By Victoria Finn (Universidad Diego Portales, Leiden University), GLOBALCIT collaborator
Countries on every continent grant some kind of migrant voting rights, thereby offering individuals who had been previously excluded a formal voice in democratic processes. While citizenship was a traditional road to accessing voting rights, and many emigrants carry this right abroad, now in dozens of destination countries noncitizen residents are also migrant voters. We overall know how, when, and to what extent states grant such rights (e.g., Bauböck 2005; Arrighi and Bauböck 2017; Palop-García and Pedroza 2018; see the GLOBALCIT database on Conditions for Electoral Rights 2019). Since exercising political rights across borders plays a role in democracy and possibly in election outcomes in more than one country, we now want to know which migrants vote, and where? For both local and national-level elections, foreigners in Chile automatically gain suffrage rights after a five-year residence and most also have non-resident citizen voting rights in their origin countries. A survey sample of 680 migrant voters in Chile provides an empirical glimpse into patterns of migrant voting (Finn 2020).
The four types of migrant voting
Simply put, immigrants who have not naturalised vote ‘here’ in a destination country and emigrants who have retained their citizenship of origin vote ‘there’ in the origin country. But the two categories prove an insufficient binary to classify migrant voters because many face not two but four distinct options. To analyse where migrants vote, Finn (2020) proposes four categories: 1) immigrant voting, meaning electoral participation only in the destination country (e.g., as a noncitizen resident or dual citizen); 2) emigrant voting, indicating non-resident citizens participating from abroad only in origin-country elections; 3) dual transnational voting, corresponding to participating in both countries; and 4) abstention, choosing not to vote in either country despite having suffrage rights.
No category is normatively superior; rather than gauging political ‘integration,’ the classification shows the four choices of where migrants can vote – if their origin and destination countries provide them with all four options. Fewer countries offer universal national-level voting (Chile, Ecuador, Malawi, New Zealand, and Uruguay) but many more grant it to select foreign residents (e.g., Portugal, the UK, and many other Commonwealth countries). Scholars can use the four types to analyse local-level migrant voting or other kinds of engagement. They should not, however, mix the two levels since reasons for voting may differ in local and national elections.
Integration says little about migrant voting
The catch-all notions of integration and incorporation reveal only part of the story about who abstains and who votes. We could expect more integrated foreigners to vote in the destination country and the non-integrated to abstain; but foreigners who choose to abstain can also be integrated. Integration also predicts little about emigrant voting for origin-country elections, unless we define integration as assimilation, replacing origin-country connections with new ties in the destination country. Completely assimilated emigrants would naturalise in the destination country, then vote as citizen residents. A unilateral ‘integration’ approach misses the mark when the task is to explain transnational behaviour of dual citizens or of migrants with a singular citizenship with several voting options.
The assumption that immigrants renounce or replace their transnational ties falls short when using empirical or historical evidence to explain emigrants’ long-term voting behaviour. It fails to consider a) emigrants’ (often ingrained) sense of civic duty toward the origin country, b) migrants’ relations expanding beyond geographical borders and a single ‘homeland,’ and c) migrants’ multiple options, even without naturalising, for political participation. Migrants can participate in two countries for many reasons.
Reasons for migrant voting
Factors such as education and interest in politics typically play a role in deciding to cast a ballot. But migrant voters are different from other voters because they live in and between two countries. International migrants have to be very interested in politics to spend double the time to stay informed about politics in, and then voting for, two countries. Distance between the origin and destination country can affect migrants’ involvement, as can the original reason for emigrating. Migrants re-evaluate their intention to stay and accordingly adjust behaviour – intentions to stay longer create higher stakes in domestic electoral outcomes (increasing immigrant voting); a plan to return would instead instigate an uptick in interest in origin-country politics (increasing emigrant voting). As Constant (2020) outlines, ‘return, repeat, circular, and onward migration’ are popular for many economic and familial reasons, so future plans don’t necessarily relate to how long a migrant has lived in another country.
Yet time is a key factor because as people live abroad they adapt and change political behaviour in two countries. Immigrants must keep updated documents and meet residence requirements before gaining suffrage rights. It gives them time to gain linguistic communication skills, networks, and knowledge of the destination country’s electoral laws, government branches, and political parties. More involvement enhances immigrant or dual transnational voting. Emigrants spend time to register online or in person and then to cast a vote in origin-country elections. Lethargy or distance to consulates decrease emigrant voting, and by default, dual transnational voting. Over time, emigrants may strengthen or weaken ties to the origin country or the people there (resulting in increased or decreased emigrant voting), but many continue to participate over the long term because of a sense of civic duty, formed during socialisation. Political socialisation and resocialisation are the crucial processes linking the mentioned voting factors and the outcome of participation decisions.
Multiterritorial ties and identities
During resocialisation, migrants change voting behaviour over time in the origin and destination countries as their multi-territorial ties fluctuate. Stretching beyond geographical borders and a single ‘homeland,’ migrants develop multiple political identities while living in and between two countries. Political learning continues throughout their adult lives, so migrants can make various moves among the four categories of abstention and immigrant, emigrant, and dual transnational voting (Finn 2020).
In contemporary democracies with an expanding demos, the migrant voting typology is a tool for classifying political participation. It allows to transcend the binary of ‘here’ and ‘there.’ It squashes the antiquated, often implicit, belief that migrants as political actors cling to a single identity or homeland, or that integration leads to domestic participation at the expense of transnational involvement. The four types of migrant voting offer an alternative to scholars wanting to put equal emphasis on the origin and destination country. It is a plausible way forward to focus less on integration and naturalisation and instead rely on a systematic categorisation of the four options many citizen and noncitizen migrant voters face.
To read the full article, see:Finn, Victoria. (2020). Migrant Voting: Here, There, in Both, or Nowhere. Citizenship Studies.