ABSTRACT
By comparing China's and India's approaches to state authority in the digital age, this article explores how digital sovereignty is changing governance and policymaking. I demonstrate how the digital age undermines conventional ideas of state control and autonomy by examining the historical foundations of sovereignty and its evolution. Two different approaches to attaining digital sovereignty, influenced by different interests and ideological elements, are reflected in China's "networked authoritarianism" paradigm and India's rather inclusive Digital India Program. Using these case studies, I argue that digital sovereignty is complex and dynamic, with important ramifications for individual liberties, global governance, and the distribution of power in our globalized society.
The Paradigm Shift: From Westphalia to Digital Sovereignty
Spender Dale’s 1995 prediction that technology would “reshape human history” [15] is a process that is ongoing – at least in the realm of politics – as they already have reshaped the political and global landscape, redefining how states operate in the domestic and international arena. An important and affected area that I will explore is the concept of sovereignty. It used to be seen as a fixed and unmovable principle of politics and law, yet now it faces the pressing need for redefinition in the face of rapid technological advancements and interconnectedness.
Starting from the historical and literal conception of sovereignty, derived from the Latin term superanus ("supreme power"), the notion evolved into the French souveraineté. Initially, it centered on a ruler’s right to choose the state religion, a concept coined in the 16th century by German jurist Joachim Stephani as cuius regio, eius religio ("whose realm, their religion”). Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin have further defined sovereignty to mean “the state in which some person or body of persons must hold the ultimate and absolute authority to declare the law” [1], a concept that revolutionized and threw the first foundations for the creation of the modern sovereign state.
Moreover, in 1648, the Peace of Westphalia marked a significant development, not only ending the Thirty Years’ War but also establishing the concept of the “Westphalian state” [18], based on “indivisible sovereignty, excluding external agencies and without sharing internal control with other domestic bodies” [9]. This state structure was characterized by well-defined borders and shared identity and culture among its population, making it absolute and indivisible. However, in the modern digital age, this tradition has rapidly begun to dissipate with the rise of digital networks and the phenomena of globalization, achieving the defiance of state-imposed borders and forcing states to adapt to this change by attempting to establish a sovereign state without a physical territory.
The above-mentioned phenomenon has become known as digital sovereignty. Digital sovereignty is defined as “the capacity of states to ensure that their rules are respected by actors in the online world” [12], reflecting the challenges states face in performing their traditional roles amidst powerful transnational actors. It has already profoundly influenced public policy worldwide, despite being a relatively “new concept” – emerging toward the end of the 1990s in China and the beginning of the 2010s in the United States and Europe. An example would be the exponential growth of the data economy, which has driven regulations to protect citizens’ data and privacy rights, along with frameworks aiming to boost security, privacy, and data ownership across borders, as well as digital trade agreements and the potential for e-governance (also spawning debates about digital democracy) [17].
Digital sovereignty is defined as “the capacity of states to ensure that their rules are respected by actors in the online world”
Julia Pohle and Thorsten Thiel have explored digital sovereignty, arguing that it represents a real shift from traditional sovereignty. This is mainly achieved by the introduction of multistakeholder internet governance, which allows diverse stakeholders—private sector, civil society, experts, and user communities—to manage internet infrastructure, norms, and rules and share responsibility, to maintain inclusivity and effectiveness in decision-making. It is also stressed how this movement is undeniably global since both democratic and authoritarian states are adopting digital sovereignty principles to fit their needs and ideologies, which will be explored below. [11].
However, one of the central challenges of digital sovereignty is that international law has yet to catch up with the rapid pace of digital transformations; legal systems designed for the physical world are seriously struggling to address non-territorial issues. This shift is underscored in the book Who Controls the Internet?, where the author notes that an “explanation” behind this struggle might reside in the fact that the internet’s early design was a regulation-free, community-driven space [6]. Originally, cyberspace was envisioned as an experiment in governance free from government regulation, as reflected in the Declaration of Cyberspace Independence; yet states now seek to use the internet to enhance their sovereignty, altering online experience and regulating digital spaces according to their national priorities [7]. Yet, we cannot overlook the significant impact that the internet has had on policymaking; and even if we could, it is already deeply integrated, and a return to previous methods is unlikely.
The present article examines the real-world implementation of digital sovereignty, along with the challenges and transformations it entails. China and India, as two prominent emerging powers, constitute rich case studies, each taking unique and contrasting approaches. Together, these examples reveal the complexity and multifaceted nature of digital sovereignty, inviting us to consider the diverse possibilities this evolving concept may hold for the future.
Balancing Economic Growth and Social Control: China’s Digital Strategy
Rooted in a history of centralized governance [5], China’s digital policies reflect deep-seated concerns about foreign influence, particularly of the United States, as well as internal dissent. Since the 1980s, technological advancement has been a priority, with initiatives to boost the economy, improve governmental services, and foster globally competitive Internet enterprises. This resulted also in increased connectivity, given that nearly 700 million Chinese citizens now use the internet [16].
