Zimbabwe Information Technology and Empowerment Centre (ZITEC)

A successful Global Dialogue on AI Governance should result in a clear shift from abstract principles to actionable, human-centered outcomes that reflect the lived realities of people, particularly young people in developing contexts. First, success would mean recognizing that AI-driven systems do not only present technical risks, but also shape emotional wellbeing, self-expression, and economic opportunity. Governance frameworks should therefore integrate digital wellbeing, mental health, and economic protection as core components, rather than treating them as secondary concerns. Second, the Dialogue should promote stronger accountability for platforms and AI systems. This includes advancing safety-by-design approaches, improving transparency in how algorithms shape visibility and behavior, and ensuring accessible reporting and redress mechanisms for digital harm. Third, it should address gaps in current policy approaches by encouraging cross-sector coordination. Digital harm is not isolated within ICT policy; it intersects with youth development, employment, education, and health. A successful outcome would support more integrated and holistic policy responses. Finally, success would include meaningful inclusion of youth perspectives and lived experiences in shaping governance frameworks. Participatory approaches are essential to ensure that policies are grounded in real-world contexts and not only technical or institutional priorities. Ultimately, the Dialogue should move global AI governance toward systems that not only function efficiently, but actively protect dignity, safety, and opportunity.

• Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight
• Protection and promotion of human rights

My selected priorities reflect my work at the intersection of digital rights, youth wellbeing, and AI-driven environments. Through research with young people in Zimbabwe, I have observed that AI systems particularly those shaping visibility and interaction online have impacts that extend beyond technical risks, influencing emotional wellbeing, self-expression, and economic opportunity. The prioritization of human rights, transparency, accountability, and human oversight is essential because many of these harms operate invisibly within platform systems. Young people often experience anxiety, self-censorship, and exposure to exploitation without clear understanding of how AI systems shape these outcomes. Strengthening accountability and oversight is therefore critical to ensuring that responsibility does not rest solely on users. The focus on the social, economic, and ethical implications of AI reflects the need to move beyond purely technical approaches. Digital harm is interconnected, affecting mental health, livelihoods, and participation in digital spaces. Governance frameworks must therefore be holistic and grounded in lived realities. Finally, safe, secure, and trustworthy AI is a key priority, particularly in advancing safety-by-design approaches. This includes embedding protection mechanisms within systems, rather than relying on reactive responses. Together, these priorities support a shift toward human-centered AI governance that protects dignity, promotes inclusion, and responds to the real-world experiences of those most affected.

An important cross-cutting issue not fully captured in the listed themes is the psychosocial impact of AI-driven environments and how these systems shape human behavior, identity, and wellbeing in subtle but significant ways. Current discussions often frame AI risks in technical, ethical, or economic terms, but less attention is given to how AI systems particularly those embedded in digital platforms continuously influence how individuals express themselves, make decisions, and perceive opportunities. These systems do not only process data; they shape visibility, reinforce norms, and can amplify pressure, anxiety, and self-censorship, especially among young people. Another emerging issue is the gap between policy recognition and lived experience. Many forms of digital harm remain invisible, unnamed, or misunderstood by users themselves, making them difficult to address through traditional governance approaches. This highlights the need for frameworks that integrate behavioral, emotional, and social dimensions into AI governance. In addition, there is a need to better connect digital risk with economic vulnerability. AI-driven systems can increase exposure to exploitation, including misleading opportunities and data misuse, particularly in contexts where digital participation is closely tied to livelihoods. Addressing these gaps requires more human-centered and participatory approaches to governance, ensuring that policies are informed not only by technical expertise, but also by the lived realities of those most affected.

