Digital security or total control: a comparative analysis of “safe city” models under different political regimes

<jats:p>The article notes that the information society is undergoing a continuous reshaping of traditional management forms and methods, driven by computerization and digitalization, the increasing complexity of social processes, constant security challenges amid globalized uncertainty, and non-linear development. Innovative integrated systems, particularly the “Safe City” information and analytical complex, are becoming significant tools in managerial practice at both the municipal and state levels, gradually forming a holistic ecosystem of the “Smart City”. By their nature, artificial intelligence, video analytics, and Big Data technologies are neutral instruments of public administration; however, their functional purpose and real impact on society are entirely determined by the state’s political regime. The purpose of the article is to study and conduct a comparative analysis of the functioning of “Safe City” technological systems under modern political regimes. The political regimes of the modern world are examined through the prism of conceptual research and criteria proposed by the human rights organization Freedom House and the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, which distinguish consolidated authoritarian regimes, semi-consolidated authoritarian regimes, transitional or “hybrid” regimes, semi-consolidated democracies, and consolidated democracies. It is concluded that the functionality and social effect of “Safe City” systems are determined exclusively by the political vector of state power, while the technologies themselves remain apolitical. Authoritarian leadership adapts them for repressive pressure and the formation of “digital authoritarianism” (specifically through facial recognition systems, social credit, and censorship), aiming to eliminate social unpredictability and establish total control over the individual. Conversely, democracy views these innovations through the prism of public good and service management, where the priority is protecting citizens from technological or security crises under conditions of strict confidentiality, legal safeguards (including GDPR), and data minimization. Prospects for analyzing the specifics of deploying such systems in Ukraine during martial law and in the post-war recovery phase are outlined. Keywords: public administration, public policy, Safe City project, Smart City, security, political regime, digital authoritarianism, artificial intelligence, development, society.</jats:p>