However, Creemers claims that China has a nuanced approach to internet governance, aiming to balance economic potential with the utility of social control. It therefore seeks to maximize the internet’s potential for economic growth by making services more convenient, increasing efficiency, reducing costs, replacing labor, and enhancing user experience, while also expanding its 5G networks and data centers; whilst also using digital tools to promote social control and reinforce state ideals. [3]
An example of this was Premier Li Keqiang’s 2015 “Internet Plus” initiative, which introduced a comprehensive plan to integrate mobile internet, big data, cloud computing, and IoT technologies with governance and economic reforms. Moreover, under Xi Jinping, cybersecurity and digital policy oversight has become even more centralized; government documents like “Document No. 9” outline the internet’s risks, targeting “false information” that threatens social harmony, with Chinese citizens risking jail time if their posts gain viral traction—defined as 500 shares or 5,000 views.
Given this, Rebecca MacKinnon interestingly describes China’s digital approach as “networked authoritarianism”[10].
While China heavily restricts content it deems undesirable, it also actively promotes “positive energy” (zheng nengliang) in its media—state-approved narratives that reflect socialist ideals, patriotism, and public morality, thus cultivating a carefully curated digital environment.
As previously mentioned, China fears U.S. influence on its domestic affairs and the possibility of mass information leaks, especially following the Snowden revelations. In response, it has implemented restrictive measures on foreign technology suppliers and developed the “Great Firewall,” a vast censorship apparatus that filters and controls foreign content, enables extensive monitoring of domestic activity, limits access to information, and curbs dissenting voices.
Furthermore, China also relies heavily on partnerships with private companies to maintain digital control. Major tech firms like WeChat, Tencent, and Alibaba play significant roles in monitoring and collecting data for the state, and under laws like the National Intelligence Law and the Cybersecurity Law, these companies are required to share user data with government authorities, enabling mass surveillance and data-driven governance. For example, Weixin (the Chinese version of WeChat) operates with data-sharing protocols that grant the government access to user messages, location data, and contact information and facilitate extensive surveillance. [6]
Reflecting upon the Chinese citizens’ perception of the pervasive surveillance and Social Credit System that monitors their everyday actions, one can consider the concept of “saving face” (mainzi) – a cultural value deeply ingrained in Chinese society that emphasizes maintaining social reputation, dignity, and honor by avoiding actions that could cause shame or loss of respect. This cultural framework may intersect with government strategies, potentially influencing both public acceptance and the societal framing of digital monitoring. [19]
Ultimately, China’s state-based digital model reveals a future where corporate and governmental interests are tightly, and often forcibly, intertwined within internet governance. This relationship does not just strengthen private companies – it binds them to the government’s agenda, making them key players in a surveillance network. This model raises urgent questions: in a world where technology is essential to growth, should state power dominate private innovation and individual freedom? China’s approach may sustain stability, but hardly at no cost to the personal autonomy and the right to open access to the digital world.
Balancing Growth and Security: India’s Journey in Digital Sovereignty
India’s approach to cyberspace is shaped by a blend of ancient mythology and modern policy. Some believe that cyberspace echoes themes from India's epics, like the Mahabharata and Ramayana, which depict ideas resembling virtual reality, instant travel, and even elements of digital security. For instance, the transformation of arrows through chants in the Mahabharata is often likened to today’s use of passwords. This rich cultural backdrop influences India’s focus on digital inclusivity and empowerment, infusing its digital policies with a uniquely Indian perspective. [14]
India’s digital development officially began in 2015 with the Digital India Program (DIP), designed to bridge the rural-urban digital divide and make digital services accessible to all. DIP’s three main goals are digital infrastructure, on-demand governance and services, and digital empowerment. The initiative sought to improve accessibility, efficiency, and transparency in government services. For example, Aadhaar provides citizens with unique IDs to simplify authentication processes, while DigiLocker reduces bureaucratic paperwork by offering secure, digital document storage; MyGov.in encourages citizen engagement in governance, promoting transparency and collaboration; other initiatives like Common Service Centers (CSCs) ensure access to services in rural areas; Jeevan Pramaan allows pensioners to submit life certificates online. Meanwhile, platforms like UMANG and GeM make government services and procurement processes more accessible and citizen-friendly. [8]
However, despite DIP’s achievements, it also faces several challenges, including economic constraints, structural barriers, and resistance to adopting new technologies among the public, as mentioned by Sindakis. To overcome these obstacles, the government has collaborated with the private sector on projects like BharatNet, which aims to provide high-speed internet to over 250,000 villages and implemented the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Digital Saksharta Abhiyan (PMGDISHA), intending to enhance digital literacy in rural areas by training individuals in basic computer skills. This focus on rural areas, where, in 2023, 63.64% of India’s population resided, has led to notable economic growth, with the DIP’s estimated contribution of up to 30% to India’s GDP by 2025, thanks to the government’s efforts in fostering financial inclusion, streamlining agricultural activities, and creating more transparent governance. [8]
In The Digital Revolution in India: bridging the gap in rural technology adoption, Sindakis and Showkat argue that younger individuals are more adaptable to technology and possess higher computer literacy, which would reinforce the understanding that the DIP is effectively reaching younger generations. There has also been a consistent upward trend in the adoption rates of e-voting, e-commerce, and mobile banking, which suggests that rural populations are becoming increasingly aware of and engaging with digital services. [13]
India’s focus on digital empowerment, therefore, contrasts with China’s control-driven approach, perceiving Indian citizens as more open and positive about the changes; but recent policies like data localization signal a shift toward prioritizing national security and data sovereignty. The 2019 Data Protection Bill aims to establish a national framework for data governance, enhancing security, and fostering economic growth. However, these measures raise concerns about expanding government influence and surveillance over citizens’ digital lives, with the system of data localization strengthening national security by combating cybercrime and terrorism, leading to privacy infringements. [2]
India’s digital transformation is a bold step toward economic empowerment, but it also treads carefully when it comes to data sovereignty; while the Digital India Program champions inclusivity and digital literacy, the push for data localization raises issues around surveillance and privacy. This highlights the ongoing challenge India faces in balancing innovation with personal freedoms, proving that the journey toward full digital sovereignty is far from over.
