The term 'diaspora' refers to a community formed as a result of the dispersion of a people from their homeland. Such people would have been induced or forced to leave their country, a process that results in the dispersal of millions of people.⁽²⁾ This process, together with the effects of globalisation, leads to millions of people becoming citizens of more than one country. Unstable socio-political environments and weak economies, as well as an increase in cooperation amongst nations, have contributed to the exponential increase of the diaspora community. In the contemporary world, the diaspora community still maintains a deep interest in the socio-economic and political affairs of their native country. In Africa, this connection has mainly been demonstrated through incessant calls by the diaspora to vote in elections that happen in their home countries.⁽³⁾

This two-part article discusses the right of the diaspora community to partake in elections and referendums that are happening in their home countries. With some reference to relevant legislation, charters and treaties, Part 1 argues that citizens in the diaspora have a right to partake in elections even if they live outside the country. It also asserts that the right to vote is an absolute right that should be exercised without conditionality. Part 2 goes on to look at challenges that might disable the exercise of that right, and possible solutions to such challenges. It also examines specific case studies of countries in Africa that have enabled diaspora voting and those that have chosen to deny that right to their citizens.

Diaspora vote: Is it a right or privilege?

A dominant narrative in deciding who can vote in elections is related to the concept of citizenship and how each country legally defines that citizenship. But, despite fulfilling the citizenship criteria, the extension of the franchise to the diaspora is not legally provided for in some African countries. In that regard, the extension of voting rights to the diaspora has always been, and remains, an important choice for home countries to consider.⁽⁴⁾ To this end, a direct and important question needs to be answered: does the diaspora reserve a universal right to partake, from wherever they are, in elections taking place in their home countries? Even though answering such a question necessitates a consideration of other factors (such as resources that are required for implementation of such a  policy, the numbers of citizens within a particular region, the feasibility of such an exercise, the legal framework, and the bilateral relations between the host and the home country), the right per se remains an independent issue.

Braun and Gratschew noted in the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance's (IDEA) 2007 report, that external voting is a new phenomenon, currently in the agenda of many countries.⁽⁵⁾ This has been a response to the advancing worldwide democratisation agenda, as well as massive economic, social and cultural globalisation. Diaspora voting is currently practised in 115 countries around the world.⁽⁶⁾ In the contemporary world, external voting seems to be a post-World War Two phenomenon (started as an acknowledgement of citizen's active participation in the wars).⁽⁷⁾ Of late, it has intensified because of pressure not only from the concerned citizens, but political parties as well.

Having established the background to external voting, and before proceeding to look at how this phenomenon plays itself out in Africa, one needs to interrogate the question of whether the right to vote in general is dependent on the legal or constitutional provisions of a country, or whether it should be viewed as a universal right that exists prior to, or even without, a legal framework that recognises it. Further to this should be the determination of whether or not the meaning of the right to vote remains the same for those in the diaspora.

During the years of colonialism and apartheid in Africa, voting generally had a racial underpinning. A person voted (or did not vote) because of the colour of their skin. As colonialism mutated, class became the new qualification. Ownership of means of production or educational qualification became the new foundation for the right to vote. Practised concomitantly with these forms of exclusion was the gender dimension to voting politics, as pervasive patriarchy excluded women from voting. Who was not surprised when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia announced in September 2011 that women will only be given the right to vote and stand for election from 2015?⁽⁸⁾

If voting can be defined as the exercise of choice by citizens in a given political setup, about how their political economy should be run or the outer expression of representative governance, then there is no doubt that the above scenarios constituted the exclusion of the majority from democratic participation. The right to vote is essentially a civil and a political right. It is the right to express a political thought arising from and accruing to a person as a reflection of civil duty. The negation of this right suggests to the persons concerned that they do not form part of society. If these individuals want to be part of the country, and if they are of the opinion that that country is theirs, this negation will likely trigger them into political action.

The right to vote, as universal suffrage, has been constitutionalised in many new societies, born from political agitation. The fact that, at some point in history, a particular racial group or class was not permitted to vote, does not nullify the fact that such a community had a right to vote then: rather, the right was not being fulfilled. Rights do not cease to be rights simply because they have not yet been confirmed by legal processes. Following the same line of argument, if every citizen of a country has a right to vote, and therefore self-determination, should that right be revoked simply because that citizen now resides in another country? Surely a universal right should be extended to every citizen without discrimination. If citizens in the diaspora still continue to engage in the socio-economic well-being of their country, they should enjoy all rights owed to the country's citizens.

