Ethnic Nationalism and Political Community: The Overseas Suffrage Debates in Japan and South Korea

Kalicki, Konrad

doi:10.1080/10357820902923241

Cited by 21 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They show how Germany and Korea, both “often considered classic exemplars of ethnic nationalism,” have granted rights to external groups “not in recognition of the claims of ethnonational kinship per se, but in recognition of special ties between specific transborder populations and the preceding German and Korean polities ” (67). Similarly, Kalicki (:177) writes, “despite some ethnonationalist rhetoric,” South Korea's deliberation about long‐distance voting “has above all been grounded in contractual/civic considerations.” Several publications of Hungary's Status Laws were not so much revanchist posturing as an attempt to integrate Hungary into a multicultural Europe and help transcend territorial disputes ( see Fowler, :230; Csergo and Goldgeier, ; Ieda, ; Waterbury, ). Others argue that India's Ministry, occasionally accused of Hindu nationalism (Bhatt and Mukta, ; Rajagopal, ), is more about forming alliances with offshore business elites (Dickinson and Bailey, ; Varadarajan, ; Xavier, ).…”

Section: Embracing National and Transnational Citizensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diaspora Institutions and Diaspora Governance

Gamlen

2014

International Migration Review

218

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do governments form institutions devoted to emigrants and their descendants in the diaspora? Such institutions have become a regular feature of political life in many parts of the world: Over half all United Nations Member States now have one. Diaspora institutions merit research because they connect new developments in the global governance of migration with new patterns of national and transnational sovereignty and citizenship, and new ways of constructing individual identity in relation to new collectivities. But these institutions are generally overlooked. Migration policy is still understood as immigration policy, and research on diaspora institutions has been fragmented, case‐study dominated, and largely descriptive. In this article, I review and extend the relevant theoretical literature and highlight empirical research priorities. I argue that existing studies focus too exclusively on national‐level interests and ideas to explain how individual states tap diaspora resources and embrace these groups within the nation‐state. However, these approaches cannot explain the global spread of diaspora institutions. This, I argue, requires a comparative approach and greater attention to the role of efforts to create a coherent but decentralized system of global governance in the area of international migration.

show abstract

Section: Embracing National and Transnational Citizensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diaspora Institutions and Diaspora Governance

Gamlen

2014

International Migration Review

218

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No está claro si los derechos electorales son una alternativa a las condiciones legales que dificultan el acceso a la ciudadanía, o si por el contrario, deberían ser coherentes con la orientación de las tradiciones de ciudadanía expresadas en esas condiciones (Pedroza, 2019). Por ejemplo, se ha esperado que países con una tradición de ciudadanía "conservadora" o "etnonacionalista" no extiendan derechos electorales a los migrantes residentes, en un sentido de coherencia normativa (Kalicki 2009b). Sin embargo, según otros autores, se debe esperar que precisamente los países de tradición conservadora y difícil acceso a la ciudadanía por medio de la naturalización abran una vía a la participación por medio de los derechos electorales, en el sentido de dar una alternativa, cuando hay un déficit democrático que atender (Justwan, 2015;Earnest, 2002).…”

Section: Hipótesisunclassified

Los límites de la participación política en una democracia excepcional: migrantes en Costa Rica

Pedroza

2020

Migr. Inter

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In comparison to other countries in the Latin American region, especially in Central America, support for democracy in Costa Rica is high –despite ups and downs in recent years. Still, regarding the challenges that immigration poses for the principles of democratic inclusion and representation, Costa Rica lag behind 11 countries in Latin America –and 35 democracies in the world– where immigrant residents have the right to vote in local elections. In Chile and Uruguay, the only countries in the region where support for democracy tops that observed in Costa Rica, the right to vote of immigrant residents even reaches national elections. With such a comparative background, this article addresses the question: how to explain that this democracy ignores the tendency to give the right to vote to resident migrants? The study reveals a society in which the narrative of exceptionality with respect to other countries of the continent and the formal primacy of nationality to political citizenship, allow tolerating a clear inequality between the political rights of emigrants and immigrants.

show abstract

“…However, given the prominence of the ethnic-based conception of the Korean nationhood, as established in the literature, one would expect that the rhetorical power of ethno-nationalist arguments was great, resonating in many sectors of the Korean society, and that these arguments have received sympathetic responses even from defenders of the status quo. In fact, in the case of Japan, the rhetorical power of such ethno-nationalist arguments has facilitated an actual policy change, resulting in the enfranchisement of overseas Japanese (Kalicki, 2009). While the case of South Korea does not have the same outcome, the conventional wisdom would lead one to expect that the ethno-nationalist logic was quite powerful in South Korea nonetheless.…”

Section: Electoral Rights For Non-resident Citizens and Non-citizen Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 2 Preliminary (and only partial) attempts have recently been made in the context of Japan and South Korea (see Kalicki, 2008, 2009). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Electoral Rights beyond Territory and beyond Citizenship? The Case of South Korea

Kalicki¹

2009

Japanese Journal of Political Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current world migration is disrupting conceptual boundaries of national democratic polities. One area where the traditional sense of political community is being challenged concerns electoral rights for non-resident citizens and non-citizen residents. With the right to vote being an ultimate expression of political membership in a democratic nation-state, any debates about these two groups’ suffrage rights constitute a critical source of empirical insights into how democracies re-imagine themselves away from fixed identities under the pressure of globalization. In view of this, this paper examines the understudied case of South Korea, utilizing the most systematic theoretical framework currently available: one developed by Rainer Bauböck. It provides direct empirical evidence that undermines the conventional wisdom that Koreans define their polity purely on the basis of their ethnicity. Contrary to our expectations, a close scrutiny of the Korean debates in question reveals ample references to the civic ideals of political community. The line of reasoning that emphasizes duties towards the welfare of the polity has produced powerful justifications for denying political franchise to overseas compatriots, while granting limited electoral rights to qualified resident foreigners. A broader implication of this empirical finding is that it highlights a fundamental limitation of Bauböck's theoretical framework: it conceives political franchise only as an expression of people's rights in regard to law-making. The case of South Korea, thus, suggests that Bauböck's scheme should be modified to address both the rights-based logics and the somewhat obsolete duty-based logic of franchise extension.

show abstract

Ethnic Nationalism and Political Community: The Overseas Suffrage Debates in Japan and South Korea

Cited by 21 publications

References 20 publications

Diaspora Institutions and Diaspora Governance

Diaspora Institutions and Diaspora Governance

Los límites de la participación política en una democracia excepcional: migrantes en Costa Rica

Electoral Rights beyond Territory and beyond Citizenship? The Case of South Korea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About