Picture entering your country’s parliament building – a symbol of democracy, sovereignty, and national pride – only to find out it was designed, constructed, and is still looked after by a foreign government. This isn’t a work of fiction; it’s the reality in nations like Malawi, where China erected the parliament building and continues to oversee its maintenance. In the past twenty years, China has funded and erected no less than 15 parliament buildings, including those in Zimbabwe, Lesotho, and even the African Union headquarters in Ethiopia. Although these projects are often painted as acts of generosity that contribute to development, they come with unseen costs that extend well beyond their initial construction.
These buildings represent more than just physical structures; they are the cores of democratic governance and representations of national identity. When a foreign power manages the spaces where laws are drafted and national discussions are conducted, it raises crucial questions about sovereignty and self-determination. In Malawi’s case, the parliament building is plagued by numerous issues – from leaky roofs to faulty plumbing – yet it continues to rely on Chinese contractors for repairs and upkeep, perpetuating a cycle of dependence and guaranteeing a continual foreign presence at the heart of its democracy.
This connection goes beyond mere construction; it also extends to digital incursion. As countries strive to modernize, the infrastructure backing their legislatures is increasingly digital. These African parliament buildings financed by the Chinese government come equipped with cutting-edge digital infrastructure.
Fieldwork conducted by Dr. Innocent Batsani-Ncube, one of the authors of this article, found that in Malawi, a Chinese contractor set up the local area network and closed-circuit television, with network diagrams provided in Chinese. This puts the digital operations of the Parliament of Malawi at the mercy of ongoing Chinese technical support. Malawi cannot update this network infrastructure without the consent of the Chinese government, which has not been granted.
Without proactive measures to establish and govern their own digital public infrastructure, more countries may find themselves reliant on external powers’ “infrastructure diplomacy” for the technological frameworks supporting their democratic institutions.
Legislatures serve as the points of contact between the people and their government. They are essential for the operation of democratic systems, yet the tools and applications that could modernize these institutions are not currently part of international conversations and support for “Digital Public Infrastructure,” or DPI. These globally backed digital systems have mainly concentrated on applications in finance, healthcare, and education. The absence of legislative technologies from DPI efforts leaves a significant void in the democratic structure, particularly in a swiftly digitizing world.
As technology progresses, legislatures worldwide face a “pacing problem” – the growing disparity between quick technological advancements and the slower pace at which legislative bodies adapt. Broadening the scope of DPI to incorporate legislative technology would aid legislatures in operating more efficiently, enhancing transparency, fostering improved citizen involvement, and boosting lawmakers’ capability to formulate informed policies.
Developing democracies frequently confront significant hurdles in financing and implementing technology for their legislatures. Without ample resources, they may become reliant on external support to modernize their parliaments. If philanthropic groups and global agencies do not offer opportunities and funding for this public interest technology, these countries may be forced to accept the “gifts” of nations seeking more influence.
This reliance could grant foreign entities unparalleled access to legislative processes and sensitive data, compromising democratic principles and infringing on national sovereignty. The very institutions designed to represent the people’s interests could transform into conduits for external agendas.
The teachings from Malawi’s parliament building are clear: depending on external powers for critical infrastructure can have profound implications for sovereignty and democratic governance. In an increasingly digital era, it is critical that developing democracies retain control over their digital public infrastructure, particularly within their legislative bodies.
Global donors play a crucial role in supporting democratic institutions through expanded DPI initiatives focused on legislative technology. Investing in legislative technology by financing the development and implementation of digital tools for lawmaking, governance, and public engagement is vital.
Advocating for open-source solutions will ensure transparency and customization, while enhancing capacity building through training programs will equip legislators and staff with the necessary skills. Encouraging international cooperation to facilitate the exchange of best practices in legislative modernization is also essential. Through these endeavors, global donors can help ensure that developing democracies maintain sovereignty over their governance systems and establish durable, autonomous digital infrastructures for the future.