Data Is Becoming a New Dimension of National Power

For decades, countries measured their strength through resources, territory, military capability, industrial production and financial influence.

Technology is adding another dimension:

Data.

Not simply the amount of information a country possesses, but its ability to collect, secure, process and transform that information into useful intelligence.

And this is becoming increasingly important as countries compete over artificial intelligence.

Nigeria's AI conversation is becoming bigger

At GITEX Nigeria 2026, the conversation around artificial intelligence included something much more fundamental than AI applications.

It focused on sovereignty.

Nigeria's technology leadership has been discussing the importance of connectivity, computing power, data centres, cloud infrastructure and control over data as part of the country's AI future. (Morocco World News)

That is important because AI does not exist in isolation.

An AI ecosystem requires infrastructure.

It requires computing power.

It requires data.

It requires skilled people.

It requires energy.

And it requires the ability to control and secure the systems connecting everything together.

This is why countries are increasingly thinking about technology as national infrastructure rather than simply another industry.

But why does national data matter?

Consider what happens when millions of people interact with digital systems every day.

People make payments.

Use telecommunications networks.

Access government services.

Travel.

Shop online.

Use digital banking.

Interact with healthcare systems.

Use educational platforms.

Each interaction can produce data.

One transaction may reveal very little.

One location signal may reveal very little.

One login may reveal very little.

But when millions or billions of interactions are analysed collectively, something different happens.

Patterns emerge.

Those patterns can reveal economic activity, consumer behaviour, infrastructure needs, population movement and changes within society.

That information can help governments and businesses make better decisions.

It can help identify fraud.

It can improve public services.

It can support infrastructure planning.

It can help develop locally relevant AI systems.

It can create economic value.

This is why data is increasingly being treated as strategic infrastructure.

The 2026 World Bank World Development Report describes AI as reshaping power relationships between countries, governments, corporations and individuals, while highlighting both the opportunities and the risks of concentrated technological power. (World Bank)

Then comes the uncomfortable part

The same data that can improve a country can also increase its ability to observe its citizens.

This is where the conversation becomes much more complicated.

Imagine a society where digital identity, telecommunications, financial systems, cameras, location services and AI systems are deeply connected.

The government could potentially understand far more about how society operates than previous governments ever could.

That could be extremely useful.

It could also be extremely dangerous.

Tracking can help locate a missing person.

But tracking can also become mass surveillance.

Transaction monitoring can help fight financial crime.

But financial data can reveal intimate details about people's lives.

Facial recognition can improve security.

But it can also make anonymity increasingly difficult.

AI can detect suspicious patterns.

But it can also make surveillance more scalable.

Technology doesn't automatically determine whether the outcome is good or bad. Governance does.

Data creates power

There is a reason countries are increasingly concerned about digital sovereignty.

The ability to control data, computing infrastructure and AI systems can reduce dependence on foreign technology and strengthen economic resilience.

Recent research from CNAS found a rapid increase in government-backed sovereign AI projects, with 184 projects across 67 countries in its latest tracking. (CNAS)

The direction is clear:

Countries don't simply want to use AI.

They increasingly want to own more of the infrastructure behind it.

And that matters geopolitically.

Because whoever controls the infrastructure can influence what can be built on top of it.

But technological supremacy should have limits

I don't think the objective should be:

"How much can a country know about its citizens?"

The better question is:

"How much does a country need to know to serve and protect its citizens effectively?"

Those are completely different questions.

A technologically advanced country should have strong cybersecurity.

It should have modern digital infrastructure.

It should have powerful AI capabilities.

It should understand its economy through data.

But citizens should also have meaningful privacy protections.

There should be accountability.

There should be clear limits on access.

There should be security around sensitive information.

And there should be consequences when digital power is abused.

Because once a society builds infrastructure capable of tracking almost everything, removing that capability later becomes extremely difficult.

The real digital race

The global technology race isn't simply about who creates the smartest AI model.

It is also about:

Who controls the data?

Who controls the compute?

Who controls the infrastructure?

Who controls the algorithms?

Who controls access?

And perhaps the most important question:

Who controls the people who control all of it?

That is where cybersecurity, privacy and governance become just as important as innovation.

Data can strengthen an economy.

AI can accelerate development.

Digital infrastructure can create national independence.

But technological power without responsibility can easily become technological control.

The strongest digital nation may not be the one that knows everything about its people.

It may be the one capable of using technology to understand its society, strengthen its economy and protect its citizens — while still respecting the fact that citizens are people, not datasets.

— Michael Olowoselu