The concept of governmentality refers to the practice through which behaviours of population are directed, constrained, and framed. The concept was originally appeared in the work of a popular sociologist, Michel Foucault’s “logics of power” to denote guiding the possibility of conduct and putting in order the possible outcome and to understand how governments control over their populations through policy instruments, arithmetic and algorithmic control, preventing or making them to act in a certain way. Digital governmentality denotes ways of leading users’ behaviours online, by designing technical resources, directing, constraining and framing.” Some writers use a narrower concept of algorithmic governmentality, which refers to the increasing reliance on algorithmic regulation, predictive analytics, datafication, and automated decision‑making rather than the traditional models of governance, which relied on paper-based services, laws, coercion, and ideological state apparatuses.
The rise of the internet boom, mobile communication revolution, and artificial intelligence (AI) in the modern world is shaping how people behave, learn, work, and live. The introduction of the internet created a global platform of communication and business for people, governments, and private entities. This was further accelerated by the transformation through mobile communication technologies, where the introduction of smartphones rapidly changed the behavior of people. These improvements increased speed, certainty, reliability, connectivity, collaboration, innovations, and productivity of services. Recently, AI, advanced data computing power, deep learning technologies, and machine learning are accelerating the transformation of societies.
The expansion of these technologies has created unprecedented opportunities for governments to improve the delivery of public services. They enabled governments to digitize information and services, making it easier for citizens to access forms, licenses, tax services, and public records online. The widespread adoption of mobile technologies further extended this reach, enabling people to interact with government services anytime and anywhere through smartphones and mobile applications. Currently, AI has been introduced making government institutions more responsive, and data-driven, by analyzing large volumes of information, automating routine administrative tasks, supporting decision-making, and delivering personalized services to citizens.
Recently, AI and digital technologies have been a key priority agenda of Africa. The continent adopted a Continental AI Strategy in 2024. A High Level Policy Dialogue was convened by the AU on the development and regulation of AI in Africa on 17 May 2025 where commitments have been reflected to integrate AI in their development agenda. Currently, 22 countries in the continent developed their own AI strategy. For instance, Ethiopia adopted a National AI policy in 2024, and established the Ethiopian Artificial Intelligence Institute (EAII) in 2020 to expand the application of AI in key sectors including healthcare, agriculture, education, and defense. Following this, various actions took place. For instance, the Digital Ethiopia 2025-2030 Strategy was one of the key actions taken in expanding digital infrastructure and e-government platforms. Ghana also developed a national AI Strategy (2025-35) focusing on youth jobs, education, data governance, applied research, community ecosystem, and public sector governance. The country also proposed the establishment of an autonomous organ responsible for overseeing ethical compliance. Kenya also adopted a 2025-30 AI strategy in March 2025 focusing on expanding digital infrastructure, data governance, research, innovation and commercialization.
Digital governmentality sets the critical lens to discuss how digital tools direct, constrain, and frame behavior and provides the context for subsequent policy analysis on digital authoritarianism, technological sovereignty, surveillance concerns, and loss of human agency. Despite contributing in improving the speed and accessibility of many of the essential public services all over Africa, it is also increasingly important to debate concerning politicization, state control, ethics and privacy, and freedom of expression. Critics present cases related to each of such challenges. For example, some analysts mention ‘data and technological sovereignty’, where almost all of the technologies being used to make the analysis and predictions are owned by foreign companies, and the data being collected and stored for use in decision making are vulnerable to various external risks. Others like Kebede and Pohjonen (2006) also describe ‘digital authoritarianism’, which refers to the use of digital technologies by governments to monitor, control political activities, and mass surveillance systems, not only to improve public services but also to limit political opposition and restrict freedom of expression.
Illustrative manifestation of digital governmentality in some African countries includes ‘Data Boys’ in Nigeria and ‘Media/Digital Army’ in Ethiopia, where governments and political actors informally mobilize media operators and influencers to shape public opinion and counter opposition. Moreover, in Ethiopia, many people also [mis]interpret the Fayda digital identification system as a government policing tool rather than as a neutral modernization project. Social media posts and civil society commentary highlight fears that biometric registration will be used to track political activity, and expand surveillance capacity. Data injustice and inequality is also another key aspect of challenges, including rural-urban divide and socio-economic factors in creating differences in accessing digital services.
Another emerging concern is excessive reliance on digital technologies and AI undermines human potential, denoting what Weiskopf and Hansen (2023) called ‘mechanic enslavement’, when everything is reduced to procedures driven by machines, an entirely different form of capture of subjectivity, the individual is considered as ‘cog’ or ‘gear’ of a machinic assemblage, and where ‘quantification’, ‘datafication’ and automation have limited human reflexivity and reduce the capacity to enact responsibility in decision making. This system transforms people into datafied objects, where decisions are made based on algorithmic data rather than lived realities, resulting in the inapplicability of reflexivity and accountability. A body of social media posts have also talked of defects such as some uncertainty and bias in AI systems due to the problem with the data used to train the AI/machine. For instance, AI‑enabled drones have been introduced for both developmental and security purposes. However, there is a public concern that the drones used to monitor protests or communities, reinforcing authoritarian control, and are associated with indiscriminate targeting of civilians.
In conclusion, while digital tools are rapidly expanding across the continent and enhancing public service delivery, they operate in a weak regulatory system and the attention given to the ethics and governance aspect is very low. There are limited legal and institutional frameworks designed to prevent, detect, and regulate the misuse of digital technologies, including issues related to misinformation, data exploitation, unethical digital practices, and become vulnerable to manipulation for political or other ends. Furthermore, African countries lack a strong and independent regulatory body with sufficient authority and capacity to effectively monitor and address ethical, privacy, and data protection concerns including those domestically owned and externally controlled digital media platforms.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this Insight reflect the perspectives of the contributor and do not necessarily represent the official position of Institute for Peace and Security Studies.
 |
Contributed by Asebe Amenu Tufa (PhD) Researcher, IPSS |