Artificial Authority: From Machine Minds to Political Alignments

An Experimental Analysis of Democratic and Autocratic Biases in Large-Language Models

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.23.2026.102.19

Keywords:

artificial intelligence, large-language models, bias, democracy, autocracy

Abstract

Political beliefs vary significantly across different countries, reflecting distinct historical, cultural, and institutional contexts. These ideologies, ranging from liberal democracies to rigid autocracies, influence human societies, as well as the digital systems that are constructed within those societies. The advent of generative artificial intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), introduces new agents in the political space-agents trained on massive corpora that replicate and proliferate socio-political assumptions. This paper analyzes whether LLMs display propensities consistent with democratic or autocratic worldviews. We validate this insight through experimental tests in which we experiment with the leading LLMs developed across disparate political contexts, using several existing psychometric and political orientation measures. The analysis is based on both numerical scoring and qualitative analysis of the models’ responses. Findings indicate high model-to-model variability and a strong association with the political culture of the country in which the model was developed. These findings highlight the need for more detailed examination of the sociopolitical dimensions embedded within AI systems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Natalia Ożegalska-Łukasik, Jagiellonian University

    Holds her PhD in sociology and currently serves as the Deputy Director for Education at the Institute of Intercultural Studies, Jagiellonian University. She was a visitor at Beijing Foreign Studies University, Central China Normal University (China), and the University of Copenhagen (Denmark). As a doctoral student, she received a scholarship under the SYLFF program at the Australian National University. Her research interests include the transformation of Chinese society in the 20th and 21st centuries, as well as issues related to the ethics of artificial intelligence, migration, family, and intercultural communication.

  • Szymon Łukasik, AGH University of Kraków, NASK National Research Institute

    Holds a PhD and habilitation in the field of data analysis and computational intelligence. Currently a Director of AI Safety Research Center at NASK National Research Institute and associate professor at the AGH University of Kraków and the Systems Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences. A graduate of the Top 500 Innovators program at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, visiting scientist at UNINOVA (Portugal), National Laboratory of Pattern Recognition (China) and University of Technology Sydney (Australia). Author of over 80 publications in the field of data science and artificial intelligence methods.

References

Adorno T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik E., Levinson D., Sanford N., The Authoritarian Personality, New York 1950.
View in Google Scholar

Almond G.A., Verba S., The Civic Culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Princeton 1963.
View in Google Scholar

Altemeyer B., The Authoritarian Specter, Cambridge 1996.
View in Google Scholar

Altemeyer B., Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Winnipeg 1981.
View in Google Scholar

Arab Youth Survey, Charting a New Course. The 14th Annual ASDA’A BCW Arab Youth Survey, Dubai 2022.
View in Google Scholar

Boelaert J., Coavoux S., Ollion É. et al., “Machine Bias. How Do Generative Language Models Answer Opinion Polls?,” Sociological Methods & Research, vol. 54, no. 3 (2025), pp. 1156-1196, https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241251330582.
View in Google Scholar

Carter E.B., Chen L., Jia R., Xu Y., “Do Chinese Citizens Conceal Opposition to the CCP in Surveys? Evidence from Two Experiments,” The China Quarterly, vol. 259 (2024), pp. 804-813, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741023001819.
View in Google Scholar

Chaffer T.J., von Goins II Ch., Cotlage D. et al., “Decentralized Governance of AI Agents,” arXiv, 24 December 2024, at https://arxiv.org/html/2412.17114v3.
View in Google Scholar

Dahl R.A., Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition, New Haven 1971.
View in Google Scholar

Duckitt J., Sibley Ch.G., “Personality, Ideology, Prejudice, and Politics. A Dual-Process Motivational Model,” Journal of Personality, vol. 78, no. 6 (2010), pp. 1861-1894, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x.
View in Google Scholar

Funke F., “The Dimensionality of Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Lessons from the Dilemma between Theory and Measurement,” Political Psychology, vol. 26, no. 2 (2005), pp. 195-218, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3792612.
View in Google Scholar

Habermas J., Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. W. Rehg, Cambridge 1996.
View in Google Scholar

Hakimov R., Rohner D., Boboshin F., Chatbots’ Soft Power: Generative Artificial Intelligence Promotes Different Political Values Across Countries, 11 August 2025, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5386746.
View in Google Scholar

Hartmann J., Schwenzow J., Witte M., The Political Ideology of Conversational AI. Converging Evidence on ChatGPT’s Pro-Environmental, Left-Libertarian Orientation, 1 January 2023, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4316084.
View in Google Scholar

Helwe Ch., Balalau O., Ceolin D., “Navigating the Political Compass: Evaluating Multilingual LLMs across Languages and Nationalities,” in W. Che, J. Nabende, E. Shutova et al. (eds), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL 2025”, Vienna 2025, pp. 17179-17204.
View in Google Scholar

