Petition

This page provides more information about the petition created by some members and friends of London Futurists.

The petition can be found on the UK Parliament’s petition website here (but it is presently being reviewed by the website admin “to check it meets the petition standards before we publish it”).

The petition

Call a Citizens’ Assembly to consider Stewardship Democracy for the age of AI

Call a Citizens’ Assembly to examine whether our current democratic system should be complemented or replaced by participatory democracy such as Stewardship Democracy, in order to minimise risks arising from advanced AI whose capabilities may soon profoundly affect democratic decision-making.

To help prevent unprecedented social disarray, our system of governance should be urgently reviewed. This is especially important as public trust in politics declines and political polarisation increases. We therefore ask Parliament to convene a Citizens’ Assembly to examine the introduction of models of participatory democracy such as Stewardship Democracy, to strengthen democratic legitimacy while minimising disruption to existing constitutional and judicial institutions.

FAQ

Q: What are examples of the stresses and strains that fast-accelerating AI may cause to society, the economy, and to politics?

A: Misrepresentation and manipulation of information. A cascading disruption of employment due to increased automation. Emotional distress and growing polarisation via the spread of misleading AI-generated narratives. Excess resources being diverted in support of new AI capabilities. Adverse impacts on the environment. Risks of AI-induced failures in our financial, media, or military infrastructures.

At the same time, AI could bring major benefits in healthcare, science, education, and productivity. The core challenge is to ensure that political institutions remain capable of managing both the opportunities and the risks.

Q: What kinds of options might the Citizens’ Assembly consider?

A: Deliberative democracy, with greater involvement by citizens in decision-making. Reforming voting systems. Augmenting decision-making with trustworthy AI assistants. Reducing the significance of party politics, encouraging more representatives to operate according to their individual judgement. Vetting of candidates for elections for competence and trustworthiness.

Q: How might advanced AI improve democratic decision-making?

A: Advanced AI could help citizens and policymakers understand complex issues, summarise evidence, model possible futures, identify unintended consequences, and explore compromises between competing priorities. Properly designed AI assistants might also help citizens engage more effectively with public policy. However, AI should support human judgement rather than replace it. Decisions about laws, rights, and public priorities should remain subject to democratic oversight and accountability.

Q: Why consider democratic reform now rather than waiting to see how AI develops?

A: Significant reforms to democratic institutions typically require years of discussion, testing, and public consultation. If advanced AI causes rapid social and economic change, it may be too late to begin these conversations only after major disruption has already occurred.

Q: Why does AI make democratic reform more relevant than before?

A: Advanced AI may affect employment, information flows, scientific discovery, public administration, military affairs, and economic power simultaneously. Because these changes could occur rapidly and across many areas of society, some people believe democratic institutions should be reviewed to ensure they remain effective, legitimate, and trusted.

Q: Aren’t claims of greater impacts from AI exaggerated?

A: Not according to the UK Government, the OECD, and thousands of AI researchers, who anticipate AI having major impacts on the economy, public services, information systems, security, and governance. For example, the UK Government AI 2030 Scenarios Report, produced in 2025, states that future frontier AI systems could have widespread impacts on productivity, living standards, public services, scientific breakthroughs, cyber security, misinformation, and governance.

Q: What is “Stewardship Democracy”?

A: Stewardship Democracy is a proposed model of democratic governance that seeks to reduce the influence of political parties by electing independent representatives (“Stewards”) who are accountable directly to citizens. It is one of several democratic reforms that a Citizens’ Assembly might examine.

Q: Is Stewardship Democracy an attempt to impose a meritocracy, or rule by a self-appointed elite?

A: No. Stewardship Democracy seeks to combine democratic legitimacy with responsible governance. Citizens would continue to choose their representatives. The difference is that voters would be encouraged to evaluate candidates on competence, integrity, and stewardship, rather than relying primarily on party affiliation, party loyalty, or campaign marketing.

Q: Would Stewardship Democracy favour older, wealthier, or more socially privileged groups?

A: Not necessarily. Stewardship Democracy does not propose giving political power to people because of their age, wealth, education, ethnicity, gender identity, or social background. Representatives would still be chosen by citizens through democratic elections.

Supporters of Stewardship Democracy argue that competence, integrity, and stewardship can be demonstrated by people from many different backgrounds and life experiences. They also argue that democratic institutions should seek to represent the full diversity of society while encouraging voters to consider qualities beyond party loyalty, celebrity, or political marketing.

