The
extension of the right to vote to citizens outside their home country varies
enormously from country to country. Some countries allow no one to vote who is
not physically present in their home country. Others allow any of their
citizens to vote from anywhere in the world, regardless of whether their
citizens have ever resided in the country of their citizenship. In between
these two extremes, there are many variations that allow certain classes of
citizens to vote.
As with so
many other aspects of the electoral process, there is no single ‘correct’ way
of deciding who should be entitled to vote externally. A model that will suit
one country may be totally inappropriate in another. For example, it may be
feasible to allow any citizen of a country to vote externally, regardless of
their intention to return, where the population of the home country is large
and the voting influence of expatriates would not be expected to outweigh that
of the home population. On the other hand, a country with a small population
and a relatively large number of expatriates might be wary of handing electoral
influence to a body of persons who may no longer have a direct interest in
their home country.
In
attempting to specify ‘best practice’ principles to guide those who are
considering adopting or amending external voting eligibility criteria, it may
be worthwhile to consider the purpose of the franchise. The franchise is the
right to vote for elected representatives. Its purpose is to allow persons to
elect representatives to sit in parliament and/or the executive and to
determine and administer laws on their behalf. It would therefore appear reasonable
to limit the right to vote to those who have a direct interest in the
determination and administration of those laws. However, if it is accepted that
the franchise should only be granted to those with a direct interest in
the process, it follows that extending the right to vote to absent citizens who
have no intention to return to the home country—or to persons who hold dual
citizenship and are permanent residents in another country where they are also
citizens—may be seen as too generous. Indeed, it could be argued that a
country’s sovereignty could be at risk if its representatives are elected in
part by voters who reside abroad. It would also follow that the right to vote
should be extended to absent citizens who intend to return in the foreseeable
future, as they too would have a direct interest in the government of their
home country. This argument would particularly apply to those who are
temporarily absent in the service of their country, such as diplomats and
members of the armed forces.
However,
while it is easier to justify, using the principle of ‘intent to return’ as a
determining factor to grant voting rights to citizens abroad may be more
difficult to administer than allowing all citizens to vote while abroad. It
requires, at a minimum, some form of notification from citizens who are abroad
(or are going abroad) that their absence is temporary and that they intend to
return to their home country. The question then arises whether notice of intent
to return ought to be accepted at face value, or whether an objective test
should be applied. It may be difficult to devise an objective test that is not
discriminatory and contrary to the principles of universal suffrage. For
example, requiring evidence of ownership of a house or property would clearly
discriminate against those who do not own property and could be seen as a
return to a property-based voting right. Whether this is necessary will depend
on the circumstances of each country, and particularly on whether large numbers
of electors are likely to register to vote while they are abroad.
Finally,
what voting rights should permanent residents who are not citizens have? It is
arguable that, in today’s global economy with an increasingly mobile
population, the concept of citizenship may be losing its value as a determinant
for the franchise. In future, countries may have to look at other criteria to
determine whether a person residing abroad is eligible to vote in their
elections. For the present, most countries continue to use citizenship as the
main determinant of the franchise, and many grant the franchise to their
citizens abroad regardless of intention to return. No doubt the issue of the
extension of the eligibility to vote externally will continue to evolve in
different ways in different places.
