 A Democratic Architecture for the Digital Age
Digital sovereignty has become a central concern for governments worldwide, yet its meaning remains contested. Too often it is framed as isolation—control through exclusion—rather than as capacity: the ability to act effectively and responsibly within interdependent systems. China’s model of “cyber sovereignty,” codified in its 2017 Cybersecurity Law, exemplifies a sovereignty of enclosure. It secures state control by localizing data, centralizing infrastructure, and constraining flows of information. Russia’s 2019 “sovereign internet” law follows the same logic. These approaches define security through separation, projecting strength while eroding openness and accountability. Democratic nations need an alternative. Sovereignty should not be the power to disconnect, but the capability to participate on one’s own terms—to govern technology through democratic principles of transparency, accountability, and rights. That capacity depends on interoperability: the ability to connect diverse systems, laws, and institutions without coercion or dependence. This essay calls that principle interoperable sovereignty—a model where autonomy and cooperation are mutually reinforcing. It builds on the argument advanced in my previous essay The Case for Open Sovereignty in a Fragmenting Internet, which proposed open sovereignty as a framework for reconciling autonomy with interdependence: the ability to protect one’s values and institutions while remaining engaged in global systems. The Evolution of Sovereignty as Capacity Sovereignty has always adapted to the architectures of power that define its age. Each historical shift in technology, economy, and governance has redefined what it means for states to act autonomously and cooperatively. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) enshrined territorial control as the organizing principle of political authority. Sovereignty was conceived as exclusivity: the right of rulers to govern within fixed borders without external interference. This system fit the infrastructure of its time—armies, fortifications, and physical frontiers defined both power and protection. By the 19th century, sovereignty was already evolving alongside new networks of industrial and financial interdependence. The Congress of Vienna (1815) and later the Gold Standard (1870s–1914) introduced early forms of coordination across borders. Even as empires expanded, the need for stable exchange rates, standardized time zones, and interoperable communication systems (such as the International Telegraph Union, which later became the International Telecommunications Union, founded in 1865) demonstrated that sovereignty could no longer rely solely on territorial control; it now depended on participation in shared infrastructures. The post-1945 order marked a further transformation. After two world wars, sovereignty was reimagined as cooperation through institutions. The creation of the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)embedded interdependence into governance. Europe went further still: the European Coal and Steel Community (1951) and later the Single Market (1993) institutionalized pooled authority. By aligning rules and standards, European states converted economic interdependence into strategic strength. Sovereignty became not just control within borders but capacity exercised through shared frameworks. Today, the locus of sovereignty has shifted again—from territory and law to infrastructure. Networks of code, data, and standardsnow determine how states, markets, and citizens operate. Control over data flows, algorithmic decision-making, and network architectures shapes economic competitiveness and political agency as decisively as control over territory once did. The early internet embodied a radically different model of power. Designed for resilience during the Cold War and structured around open protocols like TCP/IP, it distributed authority across nodes rather than centralizing it. Its architecture allowed “permissionless innovation”: anyone could connect, build, and share. This interoperability created the first truly global infrastructure of communication—one that mirrored, in digital form, the cooperative logic that had governed the postwar international order. That openness is now under strain. As digital systems underpin everything from supply chains to public services, states have sought to reclaim control through data localization, national firewalls, and proprietary standards. These mechanisms re-territorialize cyberspace, fragmenting the shared network into competing zones of influence. The result is a return to zero-sum sovereignty—security through separation—at the expense of collective capacity. The challenge for democracies, therefore, is the same one their predecessors faced at earlier turning points: to design institutions that preserve autonomy while enabling cooperation. Just as postwar leaders built financial and political architectures that reconciled sovereignty with interdependence, today’s policymakers must craft digital infrastructures that balance security with openness. Sovereignty, in this sense, is no longer a static claim but a design problem—an evolving capacity to act effectively in the systems that structure power. Where past generations built railways, telegraphs, and monetary unions to sustain coordination, this generation must build interoperable digital architectures that do the same for data, algorithms, and networks. Interoperable Sovereignty: Autonomy Through Connection Interoperable sovereignty treats connectivity itself as a sovereign resource. It is not autonomy from others but the capacity to act with others—securely, confidently, and on democratic terms. This approach rests on three dimensions:
