Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the need for digital transformation in public sector governance, particularly in Southern African parliaments. However, limited empirical research has examined how digital transformation unfolded within parliamentary institutions in the Global South. This study examines the barriers, benefits, and enablers of digital transformation in Southern African parliaments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on empirical evidence from parliamentary actors, the paper shows that digital transformation was not a linear or purely technical process, but a context-dependent governance response shaped by structural constraints, institutional capacity, and leadership agency. Key barriers included financial limitations, infrastructure gaps, digital skills deficits, and cybersecurity concerns, all of which influenced the pace and scope of digital adoption. Despite these challenges, the pandemic acted as a catalyst for innovation, enabling parliaments to maintain legislative continuity, improve operational efficiency, and expand access to parliamentary information.
However, the findings reveal that these benefits were uneven and conditional, with rural connectivity gaps and high data costs limiting inclusive participation. The study demonstrates that digital transformation outcomes depend on the interaction between barriers, benefits, and enablers, with leadership playing a critical mediating role. It further argues that the democratic value of digitalization is contingent upon equitable access and institutional readiness. The paper contributes to digital governance research by advancing a context-sensitive understanding of parliamentary digital transformation in the Global South.
Keywords
Introduction
Digital transformation is fundamentally altering how governments operate, enabling institutions to address modern challenges and enhance service delivery. In the public sector, digital technologies hold the potential to improve efficiency, transparency, and inclusivity. For parliaments, which serve as the cornerstone of legislative governance, digital transformation provides an opportunity to modernize operations, increase citizen engagement, and ensure the continuity of democratic processes. However, the journey toward full digital integration is often fraught with challenges, particularly in regions like Southern Africa, where socio-economic disparities, infrastructural limitations, and resource constraints are pronounced.
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the need for digital transformation across all sectors, including governance. Parliaments in Southern Africa faced a dual challenge: ensuring that legislative processes continued uninterrupted while adhering to public health measures. The pandemic served as a wake-up call for governments to invest in digital tools and systems that would enable remote operations, virtual participation, and streamlined workflows. However, the transition revealed systemic weaknesses, such as inadequate infrastructure, limited digital literacy, and resistance to change, which hindered the adoption of digital initiatives (International Telecommunication Union, 2020).
Despite these barriers, the implementation of digital transformation in Southern African parliaments yielded notable benefits. Enhanced access to parliamentary information, improved legislative efficiency, and increased citizen participation demonstrated the potential of technology to foster more inclusive and transparent governance (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2021). Moreover, the crisis highlighted the importance of enabling factors such as visionary leadership, regional collaboration, and capacity-building initiatives in driving successful digital transformation.
This study explores the barriers, benefits, and enablers of digital transformation in Southern African parliaments during the COVID-19 pandemic. By analyzing the experiences of parliamentary institutions in the region, the study aims to provide actionable insights and practical strategies to address challenges and sustain digital advancements. Through a comprehensive understanding of these dynamics, policymakers and leaders can better navigate the complexities of digital transformation, ensuring resilience and adaptability in governance for the future.
Literature Review
Digital Transformation in Public Governance
The concept of digital transformation of public governance has transcended traditional e-government concepts. Early research works, from the late 1990s to the early 2000s, predominantly portrayed digitalisation as the application of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for improving efficiency and service delivery (Heeks, 2002a, 2002b). This was a predominantly technocentric approach, where digitalisation was equated with the facilitation of information and communication technologies for improving administrative efficiency and service delivery. However, subsequent research works challenged these concepts, arguing that they underestimated the institutional and political aspects of digital transformation (Bannister & Connolly, 2014).
The concept of digital-era governance marked a major shift in research works, moving beyond New Public Management and adopting more holistic and citizen-centric governance (Dunleavy et al., 2006). More recent conceptualisations define digital transformation as a systemic reconfiguration of organisational structures, institutional logics, and governance relationships enabled by digital technologies (Mergel et al., 2019; Vial, 2019). Transformation is not linear and is more than a mere application of digital technologies; it is a socio-technical process embedded in institutional norms, rules, leadership practices, and political incentives.
Despite these developments and advancements, a major part of research works is focused on executive institutions and service delivery organisations. However, legislative institutions, especially those of developing countries, have attracted limited research works. This is of significant analytical interest, as legislative institutions are embedded in constitutional frameworks and derive legitimacy from procedural norms and representational accountability. Digital transformation of these institutions is more than mere administrative efficiency and is embedded in democratic processes themselves (Leston-Bandeira, 2016).
Transformation of legislative governance is embedded with normative concerns of transparency, inclusiveness, and oversight and legislative autonomy, making it qualitatively different from executive digitalisation.
Technology and the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterised as a ‘digital transformation driver’ in public sectors worldwide (Amankwah-Amoah, 2021). Due to lockdowns and social distancing measures, governments had to increasingly rely on remote work, virtual deliberation processes, and digital communication tools. This crisis experience was seen as a valid argument of the claim that crises can break the ‘inertia of institutions’ and ‘accelerate reform trajectories.’