While the diaspora does not directly pay tax to the state, remittances sent to relatives at home (which get taxed through value-added tax when these relatives purchase commodities) still contribute massively to the economies of such countries. Remittances are indeed a major source of foreign exchange. In 2011 in Ghana, for example, Ghanaians in the diaspora remitted more than US$ 14.5 million to their relatives at home.⁽⁹⁾ In Kenya, the diaspora contributes more that 5% of the gross domestic product (GDP),⁽¹⁰⁾ while in 2007, Sierra Leoneans abroad remitted over US$ 148 million.⁽¹¹⁾
Why the right to vote for the African diaspora?

The African diaspora should be given the opportunity to vote because there are strategic and instrumental reasons to do so. Some countries use voting rights as a way to gain trust and loyalty especially in post conflict situations.⁽¹²⁾ When citizens are allowed to vote, they feel they belong; it is, after all, an exercise of citizenship and civil duty. It is also a way to make sure that such citizens, especially students and professionals, who are assets to the wellbeing of the country, are not lost to other countries.

This reasoning is also related to the inclusion of the dispora in broader political processes, such as nation-building. As Adam Sundberg describes, "the importance of political factors in the adoption and design of external voting provisions was accentuated during the democratic transitions of the1990s.The inclusion of citizens abroad was often seen as a key element in the process of nation-building, for example, in Namibia in 1989 and South Africa in 1994."⁽¹³⁾The smooth transitions of Namibia and South Africa acted as examples for some countries on the importance of including the diaspora.⁽¹⁴⁾ This was also witnessed in the 2011 Sudanese secession referendum, where the diaspora was permitted to vote from abroad in order to find a sustainable solution to the Darfur conflict.⁽¹⁵⁾

Diaspora voting is important because it enhances the legitimacy of the regime and its democratic image. The fact that all citizens are afforded the right to vote, regardless of where they reside, brings such citizens into the national agenda. Because the diaspora brings in a substantial foreign exchange through remittances, affording these citizens the right to vote symbolically integrates a key economic group into the public affairs of a nation.

In reaction to an announcement that Kenyans in the diaspora would not be permitted to vote in the 2013 elections, despite the fact that Kenya's new constitution provides for it (see also Part 2 of this article), Peter Kenneth, Assistant Minister for Planning and Development and a presidential candidate in the 2013 March polls, said:

This decision completely disenfranchises our brothers and sisters in the Diaspora and denies them their democratic right to play their part in determining the future for their country. Our brothers and sisters in the Diaspora are as much stakeholders in this country as anybody else and therefore deserve the right to choose the leadership of this country. Their remittances to their families and friends here are a big source of foreign exchange as well as a critical source of income for many households. Their representation of the Kenyan identity and Brand Kenya abroad are a great source of pride for us all. They must not be relegated to the spectator's gallery while it is evident that they play such a critical role in our economy.⁽¹⁶⁾

Opponents who argue against diaspora voting, based on accessibility, clearly present a flawed and fallacious argument. The current phenomenon of multi-lateral relations amongst countries (regional and global cooperation expressed in conventions and declarations such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), combined with modern technological advancements, should make one's domicile a non-issue in the determination of whether they should exercise the right to vote or not. In any event, it is precisely the responsibility of the state to ensure that universal rights (including the right to vote) are protected and realised.

How can this right be exercised by the diaspora?

There are a number of ways in which people in the diaspora can exercise their right to vote if the authorities really want to ensure the enablement of that right. Currently, four methods are being used by different countries throughout the world:

1. Personal voting: This is when a voter must go to a designated place and cast his or her vote there as a person. In most countries, this is usually at the country's embassy or consulate, or any other polling station that would have been set up by the electoral authorities. Examples of countries in Africa that practice this method include Botswana, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Ghana, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal and South Africa.⁽¹⁷⁾
2. Postal voting: In using this method, the voter fills out the ballot paper at a place he or she chooses, or at a designated place in the presence of witnesses to confirm the identity of the voter and that the voter has exercised the right without interference or coercion. Thereafter, the votes are transmitted by ordinary or diplomatic mail to the home country. Examples of countries that use this method include Lesotho and Zimbabwe.⁽¹⁸⁾
3. The proxy vote: Here, a voter living outside of the country may be enabