Some topics emerge gradually before suddenly taking centre stage overnight. Tech companies and experts talked about automation and AI as just another technology, until one fine (?) day in 2023… you know what happened next. Digital sovereignty did not experience that kind of ON/OFF moment.
We saw it emerge in professional discussions, strategy meetings, calls for tenders and informal conversations between CIOs, politicians, entrepreneurs and researchers. But by early 2026, following events that were rarely happy ones, it was firmly here.
It is not new. It is not simple. And above all, it is not neutral. But it has become unavoidable.
As 30 June and 1 July approach, establishing a clear framework for a calm discussion becomes essential. Although the word is everywhere, its definition remains fluid. And that is precisely where misunderstandings begin.
An old concept back in the spotlight
Digital sovereignty was not born with cloud computing, AI or recent geopolitical tensions. Its roots lie much further back in French history. As early as the 1960s, the ‘Plan Calcul’ launched under General de Gaulle laid the foundations for a strategic question: how could a country guarantee technological independence in a world where computing was becoming a source of power? That intuition never truly disappeared, despite setbacks against international players that rapidly reached critical mass. It simply changed form over the decades. Today, it is returning with renewed intensity.
According to IDC data, 60% of French organisations say recent events have increased their interest in sovereign solutions, and that figure could reach 90% within two years. Digital sovereignty is therefore a rational response to an environment that has become more complex, unstable and interdependent. In this environment, the IRN Index (Indice de Résilience Numérique, or Digital Resilience Index), presented at the Rencontres de la Souveraineté Numérique held at Bercy on Monday 26 January, aims to provide a measurement tool for starting a journey based on pragmatic, concrete factors.
A natural extension of sovereignty
Digital sovereignty is not an isolated concept. It is the contemporary expression of an old principle: the ability of a state, organisation or individual to decide for itself. Le Robert dictionary defines sovereignty as the supreme power recognised in the state, involving its exclusive authority within national territory (internal sovereignty) and its independence in international relations, limited only by its own commitments (external sovereignty). But in a world where the connections between internal and external decisions are being disrupted and sometimes blurred, and where, from a digital perspective:
- data is becoming the fuel of the economy;
- AI models influence decisions;
- infrastructure is globalised;
- software supply chains span several continents;
the very definition of this capacity for self-determination becomes more complex.
What digital sovereignty is not
Before moving forward, a few ambiguities must be cleared up. Digital sovereignty is not:
- sovereigntism;
- technological patriotism;
- digital chauvinism;
- a desire to cut ourselves off from the world;
- a synonym for security or resilience.
It rests on a simple idea: controlling technological dependencies. Understanding what we use. Knowing where our data is. Identifying risks. Being able to make informed choices. Digital sovereignty does not require everything to be produced locally. It requires us to stop moving forward with our eyes closed.
A political subject… but a debate that must remain non-partisan
‘We must remain as factual as possible,’ insists Mr Jeanjean, a board member of Pôle Enter, the digital competitiveness cluster, and a member of the Salon Souveraineté Numérique conference programme committee. ‘We have allies, partners and competitors. The question is how to define our national and European sovereignty without falling into protectionism.’
It would be naive to claim that digital sovereignty is not political. It touches on national security, industrial competitiveness, data protection and technological diplomacy. But discussing it calmly at a professional event, in a competitiveness cluster or in a local authority requires moving beyond partisan positions. The aim is to create a space where everyone can speak and share their constraints, dependencies, risks and ambitions without being confined to an ideological interpretation.
A word that resonates differently for everyone
This is one of the most sensitive points: digital sovereignty does not mean the same thing to every organisation.
‘We can see how explosive the subject can become if we do not establish a framework,’ Mr Jeanjean explains. ‘Just look at the debates around trusted cloud or SecNumCloud certification. Positions quickly clash, sometimes fiercely. We therefore need a space where people can engage in dialogue without attacking one another.’
For a ministry, sovereignty relates to national security. For a local authority, to protecting citizens’ data. For a hospital, to continuity of service. For an SME, to control of its tools. For an investment fund, to managing extraterritorial risk. But there is also a personal dimension. The word ‘sovereignty’ resonates differently according to people’s history, culture, relationship with the state and professional experience. In France, this sensitivity is particularly strong, rooted in a tradition of strategic independence. Elsewhere in Europe, perceptions are more nuanced. In the United States, it is sometimes misunderstood. Hence the importance of establishing a shared framework before debating.
The need for individual and collective ownership
Digital sovereignty is not a label or a status. It is a journey. Every organisation must:
- understand its dependencies;
- identify its risks;
- assess its constraints;
- define its own requirements;
- make decisions consistent with its needs and values.
There is no single model. There are paths suited to each context.
30 June and 1 July: a space for discussion together
‘We need a framework of trust,’ Mr Jeanjean concludes. ‘A space where we can debate without falling into ideology. Digital sovereignty is not a dogma. It is a complex subject that deserves nuance and dialogue.’ The Salon Souveraineté Numérique will provide an opportunity to continue this collective work. To compare viewpoints without confrontation. To explore dependencies without assigning blame. Through a conference programme organised into eight thematic tracks, the event will seek to cover the full range of issues and compare perspectives on topics from geopolitics and public procurement to open source and regulation. Because digital sovereignty is not a slogan. It is a space for reflection. And together, we can turn it into a driver of innovation, trust and resilience. Talking about digital sovereignty means accepting discussion across an ecosystem and asking the right questions for each person, each organisation and each situation.