In Zimbabwe and across similar contexts in the region, gaps in AI governance are already shaping how young people experience digital spaces, often in ways that remain insufficiently recognized in policy frameworks. A key challenge is the limited integration of human rights, transparency, and accountability in platform-driven environments. AI systems that shape visibility and access to information influence how young people express themselves, access opportunities, and engage online, yet there is low awareness of how these systems operate and limited mechanisms for redress when harm occurs. A significant limitation is the constrained capacity to regulate platform accountability, particularly for global technology companies operating across jurisdictions. This makes it difficult to enforce safety-by-design principles, leaving users more exposed to risks such as data exploitation, harmful content, and manipulative online interactions. Responsibility for safety is often shifted to individuals despite limited transparency and control. These challenges are reflected in broader regional convenings. Discussions in forums such as Forum on Internet Freedom Africa (FIFAfrica25) have highlighted that expanding digital systems without strong rights protections can risk reinforcing control rather than enabling agency, particularly in relation to digital identity and surveillance. At the same time, there are important opportunities. Young people in Zimbabwe are increasingly engaging in digital innovation, including participation in global tech competitions and hackathons. However, this potential is often constrained by local limitations in infrastructure, policy support, and digital safety frameworks. Strengthening AI governance presents an opportunity to better support and retain this innovation by creating safer, more enabling digital environments. Addressing these challenges requires integrated, human-centered approaches that reflect the social, economic, and behavioral realities of AI-driven environments.

The AI Dialogue can play a critical role in advancing international cooperation by creating an inclusive and continuous platform where diverse perspectives particularly from developing countries inform the direction of global AI governance. One of its most important functions is bridging the gap between global frameworks and local realities. Many countries are already experiencing the impacts of AI-driven systems, yet their experiences are often underrepresented in global decision-making. The Dialogue can ensure that governance approaches are informed by lived realities, including the social, economic, and behavioral dimensions of AI. It can also support greater alignment and coordination across countries by fostering shared understanding of key principles such as human rights, transparency, and accountability. This is particularly important in addressing cross-border challenges, including platform governance and data flows, which cannot be effectively managed at the national level alone. In addition, the Dialogue can contribute to capacity-building by enabling knowledge exchange, peer learning, and collaboration between stakeholders across regions. This can help reduce disparities in technical and policy readiness, particularly for countries with limited regulatory capacity. Finally, the Dialogue can promote more participatory and multi-stakeholder approaches to governance by ensuring that civil society, youth, and practitioners are actively included alongside governments and industry. By connecting global principles with local realities, the AI Dialogue can help shape more inclusive, coordinated, and human-centered approaches to AI governance.

The AI Dialogue should build on existing global and regional frameworks while more intentionally integrating insights from lived experiences and ground-level research. Current initiatives, including international AI ethics frameworks and regional digital rights discussions, have established important principles around safety, accountability, and human rights. However, findings from my research with young people in Zimbabwe highlight a persistent gap between these principles and how AI-driven systems are experienced in practice. For example, while governance frameworks emphasize transparency and accountability, many young people experience AI-driven environments as opaque systems that shape visibility, behavior, and opportunity without clear understanding or recourse. These systems contribute to psychosocial impacts such as anxiety, self-censorship, and reputational fear, as well as economic risks including exposure to digital exploitation and misleading opportunities. These dimensions are rarely reflected in existing governance approaches. The added value of the AI Dialogue lies in its ability to bridge this gap by integrating human-centered evidence into global governance processes. It can move beyond high-level commitments by ensuring that policy development reflects the emotional, social, and economic realities of AI-driven environments. Importantly, the Dialogue can strengthen connections between research, policy, and practice, enabling more responsive and contextually relevant approaches. By embedding lived experience into governance discussions, it can support the development of AI frameworks that not only set standards, but actively protect and empower users.

Different stakeholders can contribute to the AI Dialogue by bringing not only technical and policy expertise, but also lived experiences from the environments where AI systems are actively shaping behavior and opportunity. In my work engaging young people through participatory research, it is clear that many impacts of AI such as self-censorship, anxiety, and exposure to digital exploitation are not always visible in formal policy discussions. Civil society and community-based practitioners therefore play a critical role in surfacing these realities and ensuring they inform governance processes. To strengthen this, the Dialogue should adopt more participatory and experience-based formats. Beyond written submissions, structured engagements such as regional dialogues, community consultations, and scenario-based discussions can help capture how AI systems are actually experienced in different contexts. In my work, using interactive approaches has enabled participants to better articulate risks and decision-making processes in ways that traditional consultations often miss. The Dialogue should also be iterative, allowing for continuous engagement rather than one-time input. This includes feedback mechanisms that show how contributions influence outcomes, helping to build trust and accountability across stakeholders. Importantly, participation should be inclusive of youth and underrepresented communities, not only as beneficiaries but as contributors to knowledge and solutions. By integrating participatory methods with policy and technical expertise, the AI Dialogue can better bridge the gap between governance frameworks and real-world experience.

