There are topics that we see coming and others that emerge overnight. Tech players and experts used to talk about automation and AI as just another technology among many, and then one fine (?) day in 2023... you know the rest. Digital sovereignty has not experienced such an ON/OFF effect.
It has been seen emerging in professional discussions, strategic meetings, tenders, and informal exchanges between CIOs, politicians, entrepreneurs, and researchers. But by early 2026, driven by events (rarely happy ones), it is well and truly here. It is not new. It is not simple. And above all, it is not neutral. But it has become essential.
As the Digital Sovereignty Trade Show on June 30 and July 1 approaches, it is becoming vital to establish a clear framework to discuss it calmly. Because while 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 the cloud, nor with AI, nor with recent geopolitical tensions. Its roots lie in a much older French history. As early as the 1960s, the "Plan Calcul" launched under General de Gaulle already laid the foundations for strategic reflection: how to guarantee a country's technological independence in a world where computing was becoming a lever of power? This intuition never really disappeared, despite some setbacks against international players quickly reaching critical mass. It simply changed form over the decades. And today, it returns with a new intensity.
According to IDC data, 60% of French organizations state that recent events reinforce their interest in sovereign solutions, and this figure could reach 90% within two years. Digital sovereignty is therefore not a defensive reflex. It is a rational response to an environment that has become more complex, more unstable, and more interdependent. In this environment, the DRI Index (Digital Resilience Index), presented during the Digital Sovereignty Meetings held on Monday, January 26 at Bercy, aims to be a measurement tool to initiate a trajectory based on pragmatic and concrete elements.
A natural extension of sovereignty
Digital sovereignty is not an isolated concept. It is merely the contemporary expression of an ancient principle of sovereignty: the ability of a state, an organization, or an individual to decide for themselves. The Robert dictionary defines it as follows: Supreme power recognized by the state, which implies the exclusivity of its competence over the national territory (internal sovereignty) and its absolute independence in the international order where it is limited only by its own commitments (external sovereignty). But in a world where the connections between internal and external decisions are disrupted and sometimes blurred, and where, from a numerical and digital perspective:
- data becomes the fuel of the economy,
- AI models influence decisions,
- infrastructures are globalized,
- software chains span several continents,
this capacity for self-determination becomes more complex in its very definition.
What digital sovereignty is not
Before moving forward, some ambiguities must be cleared up. Digital sovereignty is not:
- sovereignism,
- technological patriotism,
- digital chauvinism,
- a desire to cut oneself off from the world,
- a synonym for security or resilience.
It is based on a simple idea: mastering technological dependencies. Understanding what is being used. Knowing where the data is. Identifying risks. Being able to choose with full knowledge of the facts. Digital sovereignty does not require everything to be produced locally. It requires no longer moving forward with eyes closed.
A political subject... but a debate that must remain apolitical
"We must remain as factual as possible, insists Mr. Jeanjean, board member of the Enter Cluster (digital competitiveness cluster) and member of the conference program committee for the Digital Sovereignty Trade Show. We have allies, partners, and competitors. The question is not to build walls, but to define what our national and European sovereignty means, without falling into protectionism."
It would be naive to pretend that digital sovereignty is not a political subject. It touches on national security, industrial competitiveness, data protection, and technological diplomacy. But to be able to discuss it calmly at a trade show, in a competitiveness cluster, or in a local authority, we must move beyond partisan rhetoric. The goal is not to choose a side. The goal is to create a space where everyone can express themselves, share their constraints, dependencies, risks, and ambitions — without being locked into an ideological reading.
A word that resonates differently for everyone
This is one of the most sensitive points: digital sovereignty does not have the same meaning depending on the organization being addressed.
"We can see that the subject can become explosive if we don't set a framework, explains Mr. Jeanjean. Just look at the debates around the trusted cloud or the SecNumCloud label. Positions quickly clash, sometimes violently. We must therefore create a space where we can dialogue without aggression."
For a ministry, sovereignty touches on national security. For a local authority, on the protection of citizen data. For a hospital, on service continuity. For an SME, on the mastery of its tools. For an investment fund, on the management of extraterritorial risk. But there is also a personal dimension. The word "sovereignty" does not resonate the same way depending on one's history, culture, relationship with the state, or professional experience. In France, this sensitivity is particularly strong. It is rooted in a tradition of strategic independence. Elsewhere in Europe, the perception is more nuanced. In the United States, it is sometimes misunderstood. Hence the importance of establishing a common framework before debating.
An imperative for individual and collective appropriation
Digital sovereignty is not a label. It is not a status. It is a journey. Each organization must:
- understand its dependencies,
- identify its risks,
- evaluate its constraints,
- define its own level of requirement,
- and make decisions consistent with its needs and values.
There is no single model. There are trajectories adapted to each context.
June 30 and july 1: a space to debate together
"We need a framework of trust, concludes Mr. Jeanjean. 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 Digital Sovereignty Trade Show will be an opportunity to continue this collective work. To confront points of view without clashing. To explore dependencies without guilt. Notably through a conference program organized into 8 thematic tracks, the show will strive to address all themes and confront viewpoints on topics ranging from geopolitics to public procurement, including open source and regulation. Because digital sovereignty is not a slogan. It is a space for reflection. And it is together that we can make it a lever for innovation, trust, and resilience. Talking about digital sovereignty is not about looking for ready-made answers. It is about accepting to discuss as an ecosystem and asking the right questions for everyone, every organization, and every scenario.
