Privileged Policy

Voice, Participation and Power at the Policy-Making Table

Two weeks ago, I found myself walking through the streets of Köln, Germany on a visit to see some old friends from my days in Indonesia. Summer breeze off the Rhine, jazz in my earbuds, and I was suddenly overwhelmed with gratitude — for my life, my work, my freedom of movement. My cup is truly full.

I’m privileged. With my language. My physical ability. I carry what is often referred to as a “good” passport – one that gets you visa-free entry. Unlike the pejoratively “bad” ones that make travel very, well, not easy. Border crossings don’t scare me. Visa applications are a rarity, not a constant barrier. I can decide today to fly to Europe, Canada, the U.S., Australia, Korea — without much more than a quick check of flights, a credit card and a click on “confirm.” The privilege I enjoy that makes my life easier gives me a computer, a credit card and access – to places, people and opportunities.

My gender and ethnic background insulate me further. I can speak up in rooms — at conferences, panels, meetings — without fear of being labeled aggressive. I don’t worry that someone will question whether I belong at the table, let alone just in the event. I walk pretty freely on the street, unbothered by catcalls or suspicion by police officers passing by. I am rarely spoken over or silenced.

This is my reality.

But it is not the reality of most of my friends and colleagues. NOT. AT. ALL.

As I walked through Köln, I kept circling back to this thought: privilege isn’t about being first in line. Privilege is the quiet, constant removal of obstacles from your way. Without obstacles, you have the ability to focus on excelling, not just surviving.

And this is at the heart of today’s dispatch as I think about how we are trying to govern the trajectory of technology; and the abundance of privilege provided for the few and denied to so many:

We cannot build fair, effective policy to govern tech — especially frontier tech that impacts everyone’s lives whether they opt in or not — without confronting and equalizing the privileges that promote some of us while marginalising most of us.

Privilege Is Baked into the Governance Process

Big Tech companies headquartered in the global north may indeed have diverse staff, including some from the global majority. But these folks often come with full logistical support: visa expediters, legal teams, travel coordinators. Never mind they represent specific interests. Meanwhile, their civil society counterparts must often surrender their passports for months just to secure a single visa. They can’t attend a workshop on short notice. And when they don’t have their passport, they are prevented from traveling in their own regions, never mind the global opportunities they’re also missing out on.

So when tech policy conferences and policymaking forums are announced with short timelines, participation from the majority world is almost by definition systemically excluded. Their lived experience, dissenting views, feminism, decolonial approaches, and rich contextual knowledge are filtered out — unless they happen to hold dual nationality or a long-term visa or have a big company to do the heavy and expensive lifting. As I read it, that’s not the kind of diversity that we want or that is fundamentally needed to ensure effective policymaking.

The worst though is when organizers know this is happening — and still claim (sheepishly or not) there’s nothing much that they can do. “We’re doing our best.” “It’s beyond our control.” “We don’t have the budget to move the venue.”

What it really means: It would be too inconvenient.

Too inconvenient for the think tanks, NGOs, academics, and private sector players from the North who expect to have the choice to attend everything without much complication or friction. Or who feel they can ‘represent’ their global partners.

Inclusion Requires Structural Change

The governance of frontier technologies can’t be effective, equitable, or sustainable if the governance process replicates global inequality. We need full participation — not just a seat, but a voice and agency. Too often we hear northern organizations say “our partners in the global south” while showcasing one or two invitees who happened to get a visa on a panel to ostensibly represent the Other view. But I don’t think this is partnership. Maybe more like PR.

Imagine if every major AI policy discussion took place in Nairobi or Bogotá or Jakarta, and the only European presence was a single token speaker from Denmark expected to represent all of Europe and North America. It sounds absurd — but that is the model currently imposed on the global majority.

Not long ago I attended a conference on misinformation at a multilateral in Europe. It brought together major donors like the then-USAID, UN agencies and international organisations. They did manage to draw in some civil society – just a few from Africa and Latin America – and some big technology companies. It was disturbing to see the companies and governmental organisations all slip out for "bilateral" meetings during the panels that covered key civil society perspectives.

So then what is the point when the “partners” from the global majority speak up, but the powerful Northern policymakers aren’t even in the room?

If we want fairer governance, we need to rebuild the architecture:

• Hold more events in the global south—and not just symbolically.

• Acknowledge visa inequality as a fundamental barrier and actively do something about it.

• Recognize that tech companies—with their resources and mobility—have disproportionate access to policy spaces, from quick business class bookings and five star hotels, to white glove access to policymakers.

• Pay to Play does not serve society – when those with the most money, most power and most privilege can curate narratives, drive discussions through stacked panels, and have smoothed access to key policy players.

Some Ideas

UN agencies and multilateral organizations:

Get out of your comfort zones — literally. Move beyond New York, London, Geneva, Brussels, and Paris – on a regular basis. Stop rolling out the carpet for tech companies and instead put that effort into celebrating the wealth of insights from leaders from different places. Quite frankly, we need to stop looking at a tech billionaire as some all-powerful, insightful oracle and regard him for what he is: a rich man trying to maximse profits, maximise “efficiencies” and create a world in which he and his shareholders can collect more wealth. This seems just backwards to me: the real oracles are those who see how the tech impacts communities, cultures and governance systems. THEY need to be given red carpets.

You take on bilateral meetings with tech companies? You hold three bilateral meetings with civil society leaders.

Event organizers:

Build lead time into planning for inclusive events and have as a central goal to minimise visa inconveniences for global majority participants – even if that means moving the venue. We need principled action here.

Tech companies:

If you want a seat at the table, you pay double. You want to have access to policy influencers and policy makers at these events, you pay double. We estimate what you’ve paid in accommodation, travel and sponsorship fees – and you pay double. That second half goes into a pool to fund equitable civil society participation. You won’t flinch at the cost—and the global discourse will be richer for it.

Everyone else:

Stop pretending networks managed from the North are a proxy for inclusion. We have to redistribute power. Redistributing power means identifying the points of inequality – the privileges that are afforded the few – and redistributing them to those who have been marginalised.

Reimagine Agenda-setting

I’ve been participating in and watching many moments ostensibly meant to bring different voices together to participate and discuss critical governance issues of technology. At the same time, at the same events, I’ve seen the privileges afforded to the companies and the red carpets they are given. It's not just unfair, it further skews an imbalanced policy architecture.

My view is that the governance of emerging technologies can’t be left to the few, the privileged, the visa-blessed. If technology is to serve us as citizens—not just as consumers—then we must reimagine who sets the agenda, who sits at the table, who gets the bilaterals and who holds the mic.

We need a new playbook. New rules of engagement. A new SOP.

Because, frankly, the one we’re using – it was never meant for most of us.