Perspectives that remain underrepresented in global AI governance discussions include young people particularly from the Global South whose everyday digital experiences are shaped by AI-driven platforms. In my work with youth in Zimbabwe, many participants could describe the effects of these systems such as self-censorship, anxiety, reputational pressure, and exposure to online exploitation yet lacked the language or avenues to connect these experiences to AI or policy discussions. As a result, critical forms of digital harm remain invisible in governance spaces. Community-based practitioners, informal digital workers, and users navigating online economies are also underrepresented. Their experiences reveal how AI-driven visibility and data practices influence access to opportunities, income, and safety, especially in contexts where digital participation is closely tied to livelihoods. To address this, inclusion must go beyond representation to meaningful participation. This can be achieved by integrating participatory and context-sensitive approaches into the Dialogue, such as community consultations, youth-focused forums, and structured engagements that capture lived experiences in accessible ways. Methods that move beyond technical language such as storytelling, scenario-based discussions, and facilitated dialogues can help translate complex AI concepts into real-world contexts. In addition, partnerships with local organizations and regional networks can support sustained engagement and ensure that insights from underrepresented communities inform policy outcomes, not just consultations. By actively embedding these voices into the governance process, the AI Dialogue can better reflect the realities of those most affected and support more inclusive, human-centered AI governance.

Perspectives that remain underrepresented in global AI governance discussions include young people particularly from the Global South whose everyday digital experiences are shaped by AI-driven platforms. In my work with youth in Zimbabwe, many participants could describe the effects of these systems such as self-censorship, anxiety, reputational pressure, and exposure to online exploitation yet lacked the language or avenues to connect these experiences to AI or policy discussions. As a result, critical forms of digital harm remain invisible in governance spaces. Community-based practitioners, informal digital workers, and users navigating online economies are also underrepresented. Their experiences reveal how AI-driven visibility and data practices influence access to opportunities, income, and safety, especially in contexts where digital participation is closely tied to livelihoods. To address this, inclusion must go beyond representation to meaningful participation. This can be achieved by integrating participatory and context-sensitive approaches into the Dialogue, such as community consultations, youth-focused forums, and structured engagements that capture lived experiences in accessible ways. Methods that move beyond technical language such as storytelling, scenario-based discussions, and facilitated dialogues can help translate complex AI concepts into real-world contexts. In addition, partnerships with local organizations and regional networks can support sustained engagement and ensure that insights from underrepresented communities inform policy outcomes, not just consultations. By actively embedding these voices into the governance process, the AI Dialogue can better reflect the realities of those most affected and support more inclusive, human-centered AI governance.

Effective AI governance requires approaches that move beyond high-level principles and translate into practical, user-centered solutions. One example is the growing emphasis on safety-by-design, which shifts responsibility from individuals to the systems and platforms shaping digital environments. Initiatives such as #BeSafeByDesign highlight the importance of embedding safety, accountability, and user protection into platform architecture rather than relying on reactive measures. Another important approach is human-centered and participatory models of governance. In my work engaging young people through community dialogues and workshops, participatory methods have helped surface how AI-driven systems shape behavior, decision-making, and exposure to risk. These approaches ensure that governance is informed by lived experience, not only technical expertise. Additionally, integrating digital wellbeing and economic protection into policy frameworks is critical. AI-driven environments increasingly influence access to opportunities, including employment and digital livelihoods. Effective governance should therefore address risks such as data exploitation, misleading opportunities, and platform-driven economic vulnerability. Transparency and accountability mechanisms also play a key role, particularly in improving understanding of how algorithms influence visibility and outcomes. This includes clearer reporting systems, accessible redress mechanisms, and stronger oversight of platform practices. Together, these approaches safety-by-design, participatory engagement, and integrated policy frameworks offer practical pathways for developing AI governance that is not only effective, but also inclusive and responsive to real-world challenges.