Episode 10: Opposing digitality and AI: citizens’ practices (Oct 2025)
Welcome to this anniversary episode and many thanks to our listeners who have followed the podcast up till now! In this 10th episode of our podcast on the just state in the digital era we will talk about a topic that has come up in all our case studies in the different world regions, even though in different forms, namely opposition and resistance to the state’s increasing use of digital tools and AI. From South Africa to Canada, from the Caribbean to South Korea – everywhere there are at parts of the population that do not necessarily agree with how their public administration digitalizes and automates its services. As we know, governments typically claim to implement new technologies to improve efficiency and reduce costs. However, what we often seem to find are the effects of technological determinism and solutionist thinking, meaning that technologies are applied either because they are regarded as the only possible way or simply because it is possible, without ever asking citizens about their needs and preferences. In fact, one of the key commonalities among all studied cases is that most people prefer personal interaction to interacting with machines, especially when it comes to asking questions about their specific case or wanting to explain their situation. Usually when we interact with the administration, it’s about something serious, so we expect a serious conversation partner who will actually be able to help us.
Our study shows that for different phases or levels of digital development in public services, various forms of oppositional and resistant practices can be observed. Whereas the issue of lacking trust in government institutions is identified as a key problem in South Africa and Sint Maarten, citizens in Quebec, Canada, complain about coercion and dehumanization with digitalized public services. In contrast, problems in South Korea, revolve around surveillance and malfunctioning human-machine interaction.
Interaction between humans and machines is of course a research field that has existed for some time now; so there is a range of theoretical frameworks that illuminate the reciprocal shaping of technology and society. These different approaches agree on the understanding that modern society functions as a complex human-machine social system, where machines are not merely tools but active participants in shaping social outcomes. This presumption becomes particularly prevalent in the context of citizen-state interaction, where a power imbalance is already inscribed. In a recent paper, we have argued that through digitalization and AI-driven automation new forms of dehumanization are introduced in public administration. Research has also shown that AI-mediated interactions differ from human-human interactions, for example, in terms of emotional engagement and trust. What interests us particularly in today’s episode is the body of research on resistance to digital change. Scholars have pointed out that civil society – including grassroots movements, unions, and NGOs – plays a central role in resisting AI, often countering the power asymmetries between citizens, governments, and corporations. This is also the point where our findings from the case studies in different world regions come in.
Turning to our case studies now, we see that trust can be a major reason why people turn away from or do not turn towards digital services. Both in South Africa and Sint Maarten in the so-called Dutch Caribbean this problem seems to be backed by a more general lack of trust in the government. Whereas certain scholars argue, for instance, that corruption can be reduced through online procedures, still the act of digitalizing services does not per se promote trust-building. As an interview partner in South Africa explains, there is currently a context where many people are unsure whom and which institutions they can actually trust.
“You know the media and […] the government, and I mean, we know what the government, it's been in relation to corruption, […] that there's been declining trust and politicians have politicized the media and […]; it just created this environment where you don't know who to believe and what to believe.”
This lack of trust in government institutions also seems to affect its digital services, as several interview partners indicated, and this spillover effect is observable not only in South Africa, but also in Sint Maarten. The fact that citizens often prefer to visit public agencies in person is illustrated by a citizen who stresses the sense of guarantee she gets from having a document physically stamped.
“As a business person, you could do your monthly turnover and wage tax and stuff like that [online]. But still, you need to be always on the ball. Because you need to make sure, did they process it? Because, at least when you go in person, it's stamped in front of you, you know it's in. When you do it digitally, you have to wait. And sometimes it takes a week or two before you get back the confirmation that it was processed.”
A similar quote stems from an interviewed citizen in the Canadian province of Quebec,
“I've become very cynical and distrustful because I no longer believe the proofs that are sent digitally.”
The examples from these different world regions illustrate the universal character of the problem of lack of trust vis-à-vis state institutions in the digital era.
In Quebec, there are two other main issues that are very prevalent, namely the feeling of being coerced to use digital services on the one hand and the increasing impossibility to talk to a person on the other hand. Both aspects relate to the increasing dehumanization in public services that I mentioned in the beginning, which many citizens don’t appreciate. An employee of the public ombuds institution points out the importance of leaving people a choice in this context.
“I find it a bit too easy to force people to open an online account. […] I think it's good to offer different modes of contact, and then different ways of doing things. As soon as we force people to use certain types of services, that that's the only way one can access them, I think there are people who just stop using this service because of that. So, I think it's really important to move forward, but we have to maintain the other modes [of contact] if we want everyone to be included.”
Turning to the public ombud is actually one way of opposing the current developments within public services. In the annual report of Quebec’s public ombud it is stated that for a particular public institution, in 2022, out of almost 3.5 million calls that were transferred, more than 1 million citizens gave up because the waiting time was too long. This means that these citizens were not able to speak to an agent. By publicizing citizens’ collective experiences, the ombud can exert pressure on the public administration to actually react to citizens’ needs. Another way of demonstrating resistance against current developments is collective action. As an interviewee from a public agency mentions,
“There are even interest groups in Quebec, community organizations, residents, who rightly make representations about dehumanization. So, [the problem is] to no longer have the human character in the equation of public services. They are totally right. Yes, they [the citizens] have to talk to someone. Whether they're talking to someone in person or on the phone, they have to talk to someone. This aspect will remain for several more years.” (Didier)
In our last case study, South Korea, digitalization and AI in the public sector is highly advanced, but also there, we find people who do not necessarily agree with the administration’s practices. Interviewees have, for instance, reported on the use of AI calls as well as AI dolls, as we have already mentioned in the last episode of this podcast. Citizens have stopped using the AI doll, which was supposed to remind them of taking their medicine, for example, because it broke down or they found its appearance scary. We also explained that the so-called ‘smart plug’ is increasingly applied in single households in order to monitor their movements and to detect possible accidents or other incidents with the concerned person. Whereas this system is intended as a form of protection, with the aim to send out help if required, in fact not everyone is happy with that level of surveillance. So, as an interviewed administrative staff explained, some people simply pull the plug – which can be read as an act of resistance.
In summing up, we know from history and from the scientific literature that resistance can be a crucial factor in the development, implementation, and governance of new technologies. Often, resistance arises from legitimate concerns about social change, especially among marginalized groups. But resistance to digital change can operate at both individual and systemic levels. Researchers have explored resistance to digital services in the private sector, to digital reforms within public institutions, and to AI in general – but there are still more open questions than answers. Importantly, as we have seen, digital transformation is not simply a matter of introducing new technologies, but depends on how citizens use and respond to digital and AI services over time. Understanding digital transformation in public service thus also requires attention to context-specific factors. This is particularly important when we aim to study and compare these developments in different parts of the world.
We hope that these insights gave you some new food for thought.
Thanks for listening and stay tuned!