However, recent research findings suggest that the crisis-induced acceleration of digitalisation does not necessarily translate into ‘transformational change.’ Instead, there is substantial evidence showing that acceleration merely ‘entrenches existing institutional trajectories’ (Mergel et al., 2019; Tangi et al., 2021). Organisations with existing investments in ICT, digital strategy, and organisational adaptability are found to have coped with the crisis-induced digitalisation better than those without. Thus, crisis-induced digitalisation can be seen as having ‘path dependence’ on pre-existing governance conditions (OECD, 2020).
This is particularly pertinent in the context of legislative institutions. According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU, 2021), while many parliaments have adopted new technologies during the pandemic, including ‘hybrid sittings of parliament, remote committee meetings, and electronic documentation systems,’ there are significant differences in the ‘permanence and institutionalisation of these reforms.’ Some have institutionalised these reforms through formal rule amendments, while others have used temporary emergency provisions.
In the Southern African context, the COVID-19 crisis experience reveals differing levels of preparedness and institutional adaptability. According to data from the World e-Parliament Report 2024, It is found that those parliaments with existing incremental reforms in ICT, such as ‘internal digital document management systems’ and ‘an existing ICT committee,’ have coped with the crisis-induced digitalisation better than others (IPU, 2024). However, the existing literature on digital governance in African countries is limited to the national e-government framework, with the role of parliament-specific factors remaining under-researched. This leads to a ‘fragmented understanding of crisis-induced digital transformation processes in Southern African legislative governance systems.’
Barriers of Digital Transformation
Public administration research consistently identifies bureaucratic rigidity, hierarchical decision-making, and risk aversion as structural impediments to digital transformation (Bannister & Connolly, 2014; Mergel et al., 2019). In developing countries, these institutional factors are compounded by infrastructural, financial, and skill constraints related to digital technologies (Heeks, 2002a, 2002b).
Empirical research on Southern African countries, including Zambia, has also identified these challenges. Specifically, studies on Zambia and other Southern African countries have documented broadband penetration disparities, capacity gaps in public institutions, and resource constraints on digital initiatives (Bwalya & Mutula, 2016). At times, these have been heavily dependent on donor agency assistance, resulting in project-based interventions rather than integrated institutional reforms.
However, recent research on African governance has challenged the narratives that portray digital transformation as structurally predetermined by deficit. Scholars have emphasized the role of adaptive capacity, contextual innovation, and institutional improvisation under resource constraints (Kuhlmann & Bouckaert, 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic, several Southern African countries, including Zambia, have adopted phased digital adoption strategies in parliament. These have prioritized committee functions, internal communication systems, and document circulation before moving on to public-facing digital engagement (Solopi, 2025).
This dual picture of institutional limitation and innovative capacity complicates the deterministic interpretation of digital transformation. It suggests that institutional agency and adaptability play a role in mediating infrastructural constraints. However, there is limited research on these processes within parliament under crisis conditions. Most studies have failed to integrate these dimensions within a single framework.
Benefits and Enablers of Digital Transformation
The role of leadership has also emerged as a key enabling factor in digital transformation processes. For instance, strategic vision, political will, and change management are often cited as key enabling factors for digital transformation (Tangi et al., 2021). In parliamentary systems of government, leadership assumes heightened importance because procedural change often requires formal rule amendments and cross-party negotiation.
In Southern Africa, anecdotal and emerging empirical evidence suggests that digital reforms during COVID-19 were often advocated by parliamentary leadership dedicated to preserving legislative oversight and democratic continuity (Solopi, 2025). Such leadership made it easier for procedures to change quickly and made it okay to use virtual deliberative platforms. But reform that is led by leaders has its own risks. If digital initiatives are not formally embedded in institutions through regulatory reform, budget allocation, and long-term strategy, they may continue to depend on individual actors rather than organisational structures (Mergel et al., 2019).
Another important dimension of digital transformation is its relationship with issues of democratic legitimacy. For instance, even as digital transformation is often cited as enhancing transparency and access to information on legislative processes and activities (Leston-Bandeira, 2016), it also raises issues of exclusion where the digital divide persist as a reality (Heeks, 2002a, 2002b). In Southern Africa, rural–urban disparities and affordability constraints complicate assumptions that digitalisation inherently promotes inclusivity. The shift to virtual parliamentary engagement during COVID-19 therefore raises normative questions regarding representation and equitable participation.
From the existing body of knowledge, there is an unresolved contradiction: whereas digital transformation promises improved efficiency, resilience, and transparency, its democratic and distributive effects are still dependent on contextual factors. Digital changes must be assessed not only on operational success but also on their implications for democratic accountability, especially in legislative institutions where legitimacy is procedurally based.
Synthesis and Research Gap
The present status of digital transformation research offers three convergent findings. First, digital transformation is increasingly understood as a socio-technical and institutional process rather than a mere technological upgrade (Bannister & Connolly, 2014; Vial, 2019). Second, crisis situations like the COVID-19 pandemic drive digital transformation and expose underlying structural inequalities and path dependencies (Amankwah-Amoah, 2021; OECD, 2020). Third, research on governance in Africa recognizes structural limitations and adaptive capacities (Bwalya & Mutula, 2016; Kuhlmann & Bouckaert, 2020).
