One of the fascinating aspects of today’s world is hybrid leadership. Whether in the political, economic or social spheres, leadership today is carried out by both individuals and algorithms. And this unprecedented challenge facing most of the world’s nations puts us at a fragile moment in history that will most likely lead to the greatest crisis of all time: a crisis of leadership!

It’s no secret that technology has the ability to influence our behavior and even radically change our decisions, even predict who we’ll vote for or fall in love with, even without (too) knowing it. And as we have begun to relinquish the sovereignty of our own consciousness in favor of artificial intelligence completely devoid of emotion, intelligent technology seems to be taking control of humanity.

In this context, the question arises: What will humanity choose in the coming decades? And especially will the current political leaders be able to lead us to a bright future or will we wander in the darkness of an artificial world?

In fact, I think each of us is called upon to answer the question: How much do we (still) control ourselves and how much do we allow ourselves to be controlled by the suggestions and representations that come from the virtual world?

Of course, there is human intelligence and effort behind technology. But this is not enough to guarantee an anthropocentric orientation to humanity. No matter how much we involve technology in the political process, lack of integrity some of those who decide the fate of a nation cannot be captured by any technology, no matter how smart and sophisticated.

Problems related to national security, economic hardship or social strife cannot be solved by algorithms that facilitate the transmission of politicians’ messages on social networks, or even by Ion the robot, a famous adviser to the prime minister.

However, many of today’s political leaders struggle to understand society’s complex problems, let alone implement effective solutions.

If we want to objectively assess the real situation in which Romania is today – poverty, corruption, fraud, excessive pollution, over-bureaucratization, sexual disorder that destabilizes and breaks up the family and throws a person into despair and decline – we will find that in fact we are in an acute crisis of morality. And, as the philosopher Jean-Louis d’Autrecourt warned, lack of moral hygiene of individuals leads to family instability and even social instability. If there is no strong moral foundation, it can lead to serious political unrest.

Just looking at the protests that have been happening in Europe in recent years, we can easily understand this confidence of citizens in the ability of political leaders to cope with the crisis the current fluctuates strongly. Indeed, the mediocrity and lack of vision of today’s political class has created a huge gap between the expectations of citizens and the results (or rather the lack of results) offered by the “elected” after democratic exercises.

According to an analysis carried out by the British group The Economist, Romania ranks last in the European Union on the democracy index, which shows that the Romanian government has simply failed to meet the requirements for 32 years. the level of expectations of its citizens or to solve problems that really need to be solved. We are truly a “failed state”.

As long as access to power remains the prerogative of political parties, focusing exclusively on capturing and maintaining state power and rewarding only the loyalty of some members, to the detriment of integrity and the necessary intellectual training, Romanian democracy will have disastrous consequences.

This is why I think technology is advancing so much Fast and furious, the appointment of the role of political leader can no longer occur as a result of a simple favorable situation or as a result of agreements reached at the negotiating table within the political parties. Much more than that is needed. It is necessary for political leaders to take responsibility for the decisions made and stop hiding behind the majority or the other, not giving an account of the negative consequences created in society, but which we all endure every day Read the full article and comment on Contributors.ro