Before jumping heedlessly into the EU AI Act, I suggest we all reflect on the meaning of ‘transparency’ in a broader context than technical transparency:

The AI Act is – no different from GDPR, NIS2, and similar – ultimately made to secure transparency, accountability, legal certainty, and fundamental rights for individuals and organisations. 

However, I don’t think that we will ever reap the benefits of regulation if our state leaders and lawmakers do not display exactly those virtues. 

In my opinion, transparency is a prerequisite for trust, and trust is a prerequisite for a well-functioning democratic society. And that’s why we should use the EU AI Act as a catalyst for discussing the necessity of transparency.

Trust in vital democratic institutions is dropping

EU citizens are losing trust in European governments and institutions year after year. In fact, on average, EU citizens trust the news media more than their own governments according to Eurofund.

 The documented examples of the decline in trust are many, but here is a summary:

• EU citizens’ trust in their national governments has dropped by 24.5% from 2020 to 2022 according to a study from Eurofund.
  
  
• 61% of Danish lawyers consider the legal certainty decreased over the last year, says a recent study made by the Danish Bar and Law Society on the status of legal certainty and rule of law in Denmark.
  
  
• According to a survey made by OECD called Trust in government, 47.8% find it likely that a high-level political official would grant a political favour in exchange for the offer of the prospect of a well-paid job in the private sector.
  
  

The cherry on top is to connect the dots between trust and democracy. In that relation, it is well-documented that trust is paramount for a well-functioning democracy.

In fact, a UK study shows that more than 30% find declining trust to be the biggest threat for democracy.

Or put to the extremes:

No trust means no democracy.

The examples of political accountability and transparency are, unfortunately, non-existing

I read a commentary in a Danish newspaper about the political handling of Lars Findsen In this commentary, Martin Lavesen and Andrew Hjuler Crichton, respectively president and general secretary, of the Danish Bar and Law Society said it spot-on:

”The means to overcome mistrust is instead transparency.”

As a firm believer in #transparencyfirst, I couldn’t agree more.

Unfortunately, though, it is hard to find examples of political leadership displaying exactly that. Transparency, that is.

That goes irrespective of political beliefs.

In Denmark, the examples of political leadership show the contrary.

Just to name one, the political handling of the former head of the Danish Defence Intelligence Service, Lars Findsen, is the ‘perfect’ example of how NOT to display transparency, legal certainty, and accountability. 

Honestly, it exhausts me too much to recap the story, so I would rather refer to this article in The Guardian for background.

Fast-forwarding to October and November 2023 when the Danish Attorney General dropped all the charges against both Lars Findsen and Claus Hjort Frederiksen.

Many political parties along with non-political stakeholders, such as the Danish Bar and Law Society, were strongly in favour of a fully transparent investigation into the political involvement of the case.

The reasoning behind the ask for a full and transparent investigation was sound and solid. Obviously, we need answers and transparency when the government allows extensive surveillance and wiretapping of a person, who was known to be a critic of several central persons in the government, and it all ends in, well, nothing but a charade of pushing responsibility around and closing the case down for the public.

Unfortunately, a narrow majority in Danish Parliament decided on a restricted and slim-scoped investigation that does not at all include the political involvement. Again, political integrity was for sale for influence.

So, instead of displaying transparency and saying: “We have nothing to hide, come and have a look,” the government repeats the same story that has been repeated by other governments:

“Let’s see if we can put the blame on the public servants instead of the political leaders.” 

And just a side note here: I can see nothing supporting the opinion that the political involvement in the case could not be investigated and unfolded without compromising state security. Those who maintain this are simply supporting the political spin and must be blindsided by their own political beliefs or ambitions.

Summing up for the EU AI Act

When we implement and interpret the EU AI Act – and other regulations down the line – l urge all compliance professionals – and frankly, citizens – to keep in mind the purposes of the act:

To secure transparency, accountability, legal certainty, and fundamental rights for individuals and organisations.

And namely to ensure transparency, we should aim to consistently force the lawmakers and state leaders to display leadership by example by providing – yes, you guessed it – transparency. If we don’t question our democratically elected leaders, we fail as citizens. No matter of our political beliefs.  

I can’t think of one example when it has worked to lead with “do what I say, not what I do.” We must demand more from our leaders. Otherwise, no regulation will fix the gap of trust in our fast-evolving digital society.   

‍