Political systems: origins, developments and challenges
Our political systems have deep historical roots and today manifest themselves in a variety of forms - from liberal democracies to authoritarian regimes to hybrid models that combine elements of different ideologies. Examples of these are illiberal democracies in which democratic processes merge with autocratic tendencies, or state capitalist systems that combine market economy principles with strict political control.
Basically, the following forms of government can be distinguished:
Democracy
Originally developed in the Greek city-states, it is based on political participation and majority decisions. While this system has proven itself historically, it is reaching structural limits as the population grows and social diversity increases.
Communism
Inspired by Karl Marx, this system strives for social equality through collective ownership of the means of production. In practice, however, different implementations often led to concentrations of power and economic inefficiencies.
Monarchy
For centuries, monarchy was the dominant form of government, often with religious or divine legitimacy. While some monarchies have survived to the present day as constitutional systems, absolute monarchies have largely disappeared.
Theocracy
In theocratic states, political and religious power are inextricably linked, with beliefs largely determining legislation and governance.
These systems developed over long periods of time, but were often undermined by internal corruption or abuse of power by their own leaders.
Fascism
A totalitarian ideology that enforces national unity through authoritarian control, propaganda, and repression. The most extreme forms led to unprecedented crimes against humanity.
The Nazi regime in Germany from 1933 to 1945 was responsible for the systematic persecution and murder of millions of people and is one of the worst totalitarian systems in history. According to estimates, a total of 17 million people fell victim to the Nazi regime, including:
Holocaust (Shoa): approx. 6 million Jews
Soviet prisoners of war: approx. 3 million dead
Civilians in Poland: approx. 2 million dead
Victims of the euthanasia programs: approx. 300,000 dead
Sinti and Roma: approx. 200,000–500,000 dead
Homosexuals, political opponents and other groups: tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands murdered
But fascist ideologies also led to repression, violence and mass killings in other countries.
A look at other regimes with fascist structures shows the destructive effect of this ideology in different countries and contexts. The estimated number of victims varies depending on the source, as different calculation bases, historical documentation and political interpretations make it difficult to determine an exact figure. Nevertheless, the following approximate figures can be given:
Historical fascist regimes and their casualty numbers
Italy (1922–1943, Benito Mussolini)
Victims of Italian fascism: 70,000–130,000, including partisans, political opponents and deported soldiers.
During World War II: Involvement in war crimes in Libya, Ethiopia and the Balkans.
Spain (1939–1975, Francisco Franco)
Spanish Civil War (1936–1939): 500,000 dead, including soldiers and civilians.
After the civil war: Tens of thousands of political opponents executed or died in captivity.
Portugal (1932–1974, António de Oliveira Salazar, Estado Novo)
Victims of the regime: 100,000+, including victims of the colonial wars in Africa (Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau).
Japan (1931–1945, Emperor Hirohito, military government)
Victims of Japanese war crimes in Asia: 3–14 million, including massacres in China (Nanking) and forced labor in occupied territories.
Hungary (1944–1945, Ferenc Szálasi, Arrow Cross regime)
Holocaust in Hungary: 450,000–500,000 Jewish victims.
Political opponents and Roma: tens of thousands murdered.
Romania (1940–1944, Ion Antonescu)
Holocaust in Romania: 280,000–380,000 Jews murdered.
Other victims: 11,000 Roma, political opponents.
Croatia (1941–1945, Ante Pavelić, Ustaša regime)
Victims of the Ustaša regime: 200,000–500,000 Serbs, 25,000 Jews, 20,000 Roma.
Jasenovac camp as one of the cruelest concentration camps in Europe.
Argentina (1976–1983, military junta under Jorge Rafael Videla)
“Disappeared” (Desaparecidos): 10,000–30,000 political opponents kidnapped and murdered.
Chile (1973–1990, Augusto Pinochet)
Victims of the dictatorship: approx. 3,000 dead, tens of thousands tortured or forced into exile.
Greece (1967–1974, military junta under Georgios Papadopoulos)
Victims of repression: No exact figures, but systematic imprisonment and torture of opposition members.
The figures in these examples make it clear that fascist and fascistoid systems were always associated with massive political persecution, violence and often systematic murder. The figures vary depending on the source, methodology and historical analysis, but in any case they show the shocking extent of the victims of these regimes.
It is all the more incomprehensible that even today, despite these historical experiences and the proven cruel and destructive effects of fascist ideologies, political parties and movements are still gaining strength that to a greater or lesser extent represent the same totalitarian, nationalist and inhumane principles - albeit occasionally cleverly camouflaged under a democratic surface layer.
In contrast, an AI appears to be positively controllable by programming - an impression that recent history, however, refutes. Examples of this include election manipulation by social media algorithms that deliberately spread disinformation, influenced political sentiments and undermined democratic processes. At the same time, it is becoming apparent that in many societies the danger is growing that natural intelligences (NI) will abuse democratic instruments such as elections to gain power through manipulation and deception. The seizure of power is often followed by the targeted dismantling of democratic institutions. Current global developments are complex:
Democracy in crisis: USA, Russia, Brazil, Hungary, Turkey.