Ultimately, as digital sovereignty evolves, it raises critical questions about the balance between state control, personal freedoms, and national interests. The future will hinge on how nations like China and India navigate this complex terrain, where technological progress must be weighed against the preservation of individual rights and global cooperation. The path they take will not only shape their digital futures but also influence the broader dynamics of international governance, as we all inhabit this increasingly interconnected world, defined by the large web of the internet.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Britannica. "Sovereignty and International Law." Britannica. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty/Sovereignty-and-international-law.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "How Would Data Localization Benefit India?" April 2021. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/04/how-would-data-localization-benefit-india?lang=en.
Creemers, Rogier. "Cyber China: Upgrading Propaganda, Public Opinion Work and Social Management for the Twenty-First Century." Journal of Contemporary China 26, no. 103 (2017): 85–100. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2016.1206281.
Eurasia Review. "India's Digital Sovereignty: Balancing Control, Security, and Individual Rights." July 30, 2024. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://www.eurasiareview.com/30072024-indias-digital-sovereignty-balancing-control-security-and-individual-rights-oped/.
Fratini, Samuele, Emmie Hine, Claudio Novelli, Huw Roberts, and Luciano Floridi. "Digital Sovereignty: A Descriptive Analysis and a Critical Evaluation of Existing Models." 2024.
Goldsmith, Jack, and Tim Wu. Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Heintschel von Heinegg, Wolff. "Territorial Sovereignty and Neutrality in Cyberspace." International Law Studies89 (2013): 123.
India Briefing. "India's Digital Transformation: A Key to Growth." 2023. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://www.india-briefing.com/doing-business-guide/india/sector-insights/india-digital-transformation.
Law, Jonathan, ed. "Sovereignty." In A Dictionary of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780198802525.001.0001.
MacKinnon, Rebecca. “Flatter World and Thicker Walls? Blogs, Censorship and Civic Discourse in China.” Journal of Democracy 18, no. 2 (2007): 51–65. https://web.archive.org/web/20151228030316id_/http://www.ou.edu/uschina/gries/articles/Internet/mackinnon.JOD.China.pdf.
Pohle, Jan-Hinrik, and Thorsten Thiel. "Digital Sovereignty." Internet Policy Review 9, no. 4 (2020). Accessed November 15, 2024. https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532.
Sciences Po. "Digital and Data Sovereignty." Accessed November 15, 2024. https://www.sciencespo.fr/public/chaire-numerique/en/thematic-research/digital-and-data-sovereignty/.
Sindakis, Stavros, and Gazal Showkat. "The Digital Revolution in India: Bridging the Gap in Rural Technology Adoption." Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 13 (2024): 29. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00380-w.
Singh, Thangjam K. "India's Cybersecurity Policy Evolution and Trend Analysis." Chapters 1 and 2, 2023.
Spender, Dale. Nattering on the Net: Women, Power and Cyberspace. Melbourne: Spinifex Press, 1995.
State Council Information Office of China. "In 2022, China's Digital Economy Grew to 45 Trillion Yuan." November 10, 2023. Accessed November 15, 2024. http://english.scio.gov.cn/in-depth/2023-11/10/content_116806911.htm#:~=In%202022%2C%20China's%20digital%20economy,press%20conference%20during%20the%20summit.
Tietoevry. "All You Need to Know About Digital Sovereignty." Accessed November 15, 2024. https://www.tietoevry.com/en/blog/2023/05/all-you-need-to-know-about-digital-sovereignty/.
Wilson, Peter H. Europe's Tragedy: A History of the Thirty Years War. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2009.
"Chinese Saving Face Meaning." Pandanese. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://www.pandanese.com/blog/chinese-saving-face-meaning#:~=Mainzi%2C%20or%20%E9%9D%A2%E5%AD%90%2C%20refers%20to,Pandanese%2C%20the%20Chinese%20version%20WaniKani.
Comments