On Day Two: Parliaments Take Stock and Plan Next Steps on AI
Notes from the second day of the global conference hosted by the IPU, CPA, UNDP, and the Malaysian Parliament on the future of responsible AI in legislatures
BY BEATRIZ REY
On the second day of the Artificial Intelligence Conference: The Role of Parliament in Shaping the Future of Responsible AI, participants in the AI in parliaments track were asked to assess where their institutions stand in their AI journey. The conference had been split into two tracks — AI in policy and AI in parliaments — to reflect the dual challenge legislatures face: writing rules for AI while also learning how to use it. Their responses made one thing clear: legislatures around the world are still trying to find their footing.
Marci Harris, POPVOX Foundation’s co-founder and executive director, noting that all parliaments are trying to find their footing on AI adoption.
Forty-one percent said they were in the early stages, that is, experimenting with pilots, building capacity, and drafting initial governance. Thirty-five percent reported more informal use, limited to a few individuals with no institutional guidance. Only 14% described systematic deployment supported by formal processes. At the extremes, 5% were either barely aware of AI or already embedding it across parliamentary functions. And not a single respondent placed their parliament in the most advanced category: setting global standards.
The poll captured the tension running through the event: interest, urgency, and uncertainty in equal measure. That mix of enthusiasm and hesitation is precisely what brought 235 parliamentarians and staff from 65 countries to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I followed the sessions in the track focused on AI in parliaments, which took place on the same day.
First Debate: AI Journeys
To ground the discussion, participants examined how different parliaments are already experimenting with AI. Mauritius has already gone almost fully paperless and is now working on integrating Creole through local partnerships, balancing commercial tools with data sovereignty concerns.
Chile has completed the digitization phase, with nearly two centuries of parliamentary records now digital, and is beginning to explore how AI can help make that information usable and actionable. New Zealand sits further along the curve, with AI already supporting transcription, research, and administrative work, though decisions such as rejecting automated moderation of abusive comments showed that values, not just capability, continue to shape adoption.
Thailand offered another example of structured progress, with a Senate Intelligence Center that combines big data, AI-driven search, dashboards, and workflow tools, all aligned with a national AI strategy and supported by accessibility investments such as captioning, descriptive audio, and multilingual interfaces.
Second Debate: Thinking Ahead
Participants also drew on the resources below to reflect on how to begin or advance their own institutional journeys:
IPU’s newly released Maturity Framework for AI in Parliaments. This diagnostic tool maps six maturity levels, ranging from ad hoc use to global leadership, across four interconnected dimensions: governance, technical capability, organizational capability, and democratic impact. I’ll write a separate post about this soon.
OECD’s definitions on digital evolution, introduced by POPVOX Foundation’s Marci Harris:
Digitization is the conversion of analogue data and processes into machine-readable formats.
Digitalization is the use of digital technologies and data — including interoperability — to modify or create activities.
Digital transformation refers to the broader economic and societal impacts resulting from digitization and digitalization.
Two points stood out to me across both debates.
First, the separation between politics and technology. Many participants emphasized the need to bring political leadership into the conversation. Staff cannot move forward with planning or adoption if Speakers, Clerks, and key Members are not aligned. The gap is not just procedural; it is cultural. In many legislatures, those in political roles rarely pause to reflect on how their own work happens day to day or how it could be improved. That disconnect appears across contexts and systems, and it continues to slow institutional progress.
Second, and this is the point that concerns me most, the gap between advanced democracies and many countries in the Global South is widening. Some parliaments are already moving beyond digitization toward digital transformation, while smaller or resource-constrained legislatures are still building basic infrastructure. There are advantages to adopting later, since tools are more mature and pitfalls more visible, but the pace of technological change raises a real question: will late adopters be able to catch up at all? In this landscape, institutions such as the IPU, CPA, UNDP, and POPVOX Foundation play a critical role. Without coordinated support and shared learning, the divide will only deepen.
I will share notes from the final day of the conference next, and the more fully formed reflections will come later in December. Stay tuned!
Modern Parliament (“ModParl”) is a newsletter from POPVOX Foundation that provides insights into the evolution of legislative institutions worldwide. Learn more and subscribe at modparl.substack.com.