The precise mechanisms for ensuring fair representation would be among the issues that a Citizens’ Assembly would be asked to examine.

Q: How would minority and marginalised voices be represented?

A: Any democratic system should seek to ensure that all citizens have an equal voice and equal political rights. One question for the Citizens’ Assembly would be whether proposed reforms would strengthen or weaken representation for groups that have historically been under-represented in politics.

Q: Who would decide whether a candidate is competent?

A: Under Stewardship Democracy, voters would remain free to make their own judgments. Different approaches to providing information about candidates could be considered, but ultimate authority would remain with citizens rather than any expert committee or certification body.

Q: What is London Futurists, and what role has it played in creating this petition?

A: London Futurists is an informal meetup community, that has since 2008 organised meetings and conversations on the general theme “Serious analysis of radical scenarios for the disruptions ahead”. One topic that has frequently emerged in the conversations is the failure modes of politics, especially in a time of rapid technological disruption and disinformation. These meetings have also considered potential improvements to political processes and institutions. The petition arose as a result.

Q: Why is a Citizens’ Assembly needed? Why can’t Parliament examine these issues itself?

A: Parliament remains central to democratic governance, but Citizens’ Assemblies are increasingly used when issues are complex, long-term, and politically contentious. AI may create challenges that cut across party lines and election cycles. A Citizens’ Assembly would provide informed public deliberation and recommendations that Parliament could then consider.

Q: How do Citizens’ Assemblies operate?

A: Citizens’ Assemblies are temporary democratic bodies made up of ordinary citizens selected to broadly reflect the population, usually by age, gender, region, education, ethnicity, and political outlook. Their purpose is to examine a difficult public issue in a fair, informed and non-party-political way.

They normally operate in four stages:

1. Selection: Members are chosen by sortition, which means a form of civic lottery. This prevents domination by political parties, lobby groups or wealthy interests.
2. Learning: Assembly members hear balanced evidence from experts, stakeholders, public bodies and people directly affected by the issue.
3. Deliberation: Members discuss the evidence in small groups and plenary sessions, helped by independent facilitators. The aim is not to win an argument, but to understand trade-offs and reach considered judgement.
4. Recommendations: The Assembly votes on proposals and produces recommendations for Parliament, Government, or another public authority.

Q: Have Citizens’ Assemblies been used successfully before?

A: Yes. Citizens’ Assemblies have been used in several countries, including the UK, Ireland, France, and Canada, to examine issues such as constitutional reform, climate policy, and electoral systems. They are increasingly viewed as a valuable complement to representative democracy.

Q: How would this Citizens’ Assembly be funded?

A: Citizens’ Assembly would normally be funded from public money, because it would be created by Parliament or Government to examine a matter of national importance. The cost would cover citizen recruitment, independent facilitation, expert evidence, venues or online systems, accessibility support, publication of evidence, and the final report.

For this proposal, the funding should come from a clearly defined parliamentary or government budget, with full transparency over costs and no control by political parties, private companies, or AI firms. This is essential because the Assembly must be seen as independent and free from political, commercial, or technological interests

Q: Is this petition seeking to impose Stewardship Democracy?

A: No. The purpose of the proposed Citizens’ Assembly is to examine a range of possible responses to AI-driven disruption, including but not limited to Stewardship Democracy. The Assembly should hear evidence from multiple perspectives before reaching any conclusions.

Q: Does support for this petition imply support for Stewardship Democracy?

A: No. People can support the petition simply because they believe the possible implications of advanced AI deserve serious public examination. The Citizens’ Assembly would be free to recommend Stewardship Democracy, another reform, or no significant reform at all.

Q: What are the real goals of the people who created the petition?

A: The petition’s authors believe that advanced AI could create opportunities and risks on a scale that existing political institutions will struggle to address. Their goal is to encourage a national conversation about how democratic processes should evolve in order to enable better-informed decisions, distribute the benefits of technology more fairly, and reduce the risk of major societal breakdown.

The goal is not to slow beneficial innovation, but to ensure that democratic institutions are capable of guiding that innovation wisely and sharing its benefits widely.

Q: What happens if the Citizens’ Assembly recommends major democratic reforms?

A: The Assembly would make recommendations only. Any changes to democratic institutions would remain subject to normal constitutional processes, including parliamentary scrutiny and, where appropriate, further public consultation or referendum.

Q: How can someone ask questions, make suggestions, or offer support for this petition?

Discussion groups and communications channels are being prepared. In the meantime, you can leave a comment in response to this webpage.