Interview with coalition agreement: “Digital sovereignty is a phrase”

The Digital Ministry is not everything in any way: in the coalition agreement between the SPD and the Union, there are ambitious plans for digitization, such as “digital” with an essential citizens’ account “only” strategy and a dual dose prohibition for the authorities. In addition, the contract gives too much space to the subject of digital sovereignty. Stephen Human, Managing Director of “Agora Digital Transformation” Think Tank, classified plans in an interview with C’T.

How ambitious is the coalition agreement between the Sangh and the SPD in terms of Shri Human, digitization?

In the past, there is no lack of ambition, but in implementation. The new coalition compromise stands out of the previous people by bringing together the modernization and digitization of the state. And for the first time, these two subjects are transferred to a ministry. This is a decisive progress in paper.

For example, traffic lights also promised a digital departure and wanted to modernize the state. But in the end no one was responsible for this on the cabinet table. This is a big difference for the past and something that I welcome a lot.

In your view, why is the Digital Ministry so important to apply goals in the end?

In the past, it was a major problem that no one was really responsible in all comprehensive or coordination rounds. As a Digital and Transport Minister, Volcar Wizing also did not have the responsibility for many subjects, for example, not for administrative digitization. It always fell into the interior ministry.

However, state modernization and digitization are classic cross -sectional subjects. Therefore, it will be important that the means of interdisciplinary control of this Digital Ministry will be equipped. Unfortunately, the coalition is very low to read in agreement. A digital budget is not clearly mentioned, it is only talked about a strategic IT control. A digital agency is also not clearly mentioned for the implementation of projects.

A continuous objection to the Digital Ministry was that you lose a lot of time by creating new structures, talking up to a few years. How appropriate is this objection?

If you follow the logic, you always get stuck in the status quo. We should take time to make ourselves wisely. It is true that the federal administration is complex and this structure does not go as soon as we would like it, but it probably will not take a year. If we continue without the need for competence and clear responsibilities, we lose even more time.

“The problem was not that we had not yet taken enough money in our hands, we did it badly.”

For example, in the field of modernization of the state, the contract has announced that federal relations have to be reorganized, as well as with changes in basic law. Will it be a game Changer for digitization?

Surely for administrative digitization. So far, extremely slow coordination processes between federal and state governments have been one of the central problems. It was often associated with talks that paid how much. Till you start, the bus slows down the things. And even then, the procedures are extremely disabled because software solutions are developed in parallel everywhere in countries, which leads to the island solution.

It is therefore a good thing that the coalition agreement appeals for changes in Article 91C of the Basic Act. As a result, the federal government can take more responsibility for basic components and standards and also give IT solutions for new laws. The problem was not that we had not taken enough money in our hands till now, we just did it badly.

And the second good news is that digital ministers from federal states passed a paper only two weeks ago, in which they also demand a new regulation.

As far as ambition is concerned, it is also worth noting that “Digital” speaks only “SPD and union and accordingly want to make the accounts and digital identity of citizens mandatory. This is a clear departure from the previous rule that the federal government is voluntary, right?

Once users forced the stage to their knees: now Dig dared to restart

Yes, and it is one of the major controversies in the administration of administration. If you keep the paper path open then a problem is that there is not enough pressure to offer a really good digital solution during administration. And this means digitization is not considered as relief, but there is something that you have to do on top. If you really want to progress, then you have to digitize the services continuously and link it to the fact that the paper application is no longer possible. Other countries also show.

At the same time, you need a strategy on how you can not take a digital -fruit population group with you. But there are solutions for this, for example, citizens can support people. For example, there are digital terminals for citizens’ offices, where people without computer or smartphone can present and support the application digitally. You should invest in these assistance offers as you save many resources except paper processes.

The contract has another ambitious point, namely on officers to collect data from citizens twice. Do you think it brings something in practice? Ultimately, it is difficult to imagine that if it violates it, an authority is instigated for fines.

Such restrictions will not be applied to the present, as in many cases the authorities are yet technically not able to exchange data with each other. To do this, register modernization must first apply. My interpretation is that the statement should increase pressure in terms of register modernization. Incentives for a quick implementation are currently missing. So I think the discussion is basically good.

“It is important to develop your own skills and abilities.”

What else did you notice in the contract in terms of digitization?

The reference to European-Antaric Germany-TAC and relatively new Euro Stack initiative is exciting. In general, digital sovereignty has a high prominence. Currently fits with what is going on generously. It is important to develop your own skills and abilities. And the state spends billions for its purchase every year, which is a very large lever.

SPD originally wanted a clear target of 50 percent of open source shares in purchase. It is now a matter of ambitious goals only for open source.

If a difficult open source is not a target, how reliable is the promise of digital sovereignty?

I am not a fan of the concept of digital sovereignty because it has become a phrase. Finally it depends on what you write especially. And this is the same where you can still see the contradiction that we know from previous governments. He always worked on the word, but then there was very little solid offer.

This is why it is important that the coalition agreement mentions at least one strategic IT budget. Thus the Digital Ministry can occupy the ratio of IT expenditure in digital sovereignty and change.

The word “Germany-stack” is not explained in paper. what do you understand?

In fact, this is a problem that has not been explained. In my understanding, it refers to the IT architecture of the federal government and countries with appropriate standards. It is important that the Digital Ministry buys an IT solution to match this architecture so that we can get away from the island solution. But of course you have to ask the authors of the coalition agreement what they thought.

Then the German-stack will be just a new word of a hip which was earlier called the government as a platform, stage strategy or standardization, right?

Yes, but it is sometimes the art of politics that you have to put old liquor in new hoses. It becomes important that you apply it now. And I am behaving. Because the possibility is now better that the country will support it. This is shown by the decisions of the Digital Minister Conference.

(CWO)