t its core, governance is about power; who holds it, how is it used, and when is it legitimate?
Western democracy traditionally positions elected governments as the sole legitimate sources of power and public decision making. Yet today increasing amounts of power flows through unelected systems: platforms, markets, and machines which shape our lives without consent or visibility. In fact, this erosion exists on an international scale. The Westphalian order, the modern foundation of international governance, asserts the key principles that sovereign states are the highest authority within their borders and all states are equal under international law. And yet, large tech companies implicitly and explicitly reach into our collective psyche, often rendering borders merely symbolic as data flows across jurisdictions to encode and constrain values and alter what we see, desire, and even believe.
Even more concerning, most governments rely on technologies they haven’t designed and cannot meaningfully regulate or control. In a shocking example earlier this year, President Trump made remarks about Canada becoming the 51st state, making many question what happens to governance when a nation’s data infrastructure is dominated by foreign platforms? This risk only escalates in the context of AI. AI servers and technological underpinnings are concentrated in just a few countries. This means frameworks, values, and training data reflect extremely narrow cultural and geopolitical worldviews. The result? Porous and deeply contested governance environments, amplified power asymmetries, and a world further divided into ‘provider’ and ‘subscriber’ states—shaping who controls the levers and what people are even allowed to imagine. The potential for abuse in this form of digital colonialism isn’t abstract. It can impact everything, from what is socially acceptable to national defense.
As challenges ahead demand new legitimacy models, governance must venture beyond dominant scenario–based approaches toward the participatory sensemaking of underlying worldviews and metaphors. Narrative shapes what feels legitimate, what actions seem possible, and what futures people are willing to work toward. Without that foundation, governance loses meaning and trust. It’s not just about who governs, but how we adapt decision making in a world of blurred boundaries, compressed feedback, and exponential advancement. If we get it right, hybrid governance could enable more inclusive and resilient systems. If we get it wrong, we will be ruled by systems we can’t see, can’t influence, and can’t vote for.
a global affairs media network
Governance and legitimacy in a post–sovereign era
Photo by Jesse Collins on Unsplash
July 24, 2025
Today, governments rely increasingly on technologies they cannot meaningfully regulate or control. As we enter an era of hybrid governance, we require new legitimacy models that include participatory sensemaking, writes Eva Oloumi.
A
t its core, governance is about power; who holds it, how is it used, and when is it legitimate?
Western democracy traditionally positions elected governments as the sole legitimate sources of power and public decision making. Yet today increasing amounts of power flows through unelected systems: platforms, markets, and machines which shape our lives without consent or visibility. In fact, this erosion exists on an international scale. The Westphalian order, the modern foundation of international governance, asserts the key principles that sovereign states are the highest authority within their borders and all states are equal under international law. And yet, large tech companies implicitly and explicitly reach into our collective psyche, often rendering borders merely symbolic as data flows across jurisdictions to encode and constrain values and alter what we see, desire, and even believe.
Even more concerning, most governments rely on technologies they haven’t designed and cannot meaningfully regulate or control. In a shocking example earlier this year, President Trump made remarks about Canada becoming the 51st state, making many question what happens to governance when a nation’s data infrastructure is dominated by foreign platforms? This risk only escalates in the context of AI. AI servers and technological underpinnings are concentrated in just a few countries. This means frameworks, values, and training data reflect extremely narrow cultural and geopolitical worldviews. The result? Porous and deeply contested governance environments, amplified power asymmetries, and a world further divided into ‘provider’ and ‘subscriber’ states—shaping who controls the levers and what people are even allowed to imagine. The potential for abuse in this form of digital colonialism isn’t abstract. It can impact everything, from what is socially acceptable to national defense.
As challenges ahead demand new legitimacy models, governance must venture beyond dominant scenario–based approaches toward the participatory sensemaking of underlying worldviews and metaphors. Narrative shapes what feels legitimate, what actions seem possible, and what futures people are willing to work toward. Without that foundation, governance loses meaning and trust. It’s not just about who governs, but how we adapt decision making in a world of blurred boundaries, compressed feedback, and exponential advancement. If we get it right, hybrid governance could enable more inclusive and resilient systems. If we get it wrong, we will be ruled by systems we can’t see, can’t influence, and can’t vote for.