Historically, such interoperability has strengthened rather than diluted sovereignty. The Bretton Woods system (1944) established financial interoperability that stabilized currencies while preserving national authority. The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944) created common airspace standards that respected national control. Even 19th-century railway gauge standardization enabled cross-border movement without dissolving borders. Each example demonstrates that shared frameworks amplify national capacity by reducing friction in global systems. Why Interoperability Anchors Sovereignty The internet’s success was built on interoperability—from TCP/IP’s unification of networks to open web standards governed by the W3C. Yet the principle that once sustained openness is weakening under competing regulatory and proprietary systems. Reasserting interoperability as a strategic norm is therefore essential to preserving both democracy and sovereignty. 1. Data Governance Effective data sovereignty depends on the ability to share securely, not merely to store locally. The EU’s GDPR set a global privacy benchmark but revealed the limits of unilateralism: compliance burdens and legal divergence constrained cooperation. A more durable approach lies in interoperable trust frameworks—mutual adequacy agreements and shared privacy principles that enable legitimate data flows between trusted jurisdictions. 2. Infrastructure and Cloud Systems Digital infrastructure underpins national security and economic resilience. Yet autonomy does not require isolation. Federated models—sovereign in governance, interoperable in function—allow nations to retain control while engaging globally. The Open RAN initiative illustrates this logic: open standards for telecommunications enhance security and supplier diversity without centralization. Europe’s GAIA-X project, though ambitious, showed how complex coordination can hinder such visions. Its difficulties underscore that interoperability is a matter not only of standards but of governance design. 3. Digital Regulation and Standards Democratic regulation risks fragmentation without interoperable mechanisms. The postwar aviation and ISO systems demonstrated that compatibility—not uniformity—enables cooperation. In today’s context, frameworks like the OECD’s AI Principles (2019) and the Global Partnership on AI show how shared norms can align diverse legal systems around transparency, fairness, and accountability. Embedding interoperability into regulation transforms governance from protectionism into collaboration—allowing rules to communicate across borders while preserving democratic intent. Historical experience shows that sovereignty can be multiplicative—expanded through shared design rather than diminished by it. The European Union’s institutions exemplify this: common standards turned interdependence into strength. A similar architectural approach can guide the digital realm. Interoperable sovereignty would mean digital infrastructures that are autonomous yet connected:
Europe’s Digital Decade strategy gestures toward this model but lacks a unifying philosophy. By framing interoperability as the foundation of sovereignty—rather than a constraint upon it—Europe can leverage its regulatory and institutional tradition to lead a democratic digital order. A Democratic Alternative to Digital Authoritarianism The contest over digital governance is, at its core, a contest over what sovereignty means in the 21st century. Authoritarian systems have staked their claim: sovereignty as control. They define security through restriction—tightening borders, centralizing power, and constraining the flow of information. Their model is clear, coherent, and advancing. Democracies, by contrast, have hesitated. They invoke sovereignty often but define it rarely. Too much of the current debate treats “digital sovereignty” as political theater—a signal of ambition rather than a plan of action. It is time to reclaim the term, not as a slogan but as a tool of governance: a means of ensuring that democratic societies can act with purpose in a networked world. Interoperable sovereignty offers that path. It reframes sovereignty not as resistance to interdependence, but as the capacity to act through it. It grounds democratic power in systems that are open, accountable, and connected by design. Shared infrastructure, common standards, and joint governance are not compromises—they are the instruments of resilience in an interdependent age. This requires work, not words. Democracies—especially Europe—must prove that sovereignty can coexist with the open architecture that made the internet a public good in the first place. That means designing rules and infrastructures that protect autonomy without dismantling interoperability; that ensure security without suffocating exchange. The task is both political and architectural. It is about governance frameworks that foster trust across borders, standards that embed transparency into systems, and public investments that make openness a strength rather than a vulnerability. These are not abstract ideals—they are the operational foundations of democratic sovereignty in the digital era. Where authoritarian models export surveillance and control, interoperable sovereignty can export trust and accountability. It can demonstrate that cooperation, when structured around shared principles, generates more stability than isolation ever could. But this vision will only carry weight if democracies are willing to treat sovereignty as a capacity to be built, not a sentiment to be declared. It is time to move from posturing to design—from slogans to systems. The credibility of democratic governance in the digital age depends on whether we can make sovereignty work as a framework for connection, not a pretext for retreat. Comments are closed.
|