Albania has made global headlines with the appointment of “Diella,” the world’s first AI-generated minister, tasked with overseeing public tenders. Prime Minister Edi Rama framed the move as a bold step toward eliminating corruption, which remains a persistent obstacle to Albania’s bid for European Union membership. Yet, while the announcement captured international attention, experts warn that entrusting government processes to an artificial intelligence system raises complex technical, ethical, and political questions.
Rama presented Diella as a groundbreaking solution, emphasizing that the virtual minister is “incorruptible.” Unlike human officials, Diella does not require a salary, has no personal interests, and, as Rama quipped, “has no cousins”—a reference to widespread nepotism in Albanian politics. Albania currently ranks 80th on Transparency International’s corruption index, and scandals linked to misuse of public funds have involved figures across the political spectrum, from former Tirana mayors to opposition leaders. By automating the process, the prime minister argues, the country could finally ensure 100% corruption-free tenders.
However, experts remain unconvinced. Erjon Curraj, a digital transformation and cybersecurity specialist, stressed that any AI system relies entirely on the quality of its input data and the reliability of the underlying models. If the data provided is incomplete, biased, or manipulated, then Diella’s decisions could be equally flawed—misinterpreting documents, flagging legitimate suppliers, or overlooking collusion. Jean-Gabriel Ganascia, an artificial intelligence researcher, went further, warning that assuming machines are free of bias is dangerous. “LLMs reflect society; they have biases. Submitting to a machine implies giving up deliberation and accountability,” he cautioned.
The accountability question is central to the debate. Opposition leader Sali Berisha has appealed to the Constitutional Court, asking who will ultimately control Diella’s decisions. Ganascia echoed these concerns, noting that when governance is delegated to an algorithm, political responsibility risks being erased. A decree has since clarified that Prime Minister Rama will remain responsible for Diella’s creation and operation, but critics argue that this does little to resolve the broader concerns over transparency and democratic oversight.
Beyond accountability, skeptics warn that Diella may represent little more than “old corruption dressed in new software.” Political analyst Lutfi Dervishi argued that if corrupt systems provide manipulated data or apply filters to hide sensitive information, the AI will simply legitimize the same problems it was meant to eliminate. With no public details on how Diella functions, including what datasets and models power her, many fear that the experiment risks masking systemic corruption rather than solving it.
The appointment also highlights a broader trend of governments experimenting with AI in governance without fully addressing the risks. While Rama’s move fits his pattern of headline-grabbing initiatives—ranging from announcing TikTok bans to proposing a “Bektashi State” modeled after the Vatican—critics say his track record suggests more flair than follow-through. Whether Diella survives constitutional review or satisfies EU standards remains to be seen, but the initiative has already sparked a necessary debate on the role of artificial intelligence in democracy.
Conclusion: Albania’s experiment with an AI-generated minister is historic, but it is also fraught with uncertainty. While the vision of a corruption-free system powered by technology is appealing, the reality depends heavily on transparency, accountability, and ethical safeguards. Without these, Diella risks becoming a symbol not of progress, but of how old problems can persist under a new digital guise.
