AI Governance for Africa > Part 3 > Section 2
Should an advocacy strategy for AI governance prioritise speed and technical expertise, or mass organising and movement-building?
A common breakdown of advocacy strategies is “advocacy for the people”, “advocacy with the people”, or “advocacy by the people”.[1] Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses, and many advocacy strategies will use elements of more than one approach.[2]
With AI governance is still in its early stages in most African countries, civil society advocacy strategies for AI regulation need to consider the pros and cons of each approach.
At first glance, a less participatory ‘expert’ intervention (a ‘for the people’ approach) may seem best suited at this early stage. Some arguments to consider:
- Speed: Expert interventions can move faster, which may be vital to meeting the urgency of the moment, given the view that Africa is behind the curve on AI governance[3] and the need for safeguards against some of the potential harms of unregulated AI.
- Limited public awareness: In most countries, AI regulation is not widely seen as an urgent social issue. It is more difficult to build a broad public intervention (a ‘by the people’ approach) without a clear crisis or public outrage which brings people together.
- Expertise: AI regulation is an especially complicated policy question. A ‘for the people’ approach may be best suited to making detailed policy recommendations, and to building a working relationship with lawmakers, policy officials, and regulators.
But even at this early stage, there may be arguments in favour of building a broader and more participatory advocacy approach. For example:
- Political clout: A broad, inclusive campaign on AI regulation may be more likely to get noticed and to influence the policy outcomes, especially in contexts where policymakers tend to be dismissive of civil society.
- Inclusion: A more participatory approach to shaping AI regulation is more likely to include the views and voices of traditionally marginalised people and groups, potentially leading to more comprehensive regulation that is better shaped to their needs.
Case study | How African CSOs organised on digital ID laws
While AI regulation is still in its infancy, the issue of digital ID offers some useful case studies on how civil society groups can advocate on digital regulation in African contexts.
In Kenya, civic groups rallied to challenge the rollout of a national identity system commonly known as Huduma Namba. The government had rolled out the system without meaningful participation, and without adequate data protection and other safeguards. CSOs used a combination of informational campaigns, online protests and calls for boycott,[4] and legal challenges including the rights of marginalised communities, which led to a court ruling suspending the scheme and striking down aspects of the policy.[5]
In Mauritius, the government scaled back aspects of a similar biometric ID system in the face of widespread public criticism,[6] and after a private citizen successfully challenged aspects of the scheme in court.[7]
These examples illustrate the combination of tools, both legal and political, which CSOs have employed to shape digital policy and protect human rights – including on complex issues with far-reaching implications. It is likely that these same tactics and others can be brought to bear in the realm of AI.
However, a review of CSO work on digital IDs found that the advocacy was usually driven by a relatively small group of organisations,[8] and generally took place after the rollout of the system: “This meant that the work done by these actors often took the form of damage control, as they attempted to mitigate harms already taking place.”[9]
Applying these lessons to AI governance, civil society bodies should consider taking a proactive approach, intervening early to set a rights-based agenda in AI law and policy.
Drawing on the examples detailed above, and considering the political context and your organisation’s capacity, a key question for building an advocacy strategy:
Which elements of each approach feel best suited to advocate for AI governance?
References
[1] See Chandler “Advocacy and Campaigning” Bond for International Development (2010).
[2] See Fida International Advocacy Manual (2022).
[3] Oxford Insights Government AI Readiness Index 2022 (2022), at 34.
[4] Nation “Huduma Namba drive off to a slow start amid protests” (4 April 2019).
[5] Privacy International “Kenyan Court Ruling on Huduma Namba Identity System: the Good, the Bad and the Lessons” (24 February 2020).
[6] Le Mauricien “The Slippery National Identity Card” (14 October 2015).
[7] Privacy International A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems (2020).
[8] The Engine Room Digital IDs Rooted in Justice: lived experience and civil society advocacy towards better systems (2021) at 15.
[9] Ibid.
Share
Navigate sections
Download Part 3
Explore the rest of the toolkit
Part 1: Introduction to AI Governance
Part 1 gives an overview of AI governance principles and approaches, and outlines international frameworks, with case studies from the European Union, the United States, and China. It discusses common concerns and themes driving AI governance.
Part 2: Emerging AI Governance in Africa
Part 2 examines existing and emerging AI governance instruments in Southern Africa – in particular, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. More broadly, it also outlines continental responses and details existing governing measures in Africa.
