy.

Does the integration of AI, particularly generative AI represent a threat or a blessing to democracy? Does it truly strengthen democratic foundations, or does it risk embedding bias into political decision-making?

In fact, interpretation of the information is a natural function of the human mind, not of computer-based AI technology. However, the growing dependence on online tools to understand and interpret the world around us is a contemporary dilemma.

Looking at the recent happenings on the political landscape, the writer with Joseph Weizenbaum’s argument, “There are some human functions for which computers ought not to be substituted.”

At the same time, the writer also believes that technological intervention holds potential to make human political decision-making more logical and neutral, given that the data provided to the algorithmic machines remains unbiased.

Yet, the intensive use of AI-generated content and the concentration of this technology in the hands of a few powerful actors can move the world towards digital authoritarianism.

Meanwhile, history proves that power and wealth dictate technological control which may ultimately manipulate and distort the political discourse when deemed necessary. Consequently, there are growing fears that these AI-driven systems threaten the stability of democracies globally.

Algorithms decide electoral dynamics

The growing use of AI technology in election campaigns has reshaped political communication and digital media ecosystems. AI-generated political ads, automated messages, the photorealistic content, and deepfakes dominate public debate.

Beyond this, AI's powerful role in manipulating the elections has been widely reported. For instance, Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics firm, gathered millions of Facebook profiles to undertake predictive analysis to influence voting decisions.

Data from social media was used to micro-target voters. Cambridge Analytica’s involvement cast doubt on the integrity of several major elections including the U.S. presidential race, the U.K.’s Brexit referendum, Kenya’s 2013 and 2017 presidential elections, Nigeria’s 2011 poll, Mexico’s 2018 presidential race, and India’s 2014 general election. These incidents exposed how AI-driven manipulation can undermine the foundations of democratic systems worldwide.

Last year, the Romanian constitutional court annulled the results of the first round of voting in the presidential election. The decision was made after the declassification of intelligence documents proving foreign involvement in using AI-based digital technology for a massive election campaign in favour of presidential candidate Calin Georgescu.

The intelligence report revealed the usage of 2,000 Facebook pages and over 20,000 TikTok accounts to amplify the pro-Georgescu campaign content. Similar attempted interventions and use of deepfakes have been observed in the 2025 German Federal Elections.

An aggressive social media campaign and strategic targeting of young voters helped the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party capture 16 per cent of the youth vote. At the same time, questions have emerged over possible foreign digital support for the party.

Recently, while calling for the European Democracy Shield, which was introduced as a response to the spread of disinformation and fake news, Ursula von der Leyen stated, "Our democracy is under attack. The rise in information manipulation and disinformation is dividing our society. It not only erodes trust in the truth, but also in democracy itself." Her address to the European Parliament (EP) demonstrates the severity of the situation for the European Union.

Algorithmic polarisation

This severity grows even more alarming when such “controlled” online environments begin to fuel the politics of division. Every time we like, share, or even scroll, we help the algorithms understand us a little better and divide us a little more.

This statement may appear "weird”, but the truth is that platforms such as Facebook, X and TikTok are contributing to societal polarisation rather than merely reflecting it. The human brain gravitates towards "like-minded" arguments, conspiracies and sensationalism.

These platforms exploit human emotions to create filter bubbles and echo chambers for their users. The more inflammatory, provocative and insulting rhetoric we use, the more it will be circulated.

In a similar spirit, assaulting political opponents has become certain to generate attention. The more alarming scenario is that the majority of the young generation, who can be a political asset for any nation, engage in such extreme, polarised conduct. Polarisation is leading them to anger, and these platforms are generating surging profits in billions by making them aggressive.

The growing hostility towards people who have different political viewpoints has become so deeply ingrained that it is disrupting democratic norms and replacing them with political violence.

In the United States, the murder of Charlie Kirk, a Republican, in the Utah Valley University shooting incident polarised post-murder social media conversation between right-wing and left-wing political opinions.

The conflict became so heated that Utah State Governor Spencer Cox called social media a "cancer". Melissa Hortman, a Democratic lawmaker, and her husband Mark were shot dead in another politically motivated assassination.

In the United Kingdom, the deepfake audio of Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, insulting Remembrance Weekend, sparked outrage on social media. Sadiq Khan himself stated that this incident almost caused "serious disorder".

Meanwhile, the use of social media for fake news in Malaysia has also raised serious concerns. During the 15th General Election, a wide circulation of fake news was reported. Though after elections, a decline in fake news was observed, however it recently resurfaced ahead of the 17th Sabah State Election.

The government took the matter seriously, and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has been directed to hold discussions with the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) and the Election Commission (EC) to coordinate enforcement measures against the spread of fake information.

Considering the negative consequences of AI and social media algorithms, the writer believes it is extremely important to change the "Us vs. Them" mentality in a constructive way. Rules and regulations alone will not be sufficient to achieve this. It calls for a technological intervention.

Algorithms can be used to change the digital environment and rewire people's minds to support democratic values. This appears to be the best way to deal with partisanship and negative polarisation.

-- BERNAMA

Dr Rehan Tariq is an associate member of the Malaysian Association of Communication Educators (MACE) and a Lecturer at the School of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).