Following Jasanoff and Kim’s concept of “sociotechnical imaginaries,” this chapter examines the rhetoric, regulatory frameworks and policies employed in constructing imaginaries of digital sovereignty in China, Russia, and India – three member countries of BRICS and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation). A central finding is that these sociotechnical imaginaries center on protecting national cultural identity, or “cultural sovereignty,” against the “free flow of information,” a motive echoing NWICO debates in the 1970s and 1980s and WSIS discussions in the early 2000s. The development of these countries’ digital sovereignty imaginaries is deduced from their unique histories and governance approaches. Furthermore, the SCO’s crucial role as a platform to promote the partly authoritarian Chinese conception of cyber/information sovereignty is demonstrated. Another key finding is that imaginaries of digital sovereignty relate to a non-secular understanding of the state in all three examined countries. In this sense, the global emergence of digital sovereignty is comparable to the evolution of Westphalian sovereignty from the confessional wars in early modern Europe. The chapter concludes that an informed debate on digital sovereignty must consider both the dangers of digital authoritarianism and the productive potential of digital decolonization.

This chapter explores how the Indian state asserts its digital sovereignty through digital public goods, including the Unified Payment Interface (UPI), which is overseen by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), an entity governed by the Reserve Bank of India. This chapter demonstrates how, as part of the “India Stack,” indigenous digital payment design, architecture, and governance mechanisms allow for accessible, secure, and interoperable transactions in a mobile-first, open API-based payment network. This significantly reduces India’s dependence on foreign financial systems and protects it from shocks that could result from foreign sanctions (e.g., US economic sanctions of Russia in 2014 impacting MasterCard and Visa users in Russia). However, such a system is not without potential drawbacks, some of which include the dominance of foreign entities (e.g., Google Pay) on UPI as well as state-sanctioned monopolies that may minimize civil society participation and market competition. Besides interoperability and risk mitigation, the authors also advocate a multi-stakeholder governance model for the national digital payment system to bolster public ownership and institutional checks and balances.

By delving into China–South Africa and China–Italy relations in the ICTs, this chapter compares two of Huawei’s smart city projects – the Open Lab launched in 2017 in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the Joint Innovation Center (JIC) launched in 2019 in Cagliari, Italy. The study assesses the extent to which these Huawei-led initiatives and their digital governance models do empower indigenous actors – that is, South African and Italian – in terms of production, access to and (re)use of data, or rather take the form of a new data-driven colonization. Findings show that while Huawei’s Open Lab tends to exclude African actors, either public or private, by favoring collaboration among foreign ICT partners, the JIC sees the collaboration between Huawei and Italian public and private actors. Huawei’s approach is modulated and adaptive to extend its corporate digital sovereignty and arrange the local communities’ digital infrastructures. Further field research should be conducted to: (1) obtain a more transparent picture of how data stemming from these initiatives is handled, by whom, and for which purposes and (2) assess the impact of the deployed smart city solutions on local citizens by foreign tech firms, including those from China.

While China’s approach of re-territorializing the cyberspace is well known, this chapter argues that there is an emerging tendency of China expanding its regulatory power beyond territorial borders, which indicates a more spatially expansive notion of China’s digital sovereignty. This chapter examines this shift from territoriality to extraterritoriality in the conception and practice of China’s digital sovereignty by focusing on three recent regulatory initiatives, that is, the Personal Information Protection Law, the Data Security Law, and the order by the Ministry of Commerce on blocking unjustified extraterritorial application of foreign legislation and measures. From these initiatives, the chapter identifies two main approaches of broadening the spatial dimension of China’s digital sovereignty and argues that they reflect how the notion of digital sovereignty is developed to incorporate China’s changing geostrategic interests. This adaptation of China’s digital sovereignty can be compared to practices of the EU and the US to observe both contrasting trends and important regulatory emulations. The trend toward extraterritoriality, while conditioned by multiple internal and external factors, is likely to face important conceptual and practical challenges.

This chapter explores digital sovereignty claims in Brazilian activism on Mastodon, the most relevant development of federated social media. The free and open source software (FOSS) movement has always advanced digital sovereignty discourses, emphasizing bottom-up struggle for control and autonomy over technology. Federated social media are the open source response to the rise of corporate digital platforms and their proprietary business model. However, most narratives about FOSS struggles, including Mastodon, emerge from the core of the global capitalism. The specific appropriations of digital sovereignty discourses by Mastodon activists in the Global South and, in particular, in the BRICS are still understudied. This is even more relevant because of the history of technological sovereignty in the global periphery, in which bottom-up activism has been much closer to the state than in most FOSS narratives. Drawing on participant observation, interviews, and country data, the chapter contributes a nuanced understanding of how Brazilian activists articulate and shape digital sovereignty discourses. It finds out that Brazilian activism represents a step toward the politicization of the FOSS movement, but still attaches little value to the geopolitical dimension of social media struggles, departing from the historical contribution of FOSS activism in the Global South.

In a world of weaponized interdependence, middle powers have policy choices that can enhance their autonomy. However, having this policy space is not enough. In order to turn the policy space into policy enactment, domestic politics has to align in a particular way. This chapter considers India and Brazil as examples of “middle powers” and analyzes their capacity to enact autonomy and safeguard their digital sovereignty. The authors argue that when independent institutions’ interests are incorporated into the policymaking process and are not usurped by the parliamentary (political) process, they observe the enactment of autonomy-enhancing policies. Brazil’s and India’s data localization policies are illustrative case studies. While Brazil and India are both open democracies with a technoeconomic landscapes characterized by a similar technoeconomic landscape with a hybrid mixture of foreign-owned and domestically owned companies, they have adopted different data localization policies. The authors argue that the divergent paths of Brazil and India are due to the nature of the policymaking process. India’s policymaking incorporated the interests of independent institutions. In contrast, Brazil’s parliamentary process usurped policymaking power from its independent institutions and has not yet granted the mandate and tools to either existing or necessary new institutions, such as regulatory agencies, to address this emerging and already pressing set of issues. Thus, for countries to enact policies to enhance their digital sovereignty, the interests of independent institutions must be incorporated, and their power must be increased.

This chapter lays the theoretical foundation for the book by disentangling the myriad discourses and interpretations of digital sovereignty from the perspective of the Global South and emerging power alliances. It argues that BRICS countries symbolize the “rise of the rest” in an increasingly multipolar world, their digital policies critical to the future shape of global internet, and digital governance. In this book, the idea of digital sovereignty itself is viewed as a site of power contestation and knowledge production. Specifically, the chapter identify seven major perspectives on digital sovereignty in a complex discursive field: state digital sovereignty, supranational digital sovereignty, network digital sovereignty, corporate digital sovereignty, personal digital sovereignty, postcolonial digital sovereignty, and commons digital sovereignty. The chapter highlights the affinities and overlaps as well as tensions and contradictions between these perspectives on digital sovereignty with brief illustrative examples from BRICS countries and beyond. While a state-centric perspective on digital sovereignty is traditionally more salient especially in BRICS contexts, increasing public concern over user privacy, state surveillance, corporate abuse, and digital colonialism has given ascendance to an array of alternative perspectives on digital sovereignty that emphasize individual autonomy, indigenous rights, community well-being, and sustainability.