This Rapid Evidence Assessment examined how global approaches to digital sovereignty are shaping the development and implementation of national digital identity systems. Across diverse contexts, digital sovereignty emerges not as a singular model, but as a plural and contested concept, interpreted and operationalised differently depending on political goals, technological capacity, and institutional context. Rather than uniformly rejecting external influence or favouring purely national solutions, governments selectively adapt global models in ways that reflect domestic priorities and constraints.
In terms of infrastructure and technology, states are increasingly concerned with how to build identity systems that reduce reliance on foreign providers and enhance national control. A key pattern across the literature is the pursuit of what might be called “sovereign-by-design” infrastructure. This includes the development of in-country data centres, sovereign cloud platforms, and domestic control over digital identity architecture. However, the desire for sovereignty is often constrained by resource limitations, technical debt, or political trade-offs. As a result, many countries adopt hybrid technological models—mixing proprietary and open-source components, or combining domestic infrastructure with foreign service providers—while still asserting a sovereign rationale. Open-source tools are commonly associated with flexibility and control, but their successful deployment depends on institutional capacity and local technical expertise. In this sense, digital sovereignty is often aspirational, shaped by structural conditions that limit full independence.
The governance of digital identity systems further demonstrates how sovereignty is enacted through legal and institutional frameworks. States deploy a range of regulatory instruments—such as data localisation mandates, national cybersecurity laws, and legal definitions of digital identity—to assert control over data flows and system operations. Yet, governance is not purely about legal sovereignty; it also reflects strategic choices about inclusion, trust, and institutional legitimacy. Some countries use governance frameworks to position digital identity as a public good, involving multiple agencies and ensuring interoperability and citizen oversight. Others centralise control within security or administrative bodies, linking digital identity closely to surveillance, migration control, or internal security. These choices are not only technical—they represent different visions of what sovereign digital identity means in practice.
In the realm of implementation and adoption, sovereignty discourses influence how identity systems are communicated to the public and how they are received. In some cases, governments present national digital identity as a means of protecting citizens from foreign surveillance or securing national autonomy. However, these narratives do not automatically generate public trust. The literature shows that adoption is shaped more by perceptions of transparency, fairness, and institutional credibility than by abstract appeals to sovereignty. Moreover, coercive or exclusionary implementations—often justified in sovereign terms—can undermine public confidence, especially when systems are linked to punitive welfare conditionalities or lack mechanisms for redress. Therefore, while digital sovereignty may legitimise state-led digital identity initiatives, it does not guarantee their success in terms of public engagement or long-term sustainability.
Taken together, these findings show that digital sovereignty acts as both a driver and constraint in national digital identity development. It influences technological choices, governance structures, and implementation strategies, but always in context-specific ways. Rather than a fixed endpoint, digital sovereignty is better understood as a process of negotiation—between global pressures and national goals, between technical ideals and institutional realities.