By Monique Chemiller-Gendreau *
Le Monde DiplomatiqueJanuary 2000
The debate about the voting rights for non-EU nationals within the European Union is back on the agenda in France (1). There is still, however, a lack of imagination and a philosophical stalemate as regards the real meaning and practice of democracy. The question is how can we make freedom and equality a reality in terms of people's political representation. In other words, how can we set up proper mechanisms for people to participate in decision-making processes and ensure freedom and equality within those processes?
The idea of a democracy constructed within the nation state makes political rights dependent on a person's nationality (this is particularly true in France). Before you can vote, either you must be a national of the country concerned, or you have to acquire nationality on the particular terms and conditions laid down by that country. That then gives you political rights, including the right to vote. So the rights that form the basis of your citizenship depend on having nationality.
Inclusion/exclusion
For a long time politicians have chosen to ignore the fact that Europe's nation states contain a significant percentage of foreigners who are long-term residents, and who either may not wish to take up nationality, or may have requested nationality but been rejected. Little by little, however, a new and more active concept of citizenship has been making headway, that would give such people the right to vote for those making decisions that directly affect their lives. This idea was mooted in the 1980s, but up until now its impact has been relatively limited. Only a few countries - Holland, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden - have opted to bridge the democratic gap between nationals and foreigners by giving non-nationals the right to vote in local elections.
More recently, with the Maastricht treaty of 7 February 1992, the member countries of the European Union committed themselves to allowing non-national members of other EU countries to vote in local elections (2). Some of them had to alter their constitutions to make this possible. In France the chosen form of words carefully minimised the extent of this reform in order to prevent it being extended to other categories of foreigners (3). But in general the EU and its member countries have chosen to ignore the resolution voted by the European Parliament on 14 February 1989, which asked them to grant the right to vote in local elections to all foreigners living and working within their borders.
In Belgium and Germany the debate resurfaces regularly. In France and Italy the present governing parties made various promises before their accession to power, but thus far have not acted on those promises. In France, two years after its election, the left has restated its commitment, but only in highly restrictive terms. The right to vote will be limited to local elections, and will be available only to foreigners who hold 10-year residence permits. And the way in which the debate is being conducted, without any fixed policy deadlines, has given the rightwing parties a chance to restate the traditional view - a view that part of the left seems more or less to share.
At their present stage of organisation, human societies are divided into nation states (more rarely into multi-nation states) based on the principle of inclusion/exclusion. Is this a form of organisation dictated by nature, as the only proper framework within which democracy can be exercised? The problem is that it gives a major role to the state, which defines (sometimes arbitrarily) who can and cannot be recognised as its nationals. This means that democracy is effectively nationality-based. Non-nationals have no part to play, regardless of their length of residence, the closeness of their ties to the country, or the part they play in its productive activity.
But since a town is a political entity, a polis in the original sense of the word, the idea of democracy built on proximity has gradually been growing. All residents, whatever their nationality, should have the chance to vote in municipal elections. In this way the local community is extended to embrace all those who live in it. This is the general direction of the reforms currently being debated. The reforms envisaged are limited, however, and do not amount to a challenge to the traditional model of political legitimacy.
World citizenship
The national community, on the other hand, remains a symbolic space to which access is very strictly controlled by the state. You look for the rationale behind this, but what you find are considerations of power. Why is it that some foreigners, but not all, are excluded from decision-making even though they live their lives in common with nationals and other foreigners within a state? Why is it that they can take part in local elections (if, in the case of France, they have a 10-year residence permit) but not in other elections? The answer seems to be that the developed countries still have an economically exploitative relationship with the peoples of poor and former colonial countries. For instance, we are happy to invite them in (preferably the younger ones) to help balance our pensions budgets, but we do not want them involved in the business of politics. The problem is that this kind of "democracy" runs counter to what democracy should be - a freedom prized and shared by all. By opening local elections to EU nationals, and only to them, Europe is displaying an aristocratic conception of political relations, applying only to an elite. This inevitably leads to a questioning of the whole system.
If we are serious about democracy, we have to address the problem from the other end. In what conditions is the vote a sign of democracy? Which people at each given geographical level are invited to elect their representatives? Obviously decisions have to be made, in terms of territorial coverage, because it would not be sensible to have the inhabitants of Saint-Dié in the Vosges voting on issues involving Dinan in the Cí´tes d'Armor. But there is nothing to justify the inhabitants of Saint-Dié being excluded from voting on matters involving Saint-Dié. It is reasonable to argue that all residents, without exception, should have the right to vote in local elections. After all, everyone is affected by local conditions of life and work, traffic, social services etc. and these are generally decided at the local level. The Maastricht reform, having resolved the problem of nationality for some sectors of people, now makes it all the more urgent to resolve it for everyone.
The argument for giving non-nationals the right to vote in local elections is gaining ground; but we should also look at the case for voting in other sorts of elections. Foreigners living in France suffer the same pollution as the French, are subject to French law on issues of genetic engineering, civil liberties and business practice, and they pay taxes to the French state as the law requires. So why should they be excluded from the process of decision-making at the national level in matters that affect them just as much as anyone else in the country? Just because people fear the answer to the question, is that a reason for not asking it?
The nation is surely not so fragile that it would collapse because of an extension of the right to vote. The history of peoples would suggest otherwise. Since people nowadays increasingly find themselves with plural identities, political society can not organise itself around rigid and exclusive principles of identity. Would it really be so scandalous if a foreigner were to vote in elections in his country of origin, as an expression of personal loyalty to that country, and also vote in elections here, because of his interest in politics in the country where he has chosen to live? This is a perfectly legitimate duality, but it meets strong resistance. It also risks being overtaken by events even before people have become aware of the problem.
The truth is that a large part of the decisions that involve our lives are beyond the control of city, regional and state governments, because they are dictated by transnational economic and institutional factors. And a world citizenship is now taking shape as people's response to that. This is the process that we saw in action in Seattle. In a sense such a development is inevitable, given the new realities of social labour and social need.
In the old days it may have been reasonable to put a formal boundary round a given set of people contributing to a given quantity of production and create local and national forms of representation designed to moderate relations between them. Today, however, things are different. There is an irreversible trend towards internationalised social labour. The people who contribute to creating a product or service in the market-place may come from a wide variety of "nations" - with complex and opaque solidarities and rivalries. The fact of "belonging to a nation" is becoming more relative as the affirmation of a basic humanity is taking place that goes beyond all exclusions. So, while there is no point in rushing through pointless reforms, things are becoming more urgent. A reform enabling all non-nationals to vote in local elections would be a useful step in opening up democracy. And we should be willing to think about further developments in the future.
* Lecturer in law at the Denis-Diderot University of Paris-VII
(1) See, among other articles, "Monsieur Cheví¨nement défend le vote des étrangers", Le Monde, 14 December 1999.
(2) Article 8b of Title II states: "Every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State."
(3) Constitutional revision of 25 June 1992; new article no. 88.3.
Translated by Ed Emery
