Suffrage – as described by the Collins Dictionary is “the right to vote, especially in public elections”; ‘Universal Suffrage’ is described in Wikipedia as meaning that “that every citizen above the age of 18 is allowed to vote”; a definition this may seem well and good, yet it is one which belies a lack of the very ‘universality’ to which it aspires… even leaving to one side the factor of age, the more contentious issue lies with the application of the rule only to citizens…
I currently reside in a country different from that of my birth, and my nationality remains tied to that same country – the net result of which is that I am not considered a citizen of the country in which I live. Hence, I am not eligible for ‘universal suffrage’. According to the Collins dictionary the definition of a ‘citizen’ can be any of the following:
- a native registered or naturalized member of a state, nation, or other political community
- an inhabitant of a city or town
-
a native or inhabitant of any place
-
a civilian, as opposed to a soldier, public official, etc
…interestingly, there is a further definition which is someone who is “legally accepted as belonging to that country. ” (I’ll come back to the word belonging later.)
Applying these definitions to my own situation, the only criteria which I do not fulfil is that of being a naturalized member of the state/ nation in which I live: the criteria which (by happenstance) is the single criteria outside of the direct control of the individual. Naturalization is defined by Collins as a process by which the government of a country can “…allow a person who was not born in that country to become a citizen of it.” This ‘permission’ then means that the individual does not hold the decision, and thus even though the person can start the process by choice it will not be the choice of the individual which decides the outcome.
I may be being naive, but surely the entire philosophy behind universal suffrage is that there are no criteria that need to be fulfilled in order to be eligible to vote? An individual does not have to prove themselves worthy, they do not have to be rich, poor, tall or short – their very existence guarantees them the right to exercise their voice in the democratic processes of the land. It would nevertheless appear to be the case, that this is only true for those that happen to born within a certain geographical perimeter. As a resident and as someone who is employed, I pay taxes in my country of residence and thus in this way at least (if perhaps not in others) I contribute to the society of my country of residence. More, I would argue, than the manner in which I contribute to the society in my country of birth. Why then am I refused suffrage?
The attribution of citizenship clearly has deep ties to the consideration of nation, which returns us to the definition of a citizen – that of a person who belongs to a country. In what sense is the word belonging used? Is this feeling or fact? Is this identity or ownership? Given the manner in which suffrage is accorded the definition of belonging cannot reside in emotion only – otherwise there would be no need to become a naturalized citizen. Which suggests then that the definition can only be ownership. Which leads me to the conclusion that I as a person belong to (am owned by) my country of birth. All of which is nicely semantic you may say, but in practice it is not actually true – is it?
Well I would argue that it is in reality true.
There are very definite circumstances under which the nation of my birth may compel me to accede to its wishes… conscription or National Service is a clear example of the state imposing an action on an individual (the United Kingdom does not currently have National Service any more – but other nations do). Jury service is another example or an individual being suborned to the will of the state. However it is not necessary to seek examples which are so extreme; the fact that an individual has to adhere to the laws of the land (even prior to being granted suffrage) is evidence that the state requires certain behaviours of the citizenry. Some may wish to argue that or course any person can choose to leave a nation if they don’t wish to adhere to the rules, but this is conveniently forgetting that this cannot be done by an individual prior to achieving the age of majority, and that even then an individual is not allowed to leave the country without a passport – something which is subject to approval by the state. In addition to which, an individual cannot actually go anywhere else unless so authorised by the government of the territory. It may also be worthwhile pointing out that there are no ungoverned territories left in the world either!
The net result of all of this, is that universal suffrage does not exist. What some may consider to be an inalienable right is in fact nothing of the sort, it is in reality an exchanged gift – granted automatically to those without choice in the matter, and offered to (some of) those who choose to comply with the desires of the state.
If we are to truly have universal suffrage, then this must be an inalienable right. There can be no age of majority, there can be no required declaration of citizenship.
We may have suffrage, but it is not universal.
States see it as part of the rules they set via laws set by their parliaments. They see it as part of the democratic process and as a way of keeping control and order within their society’s.
When citizens accept this rules based order there is no issue as things are deemed to be fair.
But as you point out, in the truest sense there is no ‘universal suffrage’.
It would be interesting if you put these issues to the local member of the French National Assembly as you are paying taxes without representation.
An interesting philosophical thought, but unfortunately the Collins definitions have very little standing in most countries.
Interestingly enough, you may have overlooked that your suffrage of your birth country may also expire, such as for the UK. Those of us who have been away for 10+years, are seemingly deemed to no lo ger belong, and no longer have suffrage in the UK. So, your predicament may yet be compounded by having no suffrage, or representation, at all – anywhere.
Of course, there are other counties that extend suffrage to those living in the specified country, citizenship aside. Where in the world would do that? NZ of course!
It may be that your only voting tool may soon be your feet?
Voting with one’s feet is not necessarily an option either methinks – countries typically resist unfettered migration… even the benevolent New Zealand (although that is a topic for another blog!).
“Voting with one’s feet is not necessarily an option either”
… You might be right! Even the British High Commission didn’t want a UK passport when I offered them mine back! Honestly, can’t even give it away!
I don’t know if you are being serious or not, but you cannot denounce your citizenship unless you already have a second! …and the only legal way to become stateless is through war or refugee ism etc. So no, the UK High Commissioner wouldn’t take it back – what a quaint idea!
The timespan before you lose the right to vote is 15yrs. It is a shameful position, which many of us(in the Labour Party) are actively campaigning to change.
Surely another issue is that some UK residents who have immigrated into the country can vote in elections, including the recent referendum, whist UK born nationals may be excluded after 15 years living abroad. Democracy?
So let’s flip it the other way. I left the UK and have not paid into any of the systems, so is it fair that I should still have some level of say (control) over the people that do live there?
No, but many expats are still UK taxpayers even if they live just over 6 months of the year in say, Spain. Further, even if they are Spanish taxpayers then often their income is from fully contribution paid pensions earned while they were still working in the UK or for British firms. These people cannot usually vote in their choice of residence whereas other countries even open overseas polling stations when there are elections in the home country.
Maybe the suffrage rules should be more flexible?