Despite these advances, there is a significant research gap regarding legislative institutions in Southern Africa. In digital transformation research, legislative institutions in Southern Africa have attracted limited systematic research attention. Existing research tends to focus on barriers, benefits, and leading roles without exploring these aspects of digital transformation as an interactive process under a unified governance approach in crisis situations. Additionally, digitalisation of parliaments research is mostly based on OECD countries, limiting its generalisability to other countries with different structural characteristics such as Southern African region.
This article aims to address these research gaps by exploring digital transformation in Southern African parliaments during the COVID-19 pandemic as a multi-dimensional governance process under the influence of structural limitations, leading roles, and crisis acceleration.
Methodology
The necessity to capture the complex nature of the research issue guided the choice to employ a mixed-methods methodology. This strategy combines quantitative and qualitative techniques to offer a thorough grasp of the obstacles and facilitators of digital transformation. Utilising electronic surveys, quantitative techniques were used to find trends, patterns, and quantifiable results, problems, and advantages. Digital leaders’ experiences, perspectives, and contextual subtleties could be explored in greater detail thanks to qualitative methodologies, especially focus group talks. This combination made sure that the study covered the research topics’ depth and breadth.
All sixteen (16) Southern African Development Community (SADC) member parliaments were to be represented in the study. Senior ICT managers and leaders who were actively involved in carrying out digital transformation projects made up the target population. Other high-ranking parliamentary officials, such as clerks, deputy clerks, secretary generals, or directors, were also recognised as possible participants to guarantee the participation of strategic leadership viewpoints.
Participants were chosen based on two criteria: (i.) Direct participation in the planning, execution, or supervision of digital transformation projects within their parliamentary setting; and (ii.) A leadership position in resolving issues like resource distribution, stakeholder engagement, and change management throughout the shift to digital procedures.
In order to determine the number of members involved in digital transformation, emails and other electronic media messages were sent to the ICT departments of parliaments in each of the SADC countries prior to the study's commencement. The data collected from the 13 countries and one regional body (SADC-PF) showed that there are approximately thirty-two (32) digital leaders within the ICT departments of parliaments involved in digital transformation, as shown in Table 1.
Digital Leaders Involved in Digital Transformation Within ICT Departments in the SADC Region Parliaments (Solopi, 2024).
Digital Leaders Involved in Digital Transformation Within ICT Departments in the SADC Region Parliaments (Solopi, 2024).
A maximum of two (2) participants per parliament were chosen from the identified population of thirty-two (32) digital leaders involved in digital transformation to form the study sample. This restriction was put in place to prevent over-representation of any one parliament and to avoid skewing the results. The final sample size consisted of twenty-three (23) digital leaders (Table 2), representing a diverse mix of countries and their experiences with digital transformation in parliamentary settings. A fair comparative analysis throughout the region was made possible by this equitable distribution.
Summary of Sample Size (Solopi, 2024).
In accordance with the mixed-methods approach, the data collection process was carried out in two distinct phases: The first phase involved an electronic survey that was distributed to the identified participants via email. The survey included a combination of closed-ended questions to gather quantifiable data and open-ended questions to gather preliminary qualitative insights. The survey covered a number of important topics, such as participants’ perceptions of digital transformation, leadership strategies used during the pandemic, obstacles faced, and enablers that helped them succeed. The second phase involved follow-up focus group discussions with a subset of participants. Due to the virtual nature of these discussions, participants could join from anywhere in the SADC region without being limited by geography. By examining the subtleties of leadership experiences, including how leaders dealt with obstacles like technological resistance, resource constraints, and sociopolitical complications, the qualitative phase sought to build on the survey results. Strategies for engaging stakeholders, encouraging teamwork, overcoming change resistance, and lessons learnt during the transformation process were among the topics covered.
In order to offer descriptive information about the research findings, the quantitative data which originated from structured surveys and other numerical data sources was analysed using Google Forms. However, the following process was used to analyse the qualitative data from focus group talks and open-ended survey responses: Focus group audio recordings will be converted to text through transcription utilising Google Cloud's Audio to Text Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. After that, it was proofread and edited to make sure it accurately reflected the focus group conversation. Additionally, in order to familiarise ourselves with the content, we read the transcripts multiple times.
The data was then coded, with preliminary codes being created by locating significant textual passages pertaining to strategies, leadership, and digital transformation. To find trends and connections, these were then divided into more general categories and subcategories. The data was then subjected to thematic analysis using Nvivo and AILYZE software to find and develop important themes that emerged from the data and relate to the study questions.
The analysis proceeds in three stages. First, the findings examine the structural barriers that shaped the implementation of digital technologies in parliamentary institutions, including financial constraints, infrastructure limitations, and digital literacy challenges. Second, the study explores the institutional benefits that emerged from the adoption of digital tools, particularly in relation to legislative continuity, transparency, and citizen engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Third, the analysis considers the enabling factors, including leadership, training, and collaborative networks, that mediated these constraints and facilitated digital transformation within parliamentary governance. Together, these themes illustrate how barriers, benefits, and enablers interacted to shape the trajectory and outcomes of digital transformation in Southern African parliaments.
