The 2026 presidential elections left a warning that cannot be ignored. When a third of the electorate votes against the system, it is not just protest, it is accumulated distrust and one of its roots is in the increasingly widespread perception that major political decisions are taken far from public scrutiny, in circuits where there are many lobbies and little transparency.
The reform and digital transformation of the State has become a paradigmatic example of this tension. In theory, it is about modernizing services, simplifying processes and making Public Administration more efficient and friendly to citizens and economic agents. In practice, solutions are often designed in closed environments, with the strong influence of large economic and technological interests, characterized by complex contracts, dubious strategic partnerships and massive outsourcing, all of this surrounded by technical opacity that makes scrutiny and public debate difficult.
There is still another silent problem, which is the blockage to innovation coming from outside the usual circles of power. Most of startups and micro and small companies absent from decision-making circuits, often providing agile and creative solutions, face almost insurmountable barriers to access public tenders or participate in the definition of structuring projects. Disproportionate financial demands, complex bureaucratic processes and informal networks of influence create an insurmountable closed ecosystem.
It is not uncommon for innovative ideas to be absorbed or replicated by large operators with privileged access to decision-makers, while smaller ones remain on the sidelines. As a result, the State loses diversity of solutions and the public market reinforces concentration.
When there are many lobbies and little scrutiny, the reform tends to follow the most comfortable path for the most powerful, opting for closed digital infrastructures, dependence on large global suppliers and concentration of public data in proprietary systems. The State becomes a captive customer and the citizen becomes a passive user. Efficiency improves, but sovereignty decreases, as transparency does not keep up with technological sophistication.
This model has political consequences. Automated decisions based on poorly auditable algorithms, opaque criteria in the allocation of support, reduction of face-to-face service without inclusive alternatives, all of this feeds the perception that the system works inwards and not outwards. And where the State seems captured or distant, the populist far-right finds space to grow, exploring the narrative that “they” decide everything without listening to “the people”.
The alternative requires reversing the logic, with less opacity and more transparency, for which a set of urgent measures is required.
We need mandatory public records of lobby and the content of the agendas of meetings with decision-makers, full publication of technological contracts, independent audits of algorithms used in public administration and public tenders designed to allow the effective participation of startups and SMEs, with accessible lots, proportional criteria and transparent evaluation. All this is accompanied by an increase in internal technical capacity in the public sector so as not to depend exclusively on external suppliers.
Digital transformation can be a historic opportunity to strengthen democracy or silently erode it. It all depends on who controls the process and who can scrutinize it, as the choice is between a State that modernizes under the influence of a few or transforms itself under the supervision of many. The difference can determine not only administrative effectiveness, but the health of democracy itself.
E-governance specialist
Leave a Reply