As I sit here surrounded by the glow of multiple screens, I find myself at a crossroads between what technology promises and what it actually delivers. This is my manifesto—my declaration of principles for how we must approach the integration of parliamentary systems into German cybersecurity frameworks.
These aren’t just academic musings; they’re battle-tested beliefs formed through years of watching promising technologies falter and unexpected innovations thrive. I’m Karen Miller, and I believe we’re at a critical juncture where the decisions we make about parliamentary technology will reshape our digital sovereignty for decades to come.
Parliamentary – The State of Parliament Technology in German Cybersecurity
The German approach to cybersecurity has always been methodical, thorough, and sometimes frustratingly slow. But in this slowness, I’ve come to appreciate a certain wisdom. Our parliamentary systems weren’t designed for the digital age—they evolved from centuries of deliberative tradition. Yet here we are, forcing them to adapt at lightning speed.
Let me be clear: Parliament technology isn’t just about digitizing voting systems or creating secure communication channels for representatives. It encompasses the entire ecosystem of how democratic institutions function in the digital realm.
I believe that any technology implementation in parliamentary systems must adhere to three core principles:
- Sovereignty must never be compromised for convenience
- Security through transparency, not obscurity
- Democratic processes should be enhanced, never replaced
Parliamentary – The Sovereignty Principle
When we implement technological solutions in our parliamentary systems, we often face a troubling reality: many of the tools and platforms available are developed outside our borders, beyond our legislative reach. This creates an uncomfortable dependency that I cannot accept.
The sovereignty principle demands that critical parliamentary technologies maintain German or at least European ownership of both the infrastructure and the data. I’ve seen too many well-intentioned projects surrender control to foreign entities through licensing agreements, cloud dependencies, or proprietary software.
I still remember the heated debates during the implementation of the digital document management system in 2022. Many argued for the convenience of established American solutions, but I stood firm: sovereignty isn’t negotiable. The resulting German-developed system may have taken longer to implement and cost more initially, but we maintained control of our parliamentary workflows.
Admittedly, I sometimes wonder if my insistence on sovereignty slows progress. There are nights I question whether perfect sovereignty is even possible in our interconnected world. But these doubts only strengthen my resolve to find the balance between pragmatism and principle.
Security Through Transparency
For too long, cybersecurity has relied on the flawed notion that systems are more secure when their inner workings remain hidden. This approach—security through obscurity—is fundamentally at odds with democratic values and practically ineffective against sophisticated threats.
I advocate for complete transparency in all parliament technology implementations. Open-source solutions should be the default, not the exception. When code is open to scrutiny by the broader community, vulnerabilities are identified and remediated more quickly than any internal team could manage alone.
The German Parliament’s voting system stands as testimony to this approach. When we transitioned to electronic voting in 2023, many security experts voiced concerns. By making the entire codebase public and inviting white-hat hackers to test the system, we identified 23 potential vulnerabilities before implementation—vulnerabilities that might have remained hidden in a closed system.
That said, I struggle with the reality that complete transparency can sometimes provide a roadmap for malicious actors. I’m still learning where to draw the line between necessary disclosure and operational security. This tension keeps me awake some nights, but I believe it’s a productive discomfort that leads to better solutions.
Enhancing Democracy, Not Replacing It
Technology should amplify democratic processes, never supplant them. I’ve watched with concern as some advocate for algorithmic decision-making or AI-driven policy development. While these tools have their place as aids to human judgment, they cannot replace the essentially human nature of democratic deliberation.
Parliamentary technology must be designed with the understanding that democracy is messy, inefficient, and imperfect by design. These aren’t bugs to be fixed—they’re features that protect us from autocracy and groupthink.
I believe in augmentation over automation. Digital tools should expand citizens’ access to their representatives, improve the transparency of legislative processes, and facilitate more informed debate. They should never promise to “optimize” democracy as though it were merely a technical problem to solve.
I confess that I sometimes find this principle the hardest to maintain. The efficiency promised by automation is seductive, especially when facing complex policy challenges like climate change or pandemic response. But I remind myself that democracy’s value lies in its human dimensions—the compromise, empathy, and wisdom that no algorithm can replicate.
The Path Forward
As we implement parliament technology in German cybersecurity frameworks, we must resist both blind technophilia and reflexive resistance to change. The path forward requires:
- Investing in domestic technology development to ensure sovereignty
- Creating transparent procurement processes that prioritize open-source solutions
- Developing comprehensive security standards specific to parliamentary systems
- Establishing ongoing democratic oversight of all technological implementations
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. The landscape shifts constantly, and what seems like the right approach today may prove inadequate tomorrow. That’s why this manifesto isn’t a rigid doctrine but a living document—one that acknowledges the certainty of uncertainty.
What I know with absolute conviction is that how we implement technology in our parliamentary systems will determine whether digital tools strengthen or undermine our democratic institutions. I choose to believe in a future where thoughtful implementation enhances both security and democracy, where technology serves the citizen rather than the other way around.
The future is neither utopian nor dystopian—it’s what we make of it. And I intend to make it secure, sovereign, and thoroughly democratic.