To address these questions, this study examines the experiences of parliamentary actors involved in digital transformation initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings are organised around the three interrelated themes: structural barriers influencing digital transformation, institutional benefits emerging from the adoption of digital technologies, and the enabling factors that contributed to parliaments adaption to the crisis conditions as presented in Table 3.
Explanation of the Themes That Influenced Digital Transformation During COVID-19.
Explanation of the Themes That Influenced Digital Transformation During COVID-19.
The factors within each theme are described in the following sections.
Structural barriers refer to institutional, organizational, and systemic constraints embedded within governance structures that limit the adoption, implementation, or effectiveness of digital technologies. In the context of Southern African parliaments, the rapid shift toward digital systems during the COVID-19 pandemic exposed longstanding institutional, infrastructural, and resource-related constraints. These barriers influenced both the pace and scope of digital adoption, revealing how structural conditions within governance systems can limit the effectiveness of technological reforms. The following section examines the key structural factors that affected the implementation of digital transformation initiatives during this period.
Financial Limitation
Financial limitations emerged as the most frequently cited structural barrier, with 87% of survey respondents identifying budget constraints as a key challenge as indicated in Figure 1. However, participants emphasized that the issue was not merely a lack of funding but also limited financial autonomy within parliamentary institutions.
Challenges encountered in implementing digital transformation initiatives in parliamentary setting (Solopi, 2024).
Many respondents noted that parliamentary ICT investments were dependent on broader government budgeting processes, which limited the flexibility required for rapid digital adoption. One participant explained: ‘Parliament faces significant challenges due to a lack of financial autonomy, requiring approval from the Ministry of Finance for investments in digital infrastructure to enhance digital reach.’ (Solopi, 2024)
This institutional dependency illustrates how governance structures shape digital transformation outcomes. When parliaments lack financial autonomy, digital reform initiatives may compete with other national priorities, reducing the speed and scope of technological innovation.
Limited digital literacy among parliamentary actors also emerged as a key challenge. Approximately 80% of respondents identified insufficient digital skills among members and staff as a barrier to implementing digital initiatives as indicated in Figure 1. Participants frequently noted that many parliamentary procedures had historically relied on traditional paper-based systems, leaving members unfamiliar with digital collaboration tools. As one participant explained: ‘The pandemic exposed disparities in digital literacy and access among parliamentarians and constituents, exacerbating existing inequalities. However, it also presented an opportunity to assess literacy levels and enhance training to bridge the gap’. (Solopi, 2024).
The findings indicate that skill gaps in digital literacy prompted institutional learning, leading to the introduction of training programs and technical support initiatives for members and staff. These challenges served both as barriers and catalysts for capacity-building within parliamentary institutions.
Infrastructural Limitation
Infrastructure limitations were another major constraint, with 53% of respondents reporting inadequate digital infrastructure, particularly in relation to connectivity and access to reliable internet services as indicated in Figure 1. Participants highlighted that these challenges were especially pronounced for Members of Parliament representing rural constituencies. One respondent observed: ‘Some members were participating from rural areas where internet connectivity is unreliable. In such cases, joining hybrid sittings or online committee meetings became very difficult.’(Solopi, 2024).
These connectivity challenges had significant implications for digital parliamentary participation. While hybrid sittings enabled legislative continuity during lockdowns, uneven internet access limited the extent to which all members could engage equally in digital processes. In this way, infrastructure gaps not only acted as barriers but also shaped the nature and distribution of the benefits associated with digital transformation.
Security Concerns
Security concerns emerged as a critical factor shaping the adoption and implementation of digital technologies by 60% of survey respondents as indicated in Figure 1. While digital platforms enabled the continuity of legislative functions, they also introduced risks related to cybersecurity, data protection, and the integrity of parliamentary proceedings. Rapid adoption of virtual systems raised concerns about the security of sensitive information, particularly for confidential activities such as oversight and internal administration. ‘When we moved meetings online very quickly, there were concerns about whether the platforms were secure enough for parliamentary discussions, especially for committee work.’ (Solopi, 2024).
These concerns influenced the pace of digital transformation, as institutions introduced additional review processes to ensure compliance with security standards. Issues surrounding remote participation, voting mechanisms, and document authentication further highlighted the implications of digitalization for procedural integrity and legislative legitimacy. In this context, security considerations played a key role in shaping institutional trust in digital systems, with inadequate safeguards potentially slowing adoption. ‘The shift to digital forced us to take cybersecurity more seriously and to develop policies that previously did not exist.’ (Solopi, 2024).
At the same time, security challenges acted as catalysts for institutional strengthening. Parliaments responded by developing ICT policies, data protection frameworks, and cybersecurity training initiatives. Overall, security concerns functioned both as constraints and enablers, underscoring the need to integrate cybersecurity into broader digital transformation strategies to sustain trust and legitimacy in digital parliamentary processes.
While these structural barriers constrained the pace and scope of digital transformation, they did not entirely prevent the adoption of digital technologies within parliamentary institutions. In many cases, the pressures created by the COVID-19 pandemic compelled parliaments to implement digital solutions despite these limitations. As a result, several institutional benefits emerged from the accelerated use of digital tools, particularly in relation to operational efficiency, information accessibility, and the continuity of legislative functions. The following section examines these institutional benefits and their implications for parliamentary governance.
