In the past
few years, issues related to the political rights of international migrants in
general, and those of migrant workers in particular, have begun to acquire
relevance on the academic agenda as well as the international political agenda.
This development has already been translated into the adoption of various
international legal instruments that specifically provide for this type of
right, as indicated by the International Convention on the Protection of the
Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.
Although
the debate and regulations on external voting are not necessarily related
specifically to the questions of migrant workers’ political rights, there is no
doubt that the concurrence of the globalization and democratization processes
at the same time as international migration is growing is creating a clear
demand for the full recognition of their political rights in many developing
countries. The most general and visible expression of this demand is the
guarantee of their right to vote. Through the exercise of this right, migrant
workers seek not only to maintain or reinforce their sense of belonging to
their original national political community but also to redefine the terms of
their relations with the country they feel to be their own.
The design
and instrumentation of mechanisms for external voting in countries which have
large numbers of migrant workers abroad can face three fundamental challenges.
First, the
category of migrant worker is difficult to translate into a mechanism for
external voting. Above all, how reasonable or feasible is it to isolate or
privilege the migrant worker category over other categories of migrants? If it
is reasonable or feasible, how can migrant workers be distinguished or
identified in a legal and procedural way within the whole community of migrants
abroad? In contrast to mechanisms that may be specifically designed for a
certain type of voter or resident abroad (e.g. only those carrying out official
duties, students or refugees), there is unlikely to be strong support for
distinguishing migrant workers from other kinds of potential voters.
The second
great challenge is that international migration for work is often a large-scale
phenomenon that exhibits diverse geographical distribution patterns, that is,
it regularly involves thousands of persons (potential voters) distributed
according to heterogeneous patterns (sometimes concentrated, sometimes
dispersed) not only across one or several countries of destination but also
within every one of them. This means that we must make a careful assessment of
the most suitable options for registering them and conducting the voting, as
well as running electoral information campaigns. This assessment must take into
account not only the advantages and disadvantages offered by the different
models but also, and fundamentally, the administrative and financial capacities
of the country or the electoral authority involved.
The third
challenge lies in making the electoral regulations and procedures more
flexible, and innovating or adjusting them, in order to genuinely and
positively include migrant workers. On this subject, it is important to keep in
mind that the regulation and control of campaign activities and the
administration of electoral justice are usually very sensitive topics in
developing democracies, while the opportunity to duplicate abroad certain
characteristic guarantees or attributes of the domestic system will be limited.
Clearly, without full confidence in the accountability and impartiality of the
domestic electoral system it will be very difficult to accept adjustments or
innovations abroad since as a general rule the mechanisms of control and
security are likely to be weaker for the external vote.
In
favourable conditions, the creation of an external voting mechanism that seeks
to include migrant workers can present a good opportunity to introduce
interesting innovations to several components of the electoral system, and even
to try out different methods of voter registration, as well as different
procedures for the conduct of the actual voting. Under adverse conditions,
however, the design of the mechanism could be problematic for all those
involved, and especially for the authorities responsible for organizing,
conducting and overseeing elections. In any case, even if the mechanism for
external voting is sufficiently flexible and well-intentioned in trying to
include migrant workers overseas, the migrants’ juridical, socio-economic,
political and cultural conditions are likely to work against the initial
intentions and expectations.
One
conclusion that can be drawn at this point is that any mechanism for external
voting entails a range of alternatives and variants which can be adapted to
specific conditions and requirements. A universe of potential voters abroad
made up mainly of migrant workers presents a series of challenges and
complexities that can be addressed by a limited set of options. It is clear
that from a conceptual and legal point of view it is neither possible nor
desirable to design an external voting mechanism that is aimed exclusively at
migrant workers, but it is also true that the legal and procedural options
chosen regarding a set of basic aspects of the characteristics and reach of an
external voting mechanism (Who is eligible to vote? What are the requirements
and procedures for registration and voting?) will largely determine its ability
to effectively include migrant workers.
