How the Global South Can Help the World Govern AI—Before It Becomes a Global Risk
The discourse surrounding AI governance has predominantly been shaped by frameworks developed in the Global North. In this context, regulatory priorities are influenced by advanced infrastructure, corporate dominance, and geopolitical leverage. However, for the Global South, the implications of AI are markedly different. The risks extend beyond mere algorithmic bias to encompass digital exclusion, technological dependency, and the potential erasure of local context.
Incorporating perspectives from the Global South is not merely an issue of equity; it is a strategic necessity for the Global North. Governance frameworks that lack Southern insights may become unsustainable and incompatible with diverse adoption realities. Technologies that disregard local needs often encounter delayed adoption, increased resistance, or unintended negative consequences. Conversely, when AI systems are designed with Southern contexts in mind, they become more adaptable, resilient, and scalable.
It is crucial to explore the question: What happens when governance is shaped not solely by those developing the technology, but also by those enduring its consequences? What benefits can the Global North derive from genuinely listening?
Beyond Adoption: Toward Ethical Adaptation
In numerous developing nations, the perception of AI is often binary: adopt or risk falling behind. This viewpoint overlooks a vital aspect—adaptation.
Adaptation transcends technical skills; it necessitates cultural fluency, ethical grounding, and social imagination. It involves integrating technologies within the values, norms, and needs of a community, rather than imposing external frameworks that may not be suitable.
This approach is essential not only for the Global South but also for the Global North. Ethical adaptation promotes smoother cross-cultural adoption, mitigates unintended harm, and ensures that technologies can scale without compromising diversity. It also addresses social risks often ignored in top-down implementations, such as public distrust, backlash against misinformation, and resistance to perceived techno-imperialism. When social risks materialize, they do not remain contained within borders; they impact global supply chains, market readiness, and brand legitimacy.
By prioritizing ethical adaptation, developers and corporations in the Global North can establish more stable, socially accepted, and expedited paths to adoption. This increases the sustainability of innovation by making systems responsive to varied realities. Furthermore, it fosters shared responsibility—transforming governance from a top-down exercise into a collaborative endeavor where both parties co-own the outcomes and consequences.
It is imperative that the Global South is not merely viewed as a market or testing ground; rather, it should be recognized as a source of wisdom, providing alternative logics of care, community, and contextual intelligence that can enrich global governance discussions.
The Role of Reflective Networks: A Case from Indonesia
To address the gap in governance, reflective networks have emerged—quietly yet powerfully. A notable example is the Indonesia Applied Digital Economy & Regulatory Network (IADERN). This initiative was born from the realization that conventional governance tools—often developed with assumptions from the Global North—were inadequate for addressing the complex, lived realities of the Global South.
This is significant because most discussions about AI and emerging technologies remain siloed, dominated by technical jargon, with policy circles isolated from community realities. The result is often an abstract or rigid governance framework that fails to adapt.
Instead of merely replicating global models, IADERN emphasizes scaling depth: fostering trust across academic, governmental, civil, and creative sectors. It functions not just as a think tank but as a translation zone—where AI ethics, blockchain regulation, and digital public policy are shaped with nuance and humility, grounded in local context and reinterpreted for global relevance.
Their approach focuses not on leading from the front but on listening from the edges, co-creating frameworks that work because they are locally rooted.
Global Recognition, Local Resonance
This grounded methodology has garnered international attention:
- IADERN has contributed to whitepapers with institutions in Australia and China.
- It has co-authored research with academic collaborators from India.
- Invitations to speak in Dubai on smart mobility and blockchain.
- Notably, it has contributed to the Brown Journal of World Affairs, which is read by global policymakers.
However, its most lasting impact is likely found closer to home: advocating in the media to demystify AI for local communities, collaborating with ministries to develop risk-aware policies, and translating complex regulations into public narratives. IADERN has also engaged in workshops, advisory sessions, and capacity-building with industry stakeholders, providing deep, practice-based insights into the realities of AI adoption and digital transformation across sectors. This includes co-developing AI risk management and cybersecurity recommendations with Indonesia’s National Cyber and Crypto Agency (BSSN) and creating practical AI literacy guides for civil servants in collaboration with the Ministry of Communications and Informatics (Kemkominfo/Kemkomdigi). This proximity to ground-level changes enables IADERN to serve as both observer and co-designer of governance that is sensitive to context.
These efforts may not generate headlines, but they contribute to building resilience.
Why Global Frameworks Need Southern Interlocutors
The world does not require more templates exported from the top; it needs conversational bridges—actors capable of navigating between high-level policy and ground-level insight. When the Global South articulates its own realities, it transforms from a mere recipient into a recalibrator of the global order.
This recalibration hinges on the role of interdisciplinary actors—those who blend research, advocacy, storytelling, and community insight. They are not just participants in policy; they are its designers.
This underscores the necessity for the future of emerging technologies, particularly AI, to focus on ethical adaptation from the ground up. When local contexts inform AI governance, technology becomes not only more humane but also more sustainable and secure. It enhances humanity rather than undermining it. As global concerns about AI’s unchecked development escalate, potentially destabilizing economies and social cohesion, models from the Global South emphasizing inclusion, trust, and reflection can help mitigate these risks before they escalate into global backlash.
Toward a Pluralist Future
We cannot create trustworthy AI if we ignore trust-building traditions outside the West. We cannot achieve inclusive governance while excluding the very contexts that define inclusion.
The future of AI governance will not be determined solely in Brussels or Silicon Valley; it must also be shaped in Jakarta, Nairobi, and Medellín.
This urgency intensifies amid the escalating competition for AI dominance between China and the United States—a contest that, while technologically advanced, often neglects governance safeguards and risk management protocols. In the race to lead, ethical reflection frequently becomes the first casualty.
Thus, the path forward must commence not with dominance but with dialogue; not with templates but with trust.
