O PROBLEMATIZARE A BUNEI GUVERNĂRI DIGITALE

In political science today, the notions of “governance“ and “good governance“ compete as synonyms. The negative connotations of the first term (from the sphere of significance of the idea of leadership, or also care for one or more minors or immatures of any age, apprentices, etc.) are clear. That is why the preference for the phrase “good governance“ is justified, it is democratic, it is even a correct ethical preference. Extremely suggestive of “good governance“ is the image of the good steering of a ship at sea (κυβερνάω), protecting it from rocks and any other dangers and ensuring it a maximum advance with as little consumption as possible, an image also consistent with the etymology involved for governance that we choose to translate by the phrase “good governance“. The complexity of the topic is addressed via a multitude of aspects and directions of analysis including, but not limited to, the differences between “digitalization“ and “digitization“ , the Council of Europe view on digital good governance, the recommendations made by OECD in the Romanian situation in what concerns digitalization, the case of “Ion“, the IA governance adviser etc. The study concludes that digital good governance should ensure and not challenge in any way the defining characteristics of good governance: participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, the orientation towards consensus social inclusion efficiency and efficacity, accountability, the guaranty of human rights and good practices. The governing of the digital space and of the algorithms should prevail over the governance of the citizens by the algorithms.