Institutional Benefits
Despite these structural constraints, digital transformation produced several important institutional benefits. Institutional benefits refer to the improvements in organizational performance, governance processes, and service delivery that arise from the adoption of digital technologies. In parliamentary contexts, digital transformation has the potential to enhance operational efficiency, improve access to legislative information, and strengthen mechanisms for transparency and public engagement. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the accelerated adoption of digital tools enabled many Southern African parliaments to maintain legislative functions despite mobility restrictions and social distancing requirements. The following section examines the key institutional benefits that emerged from the implementation of digital technologies in parliamentary processes during this period.
Improved Efficiency and Productivity
Survey results indicate that 93% of respondents reported improvements in operational efficiency and productivity following the adoption of digital technologies as indicated in Figure 2. Participants highlighted the role of virtual meeting platforms, digital document management systems, and hybrid parliamentary sittings in maintaining legislative operations during pandemic restrictions. One respondent noted: ‘Without the digital platforms, parliamentary work would have stopped completely during lockdowns. Instead, committees continued meeting and legislation continued to move forward.’ (Solopi, 2024).
Positive outcomes resulting from digital transformation in parliamentary setting (Solopi, 2024).
Digital document management systems also reduced reliance on paper-based processes, improving the speed and accessibility of legislative information. These findings suggest that digital technologies were not merely supportive tools but became essential to sustaining legislative functionality, demonstrating their potential to drive longer-term institutional modernization beyond the pandemic context.
Digital transformation also expanded public access to parliamentary information. Many respondents reported that livestreamed parliamentary sessions and online document repositories allowed citizens to follow legislative proceedings more easily than before. As one participant explained: ‘Previously, citizens had to physically come to Parliament to observe proceedings. Now many people can watch sessions online from anywhere.’ (Solopi, 2024).
This increased accessibility has important implications for transparency and public accountability within legislative institutions. However, the findings also suggest that the impact of these initiatives depends on broader digital access within society.
Citizen Engagement and Democratic Participation
Participants also observed that digital platforms expanded opportunities for citizen engagement. Approximately 73% of respondents identified increased public participation as a benefit of digitalization as indicated in Figure 2. Online platforms allowed citizens to follow parliamentary debates, engage with representatives through digital channels, and access legislative information more easily. However, several respondents cautioned that these benefits were unevenly distributed due to digital divides in internet access. As one participant remarked: ‘Digital platforms have increased transparency, but not everyone has access to the internet, so participation is still unequal.’ (Solopi, 2024).
This highlights the conditional nature of digital governance reforms. While digital technologies can expand participation, their democratic benefits depend on broader socio-economic and infrastructural conditions. This then raises the question of digital transformation for whom? And the next section addresses this question.
Digital Transformation for Whom?
The findings highlight that the benefits of digital transformation in parliamentary governance are not uniformly distributed, raising critical questions about for whom digitalization matters and under what conditions it is effective. While digital platforms expanded access to parliamentary information and participation opportunities, these gains were contingent upon digital infrastructure, affordability, and user capacity.
Evidence from the study shows that rural connectivity gaps and high data costs significantly limited the inclusivity of digital parliamentary processes. As noted by participants, ‘Members of Parliament operating in remote constituencies often faced unreliable internet access, which constrained their ability to effectively participate in hybrid sittings and virtual committee engagements’ (Solopi, 2024).
These challenges were mirrored among citizens, where unequal access to digital technologies restricted the extent to which the public could engage with newly available online parliamentary platforms.
This uneven access reveals that digital transformation may simultaneously expand and constrain democratic participation. On one hand, digital tools enabled broader dissemination of parliamentary information and created new channels for engagement. On the other hand, structural inequalities, particularly in rural areas, meant that these opportunities were more accessible to urban, connected, and digitally literate populations, potentially reinforcing existing patterns of exclusion.
Furthermore, the findings suggest that digitalization matters most under conditions where infrastructure availability, affordability of connectivity, and digital literacy intersect. In contexts where these conditions are met, digital transformation can enhance transparency, participation, and institutional responsiveness. However, where such conditions are absent, digital initiatives risk becoming selective in their reach, benefiting only segments of the population while marginalizing others.
This has important implications for legislative legitimacy. If digital parliamentary systems primarily serve already connected groups, they may inadvertently weaken the representative function of parliaments by excluding voices from less connected communities. As such, the effectiveness of digital transformation in strengthening democratic governance depends not only on technological adoption but also on addressing underlying inequalities in access and capability.
While these institutional benefits demonstrate the potential of digital technologies to enhance parliamentary operations, their realization was not automatic. The extent to which digital transformation translated into improved efficiency, transparency, and engagement depended largely on the presence of supportive institutional conditions and strategic leadership. Understanding how these benefits were achieved requires examining the enabling factors that facilitated the adoption and effective use of digital technologies within parliamentary institutions. The following section explores the key factors that supported and accelerated digital transformation during this period.