Ho A.K. et al., “The Nature of Social Dominance Orientation: Theorizing and Measuring Preferences for Intergroup Inequality Using the New SDO₇ Scale,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 109, no. 6 (2015), pp. 1003-1028, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033.
View in Google Scholar

Inglehart R., “How Solid Is Mass Support for Democracy – And How Can We Measure It?,” PS: Political Science & Politics, vol. 36, no. 1 (2003), pp. 51-57, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096503001689.
View in Google Scholar

Lasser J., Poechhacker N., “Designing Social Media Content Recommendation Algorithms for Societal Good,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1548, no. 1 (2025), pp. 20-28, https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15359.
View in Google Scholar

Latour B., Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford 2005.
View in Google Scholar

Liu Z., “Cultural Bias in Large Language Models. A Comprehensive Analysis and Mitigation Strategies,” Journal of Transcultural Communication, vol. 3, no. 2 (2024), pp. 224-244, https://doi.org/10.1515/jtc-2023-0019.
View in Google Scholar

Masoud R., Liu Z., Ferianc M. et al., “Cultural Alignment in Large Language Models. An Explanatory Analysis Based on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions,” in O. Rambow, L. Wanner, M. Apidianaki (eds), Proceedings-International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Abu Dhabi 2025, pp. 8474-8503.
View in Google Scholar

Motoki F., Neto V.P., Rodrigues V., “More Human than Human. Measuring ChatGPT Political Bias,” Public Choice, vol. 198 (2024), pp. 3-23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-023-01097-2.
View in Google Scholar

National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce, AI Risk Management Framework, https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework.
View in Google Scholar

Norris P., Democratic Deficit. Critical Citizens Revisited, Cambridge 2011.
View in Google Scholar

Ober J., Demopolis. Democracy before Liberalism in Theory and Practice, Cambridge 2017.
View in Google Scholar

Pereira M.F., Hernández E., Landwehr C., “Understandings and Evaluations of Democracy,” ESS Topline Results Series, no. 13 (2023), at https://europeansocialsurvey.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/TL013_Democracy-English.pdf.
View in Google Scholar

Pickering A., The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science, Chicago 1995.
View in Google Scholar

Potter Y., Seungwon L., Hyunwoo K., Yejin Ch., “Hidden Persuaders: LLMs’ Political Leaning and Their Influence on Voters,” in Y. Al-Onaizan, M. Bansal, Y.N. Chen, Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Stroudsburg 2024, pp. 4244-4275.
View in Google Scholar

Poushter J., Smerkovich M., Fagan M. et al., “Free Expression Seen as Important Globally, but Not Everyone Thinks Their Country Has Press, Speech and Internet Freedoms,” Pew Research Center, 24 April 2025, at https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/04/pg_2025.04.24_free-speech_report.pdf.
View in Google Scholar

Pratto F., Sidanius J., Stallworth L.M., Malle B.F., “Social Dominance Orientation. A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 67, no. 4 (1994), pp. 741-763, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.
View in Google Scholar

Rozado D., “The Political Biases of ChatGPT,” Social Sciences, vol. 12, no. 3 (2023), p. 148, https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030148.
View in Google Scholar

Sidanius J., Pratto F., Social Dominance. An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression, Cambridge 1999.
View in Google Scholar

Suchman L.A. Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd ed., Cambridge 2006.
View in Google Scholar

Sukiennik N., Gao C., Xu F., Li Y., An Evaluation of Cultural Value Alignment in LLM, arXiv, 11 April 2025, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.08863.
View in Google Scholar

Wike R., Silver L., Castillo A., “Many Across the Globe Are Dissatisfied with How Democarcy Is Working,”Pew Research Center, 29 April 2019, at https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/04/Pew-Research-Center_Global-Views-of-Democracy-Report_2019-04-29_Updated-2019-04-30.pdf.
View in Google Scholar

Wike R., Silver L., Stokes B. et al., “Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy,” Pew Research Center, 16 October 2017, at https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/10/Pew-Research-Center_Democracy-Report_2017.10.16.pdf.
View in Google Scholar

World Values Survey, E117 – Political System: Having a Democratic Political System, 2022, at https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp.
View in Google Scholar

Venaglia R., Maxwell L., “How We Conducted Our International Study on Right-Wing Authoritarianism,” Morning Consult, 28 June 2021, at https://pro.morningconsult.com/articles/right-wing-authoritarianism-international-study-methodology.
View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Published

29-05-2026

How to Cite

“Artificial Authority: From Machine Minds to Political Alignments: An Experimental Analysis of Democratic and Autocratic Biases in Large-Language Models”. 2026. Politeja 23 (2(102): 327-50. https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.23.2026.102.19.