Lebanon is on the verge of creating a Ministry of Artificial Intelligence and Technology. The government has been pushing to advance the draft law quickly, but Parliament just decided to slow things down, referring the proposal to joint parliamentary committees for deeper review.
We think that’s the right call, and we want to explain why.
This is not a question of whether Lebanon should engage with artificial intelligence; rather, it is a question of how we should, and the best way to do it. As written, the draft law concentrates broad, undefined powers in a single ministry over a controversial technology that is at the center of a worldwide debate on governance, accountability, privacy, and rights.
Handing all technology-related issues to a single ministry without proper safeguards is a shortcut around the institutional reform Lebanon actually needs, and shortcuts don’t produce good governance.
Our overview of the draft law identified serious deficiencies:
- Broad, vaguely defined powers concentrated in a single ministry, with little accountability built in.
- Mandates that overlap and conflict with previous existing institutions, creating unnecessary centralization and interfering with the work of current ministries on certain issues.
- No meaningful safeguards for personal data and privacy, a law we have long advocated for.
- The seeming exclusion of civil society, technical experts, researchers, civil society, or other stakeholders who should have had a seat at the table.
But most importantly, Lebanon does not have the pre-requisites it needs for creating an AI and technology ministry. The country still lacks proper electricity, reliable digital infrastructure, laws policies spanning from cybersecurity to personal privacy laws, and clear laws governing the use of AI in public institutions.
AI is a technology that depends on large, organized datasets, and needs many resources. Creating a ministry of technology and AI in Lebanon is a contradiction itself, as it does not exist in isolation from these pre-requisites.
“Artificial intelligence can certainly become part of Lebanon’s future. But AI is not a development strategy in itself. Nor is it a substitute for fixing the structural problems that have held back Lebanon’s digital transformation for decades,” wrote Mohamad Najem, SMEX’s Executive Director for l’Orient le Jour.
These same deficiencies are grounded in the law text itself. Article 3, for example, tasks the ministry with developing and overseeing “the national digital ecosystem” as a whole, an extraordinary degree of centralization, granted without independent checks.
The same article promises AI development that “ensures the protection of personal data,” but offers no legal framework, enforcement mechanism, or independent authority to make that promise plausible.
Article 4 lets the ministry write its own “regulatory and supervisory frameworks” and mandate AI integration across public and private institutions, bypassing the legislative process and opening the door to data sharing without safeguards. It also grants the ministry authority over “any other tasks that contribute to achieving the objectives of this law,” which is basically a blank check for institutional expansion with no accountability attached.
Article 9 requires every ministry and agency to consult this new ministry before launching any digital initiative, creating a single chokepoint that halts coordination between the different ministerial entities.
Parliament’s decision to refer this bill is an opportunity, and lawmakers should therefore not waste it. As deliberations continue, we urge the government to adopt a more deliberate and participatory approach.
The drafting of the law should bring technical experts, researchers, civil society organizations, and the public into the process from the start, rather than presenting them with a finished law to react to after the fact.
That vision also needs real governance and accountability behind it. Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies cannot be entrusted to a broad, unchecked authority; they require independent oversight and democratic safeguards that can actually constrain how this power is being used and communicate it transparently with people.
None of this works without comprehensive data protection legislation; one that comes with enforcement teeth, not just principles on paper. Such a law would ideally draw inspiration from the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) while drawing on the importance of our local context.
And before the state expands its authority over AI governance, it needs to get its own house in order.
Public administration, cybersecurity, digital infrastructure, and interoperable public services all need strengthening first. Institutional reform has to come before institutional expansion, not the other way around.
As the situation progresses, SMEX will continue to monitor this process closely and will not relent in advocating for rights-based, accountable digital governance across Lebanon’s ministries and public institutions.
The post Our thoughts on Lebanon’s new AI and technology ministry appeared first on SMEX.