Fight for freedom: Ukraine, Venezuela, Myanmar, Georgia, Tunisia, Israel.
Right-wing populist dangers: France, Italy, the Netherlands, East Germany.
Sometimes, however, the turnaround is successful even in right-wing populist-dominated legislative periods:
Successful return to democracy: Poland, South Africa.
Geopolitical reality: power or morality?
In view of these crises, the question arises: under what conditions could an AI as a state or even world leader offer a fairer alternative?
Geopolitical reality: power or morality?
In view of these crises, the question arises: under what conditions could an AI as a state or even world leader offer a fairer alternative?
A Leviathan made of silicon:
According to Hobbes, people exchange freedom for protection - a virtual social contract that promises security at the expense of personal freedoms. But what happens when an AI takes on this role? An AI world leader could offer protection through permanent data analysis and forward-looking decisions - but who programs its ethical standards and how are they checked?
This question is central, as an AI that acts according to utilitarian or engagement-oriented standards could massively influence existing social dynamics. Algorithms that are optimized for maximum interaction in particular are already showing the dark side of uncontrolled AI decisions: they increase polarization and radicalize discourses by promoting echo chambers and misinformation. This is crucial because it shows how an AI world leader - without clear ethical guardrails - could undermine democratic foundations.
Ethics programming: Who defines the values by which AI acts - government bodies, companies or citizens?
Social contract 2.0: Could citizens give their consent to AI rules through digital voting in order to make the social contract democratic?
Balance of power: How can we prevent AI itself or its developers from assuming a position of absolute power?
Transparency and accountability: Could an open AI architecture enable algorithms to remain comprehensible and correctable?
The question is not only whether an AI can offer protection, but whether it does so in accordance with human values - and who will be the guardians of the "Leviathan of silicon".
Risks and pitfalls:
An AI world leader poses considerable risks:
Lack of transparency: AI systems with opaque black box algorithms make it difficult to understand decisions. This fuels mistrust and complicates democratic control. Without explainable algorithms, arbitrariness and wrong decisions are a threat.
Risk of manipulation: AI can be used specifically to influence opinions. Social media algorithms have already shown how disinformation and polarization are reinforced. In the hands of authoritarian regimes, AI becomes a digital weapon against dissenting opinions.
Lack of empathy: AI is based on data, not compassion. In moral dilemmas, it lacks an understanding of individual fates. Decisions could seem cold and inhuman because the emotional dimension is missing.
Social division: AI algorithms optimized for engagement prioritize content that elicits strong emotional reactions - often controversial and polarizing topics. This promotes polarization because users end up in echo chambers where they only see like-minded opinions. One example is the way many social networks work, which spread polarizing political content via personalized feeds. This can encourage radicalization, as in the USA, but also in Germany, where algorithmically reinforced conspiracy theories and false statements against political opponents contributed to the escalation of social tensions. It becomes particularly dangerous when misinformation and hate messages are algorithmically amplified to maximize engagement. This clearly shows how critical ethical guardrails are when AI is to run the world.
The EU as a beacon of ethical AI:
Given these risks, the question arises: who sets the standards for ethical AI? The European Union (EU) could take a leading role here by establishing clear, binding guidelines and frameworks:
European Commission: developing legal standards for ethics, data protection and transparency.
European Central Bank (ECB): ensuring ethical principles for AI in finance.
European Ethics Council: formulating moral guidelines for AI use.
Research initiatives (e.g. ELLIS): promoting European research for transparent and fair AI.
Data protection authorities: monitoring compliance with the GDPR for AI systems.
The EU has the opportunity to take a pioneering role not only technologically but also morally and to set global standards for responsible AI development.
Conclusion: Human, AI - or both?
Unfortunately, natural intelligences (NI) have long since proven that, despite all technological advances, they are not able to effectively and jointly counter even immense global threats such as climate change, pandemics, poverty or resource scarcity. Instead, they concentrate on geopolitical power games - regardless of the devastating costs for people and the environment.
Isn't it time to consider a radical alternative to our traditional forms of society? A form that not only protects people from themselves (Homo homini lupus est), but also from the global dangers of our time? What if an authority governs our coexistence that does not follow short-term interests, but is committed to long-term well-being and justice - guided by a neutral intelligence?
And what if the next great social contract is no longer concluded between people, but between humans and AI - as an act of reason, not of surrender?
These considerations lead to an uncomfortable question: Will AI fail where humans did, or become our greatest ally? Will it repeat our mistakes - or save us where we failed? This is the crucial question that leads us to think about a new symbiosis: Is the real risk in giving AI too much power - or not allowing it at all? Perhaps the answer lies in a courageous symbiosis: AI as a rational advisor, immune to fake news through a profound, source-oriented database, and humans as a moral authority. But the key question remains: Under what conditions do we entrust our sovereignty to AI?
0009-0008-1422-7931