The Democratic Potential of Enfranchising Resident Migrants

Abstract

The right to vote has always been the central privilege of citizenship. Its extension to resident migrants holds a promise of democratizing citizenship by bringing it closer to principles with deep roots in liberal and republican traditions, and further away from particularistic understandings that reduce citizenship to nationality. This article's main contribution is a systematic and policy-relevant discussion of the kind of enfranchisement that can realize that potential, approached in three steps: first, a demarcation of citizenship policy within migration policy substantiates the need to employ a normative perspective; second, a description of the trend of enfranchisement of non-citizens provides the normative paper with a sound empirical base for a non-ideal discussion; third, a discussion of different kinds of enfranchisement tackles the controversial issues related to it and delineates the specific requisites to realize its potential.The policy of extending voting rights to non-citizen resident migrants (henceforth denizens) 1 confirms basic principles of democratic rule in political communities that experience high immigration. Certainly, denizens' lack of access to formal channels of political participation is at odds with basic principles of democratic theory in their formulations of affectedness, self-rule and inclusion: what concerns all should be approved by all; no-taxation-without-representation; no person should be subject to political decisions for long periods of time without being able to influence them in a formal way. Some argue that the political inclusion of all residents in a polity 2 improves governance through more genuine representation of the resident population in policy-making and is actually required as long as laws and policies of democratic states apply not only to the citizens of states but to all residents of those states (see Munro, 2008). Yet the extension of voting rights (hereafter enfranchisement) to denizens is more than a policy that may enhance democracy: it bears on principles, deeply rooted in liberal and republican traditions of citizenship, that are open to interpretation and controversial. A rigorous assessment of enfranchisement's potential as a policy to democratize the migrant receiving-polity can only be guided by an informed look at its empirical reality.Migration policy and citizenship policy are closely related, but they are not the same. Immigration policy, in particular, concerns problems that may be defined in demographic, economic and political terms and covers policy instruments from visa regulations and border control to the rights accorded to immigrants once in the territory. Justifications about numbers, quotas or "critical mass" to protect liberal politics fit easily under the umbrella of immigration policy. Citizenship policy, however, is a much more sensitive policy field because it is related to the ideal contract that legitimizes political rule and is therefore embedded in normative controversies regarding how the demos is defined. For instance, ...

Older Asian immigrants’ participation as cultural enfranchisement

“…Rather than cultural homogeneity providing the social glue in the greater receiving society, older immigrants' ties to co-ethnic groups, in which they feel 'at-home' (Tiamzon, 2013), provide the platform for participation. While older immigrants in New Zealand, whether they have citizenship or not, are conferred political enfranchisement through the right to vote (Pedroza, 2015), participation in co-ethnic communities confers 'cultural enfranchisement'. That is, meaningful occupation in their deeplyfamiliar ethnic groups frees them from the potentially grave, social isolation that being a late-life immigrant can bring.…”

Göç ve Demokrasinin Geleceği

“…Çoğunluk, göçmenlerin oy kullanma hakkının oturma ve çalışma izni olanlar ile oturum süresini dolduranlara verilmesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Bazı ülkeler, kendi seçim yasalarını revize ederek yurttaş olmayanların ve sadece oturma izni olanların oy kullanabileceği bir biçime dönüştürmüştür (Pedroza, 2015). Dünya ülkeleri arasında Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri, yurttaş olmayanların seçme ve seçilme hakkına sahip olduğu başlıca ülkelerdendir.…”

Non-universal suffrage: measuring electoral inclusion in contemporary democracies

“…The exclusion of prisoners or persons with a mental disability, for instance, remains a divisive issue in most contemporary democracies. Another particularly widespread and controversial form of disenfranchisement stems from international migration, as a result of which non-naturalised immigrants are often excluded from elections held in their country of residence and, to a lesser degree, in their country of citizenship (Earnest 2015;Pedroza 2015;Spiro 2006;Arrighi and Bauböck 2017). In democratically governed states, regions, and cities, these infringements to the sacrosanct principle of universal suffrage have sparked debates about the very nature of the political community and the essential qualities of citizenship, resulting in frequent changes in the electoral law.…”