STATE DIGITAL SOVEREIGNTY IN THE GOVERNANCE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WITHIN INDONESIA’S GOVERNMENT SYSTEM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69916/jkbti.v2i3.482Keywords:
artificial intelligence governance, digital sovereignty, public administration, state sovereignty, IndonesiaAbstract
This study examines state digital sovereignty in the governance of artificial intelligence within Indonesia’s government system. The main objective is to analyze how the state can maintain effective control over AI infrastructure, public-sector data, and government AI systems while preserving constitutional democracy, citizens’ rights, and public accountability. This research applies a qualitative legal method with normative-juridical, conceptual, and socio-legal approaches. The analysis is based on constitutional principles, statutory regulations, policy documents, and recent scholarly debates on AI governance, digital sovereignty, data sovereignty, and public-sector digital transformation. The findings show that Indonesia has developed important foundations for digital government through the Electronic-Based Government System, One Data Indonesia, the Personal Data Protection Law, and the National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence 2020–2045. Yet these instruments have not fully established a comprehensive framework for sovereign AI governance. The main risks include infrastructure dependency, weak control over public-sector data, vendor dominance, limited algorithmic accountability, and unclear responsibility for AI-based administrative decisions. This study argues that state digital sovereignty in AI governance requires strategic infrastructure control, public-sector data sovereignty, algorithmic accountability, meaningful human authority, and democratic oversight. The contribution of this study lies in framing AI governance not merely as a matter of technological innovation or administrative efficiency, but as a constitutional issue concerning the state’s capacity to govern digital power in the public interest.
Downloads
References
P. Hummel, M. Braun, M. Tretter, and P. Dabrock, “Data sovereignty: A review,” Big Data & Society, vol. 8, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1177/2053951720982012.
S. Fratini, “Digital sovereignty: A descriptive analysis and a critical evaluation,” Digital Society, vol. 3, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s44206-024-00146-7.
G. Gordon, “Digital sovereignty, digital infrastructures, and quantum horizons,” AI & Society, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 125–137, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s00146-023-01729-7.
A. Paulsson and M. Fred, “Making apps, owning data: Digital sovereignty and public authorities’ arrangements to ‘byte’ back,” Organization, vol. 32, no. 8, 2024, doi: 10.1177/13505084241246073.
S. Lehuedé, “An alternative planetary future? Digital sovereignty frameworks and the decolonial option,” Big Data & Society, vol. 11, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1177/20539517231221778.
R. Prasad, “People as data, data as oil: The digital sovereignty of the Indian state,” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 801–815, 2022, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2022.2056498.
R. Madan and M. Ashok, “AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 1, 101774, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101774.
J. I. Criado, R. Sandoval-Almazán, and J. R. Gil-Garcia, “Artificial intelligence and public administration: Understanding actors, governance, and policy from micro, meso, and macro perspectives,” Public Policy and Administration, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 173–184, 2025, doi: 10.1177/09520767241272921.
P. G. R. de Almeida and C. D. dos Santos Júnior, “Artificial intelligence governance: Understanding how public organizations implement it,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 1, 102003, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102003.
M. J. Ahn and Y.-C. Chen, “Digital transformation toward AI-augmented public administration: The perception of government employees and the willingness to use AI in government,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, 101664, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101664.
C. van Noordt and L. Tangi, “The dynamics of AI capability and its influence on public value creation of AI within public administration,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 4, 101860, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2023.101860.
H. de Bruijn, M. Warnier, and M. Janssen, “The perils and pitfalls of explainable AI: Strategies for explaining algorithmic decision-making,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, 101666, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101666.
T. S. Gesk and M. Leyer, “Artificial intelligence in public services: When and why citizens accept its usage,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 3, 101704, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101704.
U. B. U. Roehl, “Automated decision-making and good administration: Views from inside the government machinery,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 4, 101864, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2023.101864.
U. Roehl and J. Crompvoets, “Inside algorithmic bureaucracy: Disentangling automated decision-making and good administration,” Public Policy and Administration, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 322–350, 2025, doi: 10.1177/09520767231197801.
V. Carlsson, “Legal certainty in automated decision-making in welfare services,” Public Policy and Administration, vol. 40, no. 2, 2025, doi: 10.1177/09520767231202334.
H. Hirvonen, “Just accountability structures: A way to promote the safe use of automated decision-making in the public sector,” AI & Society, vol. 39, pp. 155–167, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s00146-023-01731-z.
A. Rizk and I. Lindgren, “Automated decision-making in public administration: Changing the decision space between public officials and citizens,” Government Information Quarterly, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2025.102061.
T. Saheb and T. Saheb, “Topical review of artificial intelligence national policies: A mixed method analysis,” Technology in Society, vol. 74, 102316, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102316.
J. Laux, S. Wachter, and B. Mittelstadt, “Trustworthy artificial intelligence and the European Union AI Act: On the conflation of trustworthiness and acceptability of risk,” Regulation & Governance, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 3–32, 2024, doi: 10.1111/rego.12512.
Downloads
Published
Scite Metrics
Altmetric
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Wiredarme
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Erfan Wahyudi, Wiredarme, LITERATURE ANALYSIS ON THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN STRENGTHENING CYBERSECURITY IN E-GOVERNMENT SERVICES , Jurnal Kecerdasan Buatan dan Teknologi Informasi: Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): May 2026
- Wiredarme, CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR MACHINE LEARNING-BASED SYSTEM ERRORS IN DIGITAL PUBLIC SERVICES , Jurnal Kecerdasan Buatan dan Teknologi Informasi: Vol. 3 No. 3 (2024): September 2024
- Erfan Wahyudi, Wiredarme, CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE USE OF MACHINE LEARNING IN INDONESIA’S SOCIAL ASSISTANCE SELECTION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM , Jurnal Kecerdasan Buatan dan Teknologi Informasi: Vol. 2 No. 3 (2023): September 2023
- Erfan Wahyudi, Wiredarme, THE APPLICATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN ELECTION SUPERVISION: BETWEEN DIGITAL EFFECTIVENESS AND THE PROTECTION OF CITIZENS’ POLITICAL RIGHTS , Jurnal Kecerdasan Buatan dan Teknologi Informasi: Vol. 3 No. 3 (2024): September 2024
menuterbaru
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| More Indexing and Abstracting |
|
|
View My Stats |
| Overall Visitor Statistics |
 |
