Our view on digital sovereignty

The conversation around digital sovereignty is gaining urgency. We see it across Africa - in Kenya, where funding cuts from USAID put critical health data on US-based servers at risk. In Ethiopia, where the decision to have local developers build Fayda digital ID shows a commitment to digital autonomy. We see it in Brazil's legal battles with X (formerly Twitter) over the rules governing digital public spaces. And we see it in Denmark, where the government is reconsidering its reliance on Microsoft for its core internal tools.

From geopolitical shocks to domestic policy, leaders of governments and large organisations are at last facing the reality of the network era: the digital foundations our public services and economies are built on are more powerful than ever. Yet our democratic values, our ability to drive policy and, in extreme cases, raise taxes and operate the functions of the state, are threatened. The stakes are immense. A single point of failure is no longer a technical problem; it is a strategic vulnerability with profound consequences for an organisation's core mission.

Yet, "digital sovereignty" is too often narrowed to a simple question of "where is my data being stored?" or inflated into an unattainable goal of complete technological independence. This confusion prevents leaders from taking action.

At Public Digital, we think a more practical definition is needed: One that moves from theory to a framework for action. For us:

We see our definition as a roadmap for leaders.

It starts with Agency and Capacity.

Sovereignty is not a passive state that is just granted. It is an active capability that must be built and maintained. It requires situational awareness across internal and external factors, and needs organisations to lead its suppliers and innovators towards its version of sovereignty.

Agency is the power to set a direction. It is the ability to act, to make a deliberate decision, rather than being forced down a path by circumstance. This calls for leadership confident enough to question its existing digital estate and to explore alternatives, even when the default path seems easier.

Capacity is the institutional competence to choose well. It means having the skills, processes, and knowledge to untangle the technology spaghetti. It goes beyond just having technical talent. It requires leaders who grasp how digital systems work, procurement teams who can design contracts for the digital-era, and policy makers who understand the strategic implications of different technology choices.

For any organisation.

The conversation about digital sovereignty is often focused on the nation-state: national security, economic competitiveness, or control over critical data infrastructure.

But the underlying logic of sovereignty - the need to make strategic choices about digital dependencies - is not exclusive to national governments. A regional authority deciding how to procure a common software for its municipalities; a city choosing whether to run its own public transport payment system or outsource it to a global provider; a company assessing its reliance on a single cloud provider for its core operations. While the scale of their decisions may differ, the fundamental challenge is the same: to make the best choice that delivers value for the people they serve.

Understanding your dependencies.

The goal of digital sovereignty is not an impossible ideal of “digital independence,” a state of complete self-sufficiency that would be incredibly expensive and cut an organisation off from global innovation. As we have said elsewhere, sovereignty, if defined as owning every layer of a technological stack, can quickly become counterproductive. It leads to balkanized systems, limited interoperability and a retrenchment from global cooperation. The incentives for creative development disappear. Competition and innovation subside.

The goal, instead, is intelligent dependence. This means making better decisions about what to depend on, under which conditions, and for how long. But to do that, leaders must first understand the whole picture:

Infrastructure: the most tangible layer. Where are our data centres? Who owns the fibre optic cables (or satellites) we rely on? From where are we sourcing our hardware? Dependencies here can be affected by everything from trade sanctions to a change in local energy costs.

Systems and services: the software and platforms that run the organisation. Can we change our core operational software? What could happen if we do? Are our citizen-facing services built for long-term adaptability, or locked into a system that will be costly to change? Are our internal tools creating value for us, or are they creating new liabilities?

People and capacity: the human layer of sovereignty. Does critical knowledge reside in our teams, or with our suppliers? Do we understand the digital skills we will need tomorrow? Are our leaders equipped to make strategic decisions about digital and technology?

Shaping markets: What are the characteristics of each sector of the supply chain? Where are monopolies or oligopolies acceptable? What investment is needed to back sovereign innovation? Is the flywheel effect of revenues leading to investment present? How can national interests be protected through a global supply chain?

By conducting a digital sovereignty assessment, an organisation can establish its baseline and understand where the real risks, challenges and opportunities lie.

On choosing the right thing, in the right way

The choice for leaders for decades has not been a simple binary of “build vs. buy” or a battle between a few dominant providers. The spectrum of options on digital transformation is rich and diverse. This includes the rise of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), a maturing ecosystem of Digital Public Goods (DPGs), and new models of strategic partnerships that blend public sector oversight with private sector technology to deliver sovereign cloud services.

As sovereign choices become more necessary, we are seeing a range of options yielding success. These include investing in state backed start-ups; creating internally protected markets to stimulate innovation; choosing sovereign AI tools and technologies; redirecting technology spend to selected entrepreneurs with clear national impact; and rapid adoption of shared open source technologies to fend off extractive practices from incumbents.

Navigating these options requires making choices that are both informed and intelligent. An informed choice is based on a clear-eyed assessment of the facts: the costs, the technical requirements, and the contractual terms. An intelligent choice applies strategic foresight to that information. It considers the long-term implications: How does a decision affect our future adaptability? How could it shape our teams and processes? Does it truly advance our core mission?

By design, not by default.

Ultimately, digital sovereignty comes down to a choice: to actively participate in shaping your organisation's digital future, or to cede that control to others.

Operating by default is what happens when strategy is absent. It is to accept the technological status quo, letting outdated procurement practices, market momentum, or organisational inertia dictate the tools and systems your organisation relies on. This is how organisations find their critical functions deeply embedded in systems and ways of working that are difficult to change, not because of a single event, but because of a series of small, unexamined decisions. The bindweed of legacy systems is the result.

Operating by design is the active alternative. It demands the hard work of building institutional capacity, mapping dependencies, and evaluating the full spectrum of options to make choices based on a clear understanding of real-world costs and long-term goals. This is no mere one-time fix; it is a continuous process of understanding, evaluating, and acting that transforms sovereignty from a distant goal into an embedded, strategic capability.