Enabling Factors
Enabling factors refer to the institutional conditions, resources, and strategic actions that facilitate the successful adoption and implementation of digital technologies within organizations. In the context of parliamentary digital transformation, these factors include leadership commitment, supportive governance structures, capacity-building initiatives, and collaborative networks that help institutions overcome structural constraints. During the COVID-19 pandemic, such enabling conditions played a critical role in allowing Southern African parliaments to adapt to rapidly changing operational demands. The following section examines the key factors that supported and accelerated the implementation of digital transformation initiatives within these legislative institutions.
Leadership and Institutional Capacity
The findings further indicate that leadership played a crucial role in mediating the effects of structural constraints. Participants frequently described how institutional leaders leveraged the urgency created by the pandemic to advance digital reforms that had previously stalled. One participant explained: ‘The crisis created an opportunity for leadership to push through reforms that had been discussed for years but never implemented.’ (Solopi, 2024).
Leadership decisions were particularly important in facilitating the transition to hybrid parliamentary systems, coordinating digital training programs, and mobilizing resources for ICT investments.
Further, training and regional collaboration also supported digital transformation efforts. Participants noted that knowledge-sharing networks among parliamentary ICT departments enabled institutions to learn from each other’s experiences. As one respondent observed: ‘Sharing experiences with other parliaments helped us identify practical solutions and avoid repeating mistakes.’ (Solopi, 2024).
Together, these leadership and collaboration mechanisms helped parliaments navigate structural barriers and sustain digital transformation efforts during the pandemic.
Digital Transformation as a Crisis-Driven Institutional Process
The findings also indicate that digital transformation in Southern African parliaments during the COVID-19 pandemic was less a planned modernization initiative than a crisis-driven institutional response. Rather than functioning independently, barriers, benefits, and enablers interacted to shape how digitalization unfolded within parliamentary institutions. Participants consistently emphasized that the pandemic exposed pre-existing institutional limitations while simultaneously creating urgency for reform. As one participant explained: ‘Before COVID-19 we had discussed digital systems for years, but there was never the urgency to implement them. The pandemic forced us to adopt technologies that were previously considered optional.’ (Solopi, 2024).
This observation reflects a broader pattern across the data: structural constraints such as limited funding and infrastructure slowed digital transformation prior to the pandemic, yet the crisis created a window for accelerated adoption of digital tools. Consequently, digital transformation emerged as an adaptive institutional process, where leadership decisions and organizational capacity determined whether structural barriers hindered or stimulated innovation.
Taken together, the findings suggest that digital transformation in Southern African parliaments during the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be understood through isolated categories of barriers, benefits, or enablers. Rather, these dimensions interacted dynamically to shape institutional responses to crisis conditions. Structural constraints such as limited financial autonomy, infrastructure gaps, and uneven digital literacy influenced the pace and scope of technological adoption. However, these same constraints also stimulated adaptive responses, particularly where institutional leadership and collaborative governance mechanisms were present.
In this sense, leadership functioned not merely as an enabling factor but as a mediating force that shaped how parliaments navigated structural limitations. Strategic leadership decisions, combined with training initiatives and regional knowledge-sharing networks, enabled institutions to convert crisis pressures into opportunities for organizational learning and innovation. At the same time, infrastructure limitations and unequal access to digital technologies constrained the extent to which the benefits of digitalization, particularly transparency and citizen engagement, could be fully realized.
These dynamics highlight an important paradox of parliamentary digital transformation during the pandemic: while digital technologies expanded opportunities for institutional continuity and public engagement, they simultaneously exposed and, in some cases, reproduced existing inequalities in access to digital participation. Consequently, the democratic implications of digital transformation depend not only on technological adoption but also on the broader institutional and socio-economic conditions under which digital reforms occur.
Understanding these interactions is critical for assessing the broader governance implications of parliamentary digitalization. The findings therefore provide an empirical basis for examining how crisis-driven digital transformation reshapes legislative institutions, influences patterns of democratic participation, and affects perceptions of legislative legitimacy.
The following discussion section builds on these insights by situating the empirical findings within broader debates on digital governance, institutional resilience, and democratic accountability in public sector transformation.
Discussion
The findings of this study demonstrate that digital transformation in Southern African parliaments during the COVID-19 pandemic was not merely a technological adjustment but a context-dependent governance process shaped by the interaction between structural constraints, institutional capacity, and leadership agency. Building on the empirical results, this section advances the argument that digital transformation in legislative institutions is best understood as a mediated and unequal process, whose outcomes depend on the conditions under which digitalization is implemented and the actors able to access and benefit from it. This perspective aligns with and extends broader debates in digital governance, which increasingly emphasize that technological reforms are embedded within institutional contexts and are shaped by power relations, resource distribution, and governance arrangements (Fountain, 2001; Heeks, 2002a, 2002b).
Consistent with the findings, structural barriers, particularly financial constraints, infrastructure limitations, and digital skills deficits, remain central to shaping digital transformation trajectories. These constraints reflect broader patterns identified in digital governance literature, where resource dependency and infrastructural inequalities limit reform outcomes in developing contexts (Bwalya & Mutula, 2016; Heeks, 2002a, 2002b). However, this study expands on previous research by demonstrating that in parliamentary settings, these barriers are not only technical or economic but also institutional and political.
