Digital Government: Where Aristotle Meets Algorithms

Mónica Villafaña, Ulises Cabrera Ulises cabrera - This article stems from a recent invitation from the French-Dominican Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCIFD), which honored me by inviting me to speak at a brief legal discussion on digital law and corporate governance. Preparing for that conversation led me to research and reflect on how traditional legal frameworks interact, and sometimes clash, with the demands of the digital economy and platform governance. This text condenses those ideas, now expanded with an academic and practical approach, with the intention of contributing to the international discussion on the role of ethics, data, and power in contemporary business.

Corporate governance has historically been a pillar for ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness in the conduct of business. However, in a digital environment dominated by platforms, big data, and artificial intelligence, this model faces obvious limitations. In the Dominican Republic, as in many other jurisdictions, commercial, data, and cybercrime legislation is young but quickly becoming obsolete in the face of 21st-century challenges.

This article explores the transition from traditional corporate governance to a platform governance model, integrating an ethical framework inspired by Aristotle and Jeremy Bentham, and proposes how corporate lawyers can take on a strategic role as architects of digital trust.

1. Ethics in the age of algorithms

Ethical reflection is as essential as technology. Aristotle argued that the ultimate goal of public life should be oriented toward the common good, guided by virtue, prudence, and temperance. Centuries later, Jeremy Bentham, with his utilitarianism, proposed that goodness should be measured in terms of maximizing happiness and reducing collective suffering.

These two visions, purpose and efficiency, collide in the digital age. When an algorithm approves or rejects a loan, or when an application decides what content to display, the question remains the same: do we govern for the quarter or for long-term trust?

The central thesis is that the best digital corporate governance cannot choose between ethics and innovation. It must integrate both: innovation without ethical blindness, compliance without stifling creativity.

2. From corporate governance to platform governance

The classic model of corporate governance rests on four pillars: transparency, accountability, fairness, and responsibility. In the Dominican Republic, this is expressed in regulations such as Law 479-08 on Commercial Companies, Law 126-02 on Electronic Commerce, Law 172-13 on Personal Data Protection, and Law 53-07 on High-Tech Crimes and Offenses, but similar laws and regulations exist in all jurisdictions in the region.

However, the world’s most valuable companies are no longer organized as hierarchical structures, but as platforms: digital ecosystems that facilitate interactions, exploit network effects, and feed on data. This change requires a new paradigm: platform governance, characterized by real-time feedback, distributed decisions, and an active community that acts as an informal regulator.

The practical challenge is clear: we continue to regulate 21st-century businesses through a 20th-century lens. The legal task is to translate digital complexity into adaptive regulatory frameworks.

3. The lawyer as a trusted digital architect

The role of the corporate lawyer is changing: they are no longer mere contract drafters, but rather risk curators and co-designers of secure digital processes.
This implies:
 

• Robust technology contracts, with clauses on data reversibility, incident notification, and audits.
• Privacy by design, in compliance with Law 172-13, ensuring clear notices and data minimization.
• Electronic validity, ensuring the functional equivalence of digital signatures (Law 126-02) in virtual statutes and assemblies.
• Algorithmic accountability, requiring explainability, model registration, and the presence of a human in the cycle (Human in the Loop – HITL).
• Identity and access governance (IGA) to control who accesses what information, when, and for what purpose.

In this role, lawyers become architects of digital trust, mediating between technological innovation and legal certainty.

4. Digital-first legal and operational risks

Today’s legal risks are no longer peripheral, but central:
• Cybersecurity: Data breaches require MFA (multi-factor authentication), tested backups, and least privilege.
•    Privacy: compliance with Law 172-13 requires informed consent, ARCO rights, and responsibility for international transfers.
•    Artificial Intelligence: requires algorithmic impact assessments, model registration, and bias controls.
•    Digital reputation: a crisis can erupt in minutes as a trend on social media, making communication a critical corporate control.

5. ESG and Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR)

The compass of boards of directors must incorporate ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) criteria applied to the digital world:
• Environmental: energy efficiency of data centers and reduction of e-waste.
• Social: digital accessibility and inclusion, avoiding algorithmic biases.
• Governance: robust data policies, cybersecurity, and transparency.

Added to this is Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR), which requires going beyond legal compliance and acting as a good steward of technology, with purpose and data ethics.

6. From discourse to action: 90-day playbook

An immediate action framework can be structured in three phases:
1. Days 0–30: inventory of critical data and contracts; identification of responsible parties (CISO, DPO).
2. Days 31–60: adoption of active cybersecurity, privacy, and AI policies; digital due diligence of suppliers; crisis simulation.
3. Days 61–90: differentiated training (staff, middle management, board); unannounced data restoration tests; quarterly dashboard of incidents and resilience metrics.

The goal is not to promise perfection, but to increase maturity and reduce response time, saving brands and avoiding litigation.

7. Artificial intelligence in corporate governance

International examples show that AI is already involved in decision-making:
• In Hong Kong, Deep Knowledge Ventures appointed VITAL, a machine learning software, as a voting member of its investment board.
• In the United Arab Emirates, the International Holding Company incorporated Aiden Insight, a "digital observer" that provides real-time analysis.
• Giants such as Amazon, JPMorgan, and Procter & Gamble use predictive AI to anticipate trends and risks.

Although these tools do not replace human judgment, they do raise the level of strategic debate. An initial step could be to appoint "AI observers" to boards, along with algorithmic risk reporting and digital literacy training for directors.

In summary:
The transition from corporate governance to platform governance is not a theoretical exercise, but an urgent necessity. Companies compete in an environment where data, trust, and resilience are more valuable assets than physical inventory.

The lesson is twofold:

•    From Aristotle, that governance must be oriented toward the common good and virtue.
•    From Bentham, that decisions must maximize collective utility.

The challenge for lawyers and entrepreneurs is to achieve this synthesis in practice: speed with limits, data with rights, and efficiency with dignity. Ultimately, governing the digital world is not a cost, but the most profitable investment to ensure business sustainability and legitimacy in the 21st century. Because technology can accelerate processes, but it is trust that sustains business.

ulisescabrera.com