How Government Digitalization Shapes Democracy: Risks, Lessons, and Global Approaches

Illustrative Image: How Government Digitalization Shapes Democracy: Risks, Lessons, and Global Approaches
Image Source & Credit: Biometricupdate
Ownership and Usage Policy

The accelerating shift toward digital government services is often framed as a leap toward modernization and efficiency. But according to new research from the University of Basel in Switzerland, rushing this transformation can actually expose democracies to vulnerabilities—empowering central authorities, eroding transparency, and leaving citizens with fewer safeguards against misuse of power.

This concern lies at the heart of The Road to Automated Democracy, a monitoring report released in June 2025 by the Public Institutions and Administration Research Forum (e-PIAF). The study analyzes how four countries—Switzerland, Germany, Estonia, and the United Kingdom—are implementing digital governance and what it means for democracy.

“Switzerland’s slow, decentralized digital transformation can protect democracy,” explains Christian R. Ulbrich, co-director of e-PIAF and co-author of the report.

Digitalization as a Double-Edged Sword

The report underscores a paradox: while digitalization can make government services more efficient and accessible, it also tends to concentrate decision-making power in fewer institutions and individuals. This concentration undermines democratic checks and balances if not carefully managed.

The sequence of adoption is telling. Ulbrich notes that new technologies are typically introduced first within intelligence services and police agencies—sectors already associated with surveillance and control—before spreading to tax authorities and broader administrative functions. This raises the risk of embedding authoritarian practices into digital governance systems.

Estonia: A Trailblazer with Hidden Risks

Estonia is often celebrated as the global leader in e-governance, having introduced electronic identity cards in the early 2000s and pushing toward a fully digital state. Yet, its rapid progress came at a cost. Public debates over privacy, civil liberties, and long-term democratic safeguards were often bypassed in the rush to digitize.

A recent example illustrates the risks. Earlier this year, Estonia’s Police and Border Guard Board began using a nationwide network of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras to track offenders. While efficient, the decision triggered political backlash. By August, the country’s Data Protection Inspectorate (AKI) ordered the police to comply with stronger privacy standards.

Moreover, Estonia exports its digital model abroad. Its flagship X-Road data exchange platform has been adopted by countries such as Saudi Arabia—raising concerns that authoritarian governments could exploit the technology without incorporating democratic safeguards like transparency or independent oversight.

Germany and the UK: Two Different Approaches

Germany has taken the opposite path. Its “cautious and fragmented” strategy aims to avoid the centralization of power by involving multiple stakeholders across federal and state levels. While this slows progress and creates bureaucratic complexity, it reflects an intentional choice to balance efficiency with democratic accountability. For instance, German citizens can use an alternative digital identity method—the ELSTER certificate—alongside the e-ID card, ensuring that no single system monopolizes access.

The UK, meanwhile, chose early adoption but leaned heavily on private-sector solutions. Authentication and service access are centralized through the GOV.UK platform, but much of the infrastructure relies on commercial providers like Microsoft. While this offers convenience, it creates long-term dependency on corporate vendors and weakens state control over its own digital backbone.

Switzerland: A Model for Democracy-Friendly Digitalization

Switzerland stands apart. Its digitalization efforts are slower and less visible, but the report suggests they may be more sustainable for democracy. Rather than rushing toward flashy solutions, Switzerland has focused on digitizing the institutions most central to democratic governance: courts and parliaments.

For example, the Swiss Parliament has launched CuriaPlus, a database that links directly to official data sources, enhancing legislative transparency. Similarly, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court is experimenting with artificial intelligence tools, but these are built on open-source, self-hosted platforms rather than proprietary black-box systems.

In a symbolic test of its democratic model, Switzerland is also preparing for a national referendum on electronic identity (e-ID) on September 28, giving citizens a direct voice in shaping the country’s digital future.

Lessons for Democracy and Digital Governance

The Road to Automated Democracy report concludes that early adopters like Estonia may now be locked into their initial technological choices, making reforms harder. In contrast, latecomers such as Switzerland and Germany may benefit from learning from others’ mistakes, designing systems that are not only efficient but also resilient against authoritarian misuse.

The key takeaway is that digitalization is not neutral. The design choices behind identity systems, data platforms, and administrative networks inevitably shape the balance of power within a democracy. Speed and efficiency are not enough; inclusivity, transparency, and citizen participation are essential for ensuring that digital states remain democratic states.

In conclusion: Digital government can either strengthen democracy or hollow it out, depending on whether societies prioritize checks and balances alongside innovation.