The dependence of parliaments on executive-controlled budgetary processes illustrates how governance arrangements mediate digital transformation. Unlike executive agencies, legislative institutions often lack financial autonomy, constraining their ability to independently invest in digital infrastructure. This suggests that digital transformation in parliaments is embedded within broader inter-institutional power dynamics, reinforcing the need to conceptualize digitalization as a politically conditioned process rather than a purely administrative reform (Pierson, 2004).
From a theoretical perspective, this supports a structurationist view of digital transformation, where institutional structures (rules, resources, and power relations) both constrain and enable technological change (Giddens, 1984). Digital technologies do not operate in isolation; their adoption and impact are shaped by pre-existing governance arrangements. Thus, digital transformation in parliamentary contexts must be understood as institutionally embedded and path-dependent, rather than universally transferable across contexts (Pierson, 2004).
A key contribution of this study lies in demonstrating that the benefits of digital transformation are unevenly distributed, raising important questions about for whom digitalization matters and under what conditions. While digital platforms improved efficiency, transparency, and access to parliamentary information, these benefits were contingent upon connectivity, affordability, and digital literacy.
The findings on rural connectivity gaps and high data costs illustrate that digital parliamentary participation remains structurally unequal. Members of Parliament representing rural constituencies and citizens in underserved areas face greater barriers to accessing digital platforms, limiting their ability to engage in legislative processes. This reinforces concerns in digital governance literature that digital transformation can simultaneously expand and reproduce inequalities (Heeks, 2002a, 2002b; Norris, 2001).
Theoretically, this suggests a shift from viewing digital transformation as a universal good toward understanding it as a conditional and layered governance reform. Drawing on digital divide theory, the study highlights that inequalities are not only about access (first-level divide) but also about capabilities and effective use (second-level divide) (van Dijk, 2005). In parliamentary contexts, this means that even where digital platforms are available, unequal skills and connectivity shape who can meaningfully participate.
Digitalization therefore matters most in contexts where enabling conditions such as infrastructure, affordability, and skills, are present. Where these conditions are absent, digital systems risk becoming selective in their inclusivity, privileging already connected populations while marginalizing others. This aligns with emerging scholarship on digital inequality as a governance challenge, where technology can reinforce existing socio-economic hierarchies if not accompanied by inclusive policy interventions (van Dijk, 2005).
This has direct implications for democratic governance. If digital parliamentary systems disproportionately benefit urban and digitally connected groups, they may inadvertently weaken the representative function of legislatures by excluding less connected constituencies. Thus, digital transformation must be evaluated not only in terms of efficiency gains but also in relation to equity, inclusion, and representational legitimacy, extending debates in democratic theory on the relationship between participation, access, and institutional trust (Norris, 2001).
The findings also highlight the role of crisis conditions in accelerating digital transformation. The COVID-19 pandemic functioned as a critical juncture, lowering resistance to change and enabling the rapid adoption of digital technologies. This aligns with existing research on crisis-driven innovation in the public sector (Mergel et al., 2019), but the study further shows that crisis-induced transformation is path dependent and institutionally dependent (Pierson, 2004).
Parliaments that had previously invested in ICT infrastructure and governance frameworks were better positioned to transition to digital operations. This supports the argument that digital transformation is cumulative, building on prior institutional capacities. At the same time, the crisis exposed gaps in digital literacy and infrastructure, prompting targeted interventions such as training programs and device provision.
Importantly, these findings suggest that barriers can function as triggers for institutional learning and adaptive capacity. Digital skills deficits and infrastructure limitations did not only constrain transformation; they also stimulated adaptive responses that enhanced institutional capacity over time. This aligns with theories of organizational resilience, where institutions respond to shocks through processes of learning, adaptation, and transformation.
Thus, digital transformation in this context can be conceptualized as an iterative and evolutionary process, shaped by feedback loops between constraints and institutional responses. This moves beyond linear models of digital reform toward a more dynamic understanding of how public institutions evolve under crisis conditions (Mergel et al., 2019).
A central insight emerging from the findings is the role of leadership as a mediating mechanism between structural constraints and digital outcomes. While financial and infrastructural barriers persisted, parliaments with proactive leadership were better able to mobilize resources, coordinate institutional responses, and implement digital solutions.
This extends existing literature that identifies leadership as a key enabler (Tangi et al., 2021) by demonstrating its interactive and transformational role. Leadership does not simply facilitate digital transformation; it shapes how institutions interpret constraints, prioritise reforms, and mobilise organisational change. In crisis contexts, leadership can convert structural limitations into opportunities for reform by leveraging urgency and aligning institutional actors around shared objectives.
From a theoretical standpoint, this reflects a transformational leadership perspective, where leaders act as agents of change within constrained institutional environments (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). In parliamentary settings, this role is particularly significant due to the need for procedural legitimacy and political consensus. Digital reforms often require formal approval and adaptation of legislative procedures, making leadership central to navigating both technical and political dimensions of institutional change.
