A citizen stood in the queue for a whole hour to complete a simple transaction, and when he reached the window he heard the sentence that has become the most famous phrase in our lives: “The system is down.” He went back home thinking that digitization had been promised to shorten his road, yet it has made it longer.

Digitization is a legitimate dream: it promises a faster, cheaper and fairer service, closing the doors of intermediaries and tips and building information systems. Whoever criticizes its implementation does not deny the idea; rather, he is jealous for it.

But the gap between the announcement and reality has widened: a year ago founding a company was done in three days on paper, while today it may stretch over months, between a system for issuing a tax card that keeps stumbling, and the state inviting investment and then placing an obstacle at the very first step that kills enthusiasm. And in the courts, the litigant pays the price for the faltering application of the new procedural laws and their postponement.

So where is the fault?

The fault in the system is real: weak internet even in government offices, servers that cannot bear the load, and systems that do not talk to one another, so the citizen is asked for the same document twice or three times.

But the human fault is more dangerous: bureaucracy was transferred as it was from paper to the screen instead of the procedures being re-engineered, projects were launched before they were ready, and no body is held accountable for its delay.

Worse still is the absence of transparency: no official announces the cause of the fault or its duration, and he hides the truth about the weakness of the internet and the absence of the tools of implementation, especially qualified human resources, from the decision-makers, so the phrase “the system is down” has become a curtain hiding everything, from the weakness of the network to bad management and lack of transparency.

Hence we understand why some people call for a return to paper. Not a rejection of progress, but a protest against a service that has not improved: the paper system was crowded but faster and cheaper, while the faltering digital one has combined the slowness of paper with the opacity of the machine. Nevertheless, a return to ledgers is not a solution, for nostalgia for paper is proof of the failure of the alternative, not of the validity of the old.

The way out does not need a miracle, but frankness:

1-Improving the network before launching the service, not after it.

2-Pilot operation in parallel with paper until the system proves its efficiency.

3-Linking databases between bodies.

4-Announcing breakdowns, their causes and their duration to the public.

5-Holding those at fault accountable and training employees.

Digitization is not achieved by announcing it, but by honesty in admitting the stumbles and seriousness in fixing them; and when the system has an overseer who holds it accountable and people have a vision that leads them, the phrase “the system is down” will drop out of the dictionary, as it should drop out of the queue.