Institutional
reforms never involve one single objective, but rather several objectives
simultaneously. For external voting, these objectives are:
- the realization of the
principle of universal suffrage, associated with the other principles of democratic
voting rights;
- the maintenance of the rule of
law;
- a real increase in political
participation (which justifies the political effort involved in and the
financial costs of external voting);
- the enhancement of the
legitimacy of the democratic system; and
- an effective contribution to
democratic consolidation.
At this
stage other questions also arise: should external voting be extended to both
representative organs and referendums or should it be restricted to one single
type of electoral event, such as a direct election to the presidency? In the
case of external voting for legislatures, is it convenient to establish a fixed
threshold of representation for citizens living abroad or should such a
threshold be arranged according to the actual electoral participation by
external voters (perhaps by specifying minimum and maximum numbers of ‘external
seats’)?
Overview of the arguments for and against the introduction of external voting
Three major
conclusions may be drawn when considering reforms relating to external voting.
1. The
introduction of external voting is likely to give rise to political controversy.
There are solid theoretical arguments both in favour of and against external
voting. On the one hand, the recognition of the principle of universal suffrage
is regarded as a civil right, which can be realized by the widening of
political participation. On the other hand, external voting implies the
electoral participation of individuals who may not be directly affected by
whatever effects the result brings about.
The historical trend clearly points towards the
understanding of the right to vote as an individual right of every citizen,
regardless of his or her place of residence. But a move to adopt or extend
external voting by a particular country needs to ensure that all stakeholders
are involved in the decision-making process, and that consequent trade-offs or
drawbacks—for example, restrictions on electoral freedom such as inequalities
in the political rights enjoyed by different people—are considered and are thus less likely to give rise
to subsequent questioning of the constitutionality or legitimacy of the
electoral process.
It is also
good practice for the decision-making process to take into account not merely the
substance of reform proposals, but also the perception of the proposals by the
electorate and by the media. As with other areas of reform of electoral
process, law and regulation, the success of change may depend not only on the
substance of what is agreed but on the extent and effectiveness of civic and
voter education activities to explain changes to the electorate both inside and
outside the country.
As with any
electoral reform proposal, external voting will be particularly controversial
if the votes cast externally affect the result decisively and determine the
winner. Such election results will be highly controversial among the relevant
political actors.
The debate
on external voting should not be allowed to overshadow consideration of the
political inclusion of foreign citizens in their country of residence. A
move has been made towards this principle through the introduction in
many European Union member states of voting rights for citizens of other member
states. A more widespread introduction of the right to vote in the country of
residence would enable individuals with foreign nationality to take part in
decisions that affect their personal interest and thus create a context of
responsibility—although such a move could also generate political controversy,
especially if foreign citizens were thought likely to give support
disproportionately to one political group and if their votes were decisive in
determining the result.
There is
no ideal institutional design for external voting. Once a decision is made in favour of
introducing external voting, the resulting legal provisions must be designed to
suit the particular context of the country. Above all, attention must be paid
to minimizing the possible trade-offs and unintended negative side effects.