The findings also highlight the importance of security and trust in shaping digital transformation. Cybersecurity concerns influenced the adoption of digital tools and introduced new considerations regarding the integrity of parliamentary processes. This underscores that digital transformation in legislative institutions is not only about efficiency and access but also about maintaining trust in institutional procedures.
From a theoretical perspective, this connects digital transformation to broader debates on institutional legitimacy and trust in governance (Levi & Stoker, 2000; Suchman, 1995). Digital systems that are perceived as insecure or unreliable may undermine confidence in legislative processes, particularly in areas such as remote voting or digital document authentication.
At a broader level, the study suggests that the legitimacy of digital parliamentary systems depends on their ability to balance efficiency, inclusion, and security. These three dimensions can be understood as a governance triad, where tensions between them must be carefully managed. For example, systems that maximise efficiency but compromise security or inclusivity may generate new forms of institutional risk.
Taken together, these findings point toward a more nuanced conceptualization of digital transformation in legislative institutions. Rather than viewing barriers, benefits, and enablers as separate dimensions, this study demonstrates that they operate as interdependent elements within a broader socio-technical governance system (Fountain, 2001).
This leads to three key theoretical insights: firstly that digital transformation is structurally mediated by institutional arrangements, resource dependencies, and infrastructural conditions. Second is that digitalization is conditionally inclusive, with benefits dependent on access, affordability, and capability. And finally, that leadership and crisis dynamics act as mediating forces, shaping how institutions navigate constraints and realise benefits.
Together, these insights contribute to a context-sensitive and relational model of digital transformation, where outcomes emerge from the interaction between technology, institutions, and socio-economic conditions. This moves beyond deterministic or technology-centric models and aligns with contemporary perspectives in digital governance that emphasise complexity, contingency, and institutional embeddedness (Fountain, 2001).
The findings suggest that sustaining digital transformation beyond crisis conditions requires addressing underlying structural inequalities. Investments in digital infrastructure, affordable connectivity, and capacity-building are essential to ensure that digital parliamentary systems are inclusive and effective.
Moreover, institutionalising digital reforms will require the development of robust governance frameworks, including cybersecurity policies and clear procedural guidelines for digital participation. Without such measures, the gains achieved during the pandemic may not translate into long-term improvements in democratic governance.
Conclusion
This study set out to examine the barriers, benefits, and enablers of digital transformation in Southern African parliaments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings demonstrate that digital transformation in legislative institutions is not a linear or purely technical process, but rather a context-dependent and institutionally mediated phenomenon shaped by the interaction of structural constraints, leadership agency, and organizational capacity.
Empirically, the study shows that structural barriers, particularly financial limitations, infrastructure gaps, digital skills deficits, and security concerns, significantly influenced the pace and scope of digital adoption. At the same time, the pandemic acted as a critical catalyst, compelling parliaments to implement digital solutions that enabled continuity of legislative functions, improved operational efficiency, and expanded access to parliamentary information. These benefits, however, were not uniformly realized. The findings highlight that the outcomes of digital transformation were uneven and conditional, shaped by disparities in connectivity, affordability, and digital literacy, particularly between urban and rural contexts.
A key contribution of this study lies in demonstrating that digital transformation in parliamentary settings must be understood in relational terms, where barriers, benefits, and enablers are interdependent rather than discrete categories. Leadership emerged as a central mediating factor, enabling institutions to navigate structural constraints and translate crisis-induced pressures into opportunities for adaptation and institutional learning. Similarly, security concerns, while initially constraining digital adoption, prompted the development of more robust governance frameworks, reinforcing the importance of trust and procedural integrity in digital legislative processes.
The study further contributes to digital governance research by foregrounding the question of for whom digitalization matters and under what conditions. While digital technologies have the potential to enhance transparency, participation, and efficiency, their democratic value is contingent upon inclusive access and institutional capacity. Without addressing underlying structural inequalities, digital transformation risks reinforcing existing patterns of exclusion, thereby limiting its contribution to legislative legitimacy and representative governance.
From a policy perspective, the findings underscore the need for a more holistic and context-sensitive approach to digital transformation in parliaments. Sustaining the gains achieved during the pandemic will require continued investment in digital infrastructure, affordable connectivity, and capacity-building, alongside the institutionalization of cybersecurity frameworks and digital governance policies. Equally important is the need to ensure that digital reforms are designed with inclusivity in mind, so that the benefits of digitalization extend beyond already connected populations.
In conclusion, digital transformation in Southern African parliaments during COVID-19 represents both a moment of accelerated innovation and a reflection of enduring structural inequalities. Its long-term impact on democratic governance will depend on the extent to which institutions can move beyond crisis-driven adoption toward strategic, inclusive, and secure digital transformation pathways that strengthen both institutional performance and public trust. While financial, infrastructural, and capacity-related barriers remain significant, the experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate that legislatures are capable of adapting to rapidly evolving governance environments. By building on the lessons learned during this period and strengthening the enabling conditions identified in this study, Southern African parliaments can leverage digital technologies to develop more resilient, transparent, and inclusive legislative institutions in the digital era.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process
During the preparation of this work the author used ChatGPT in order to improve the readability and language of the manuscript. After using this tool/service, the author reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the published article.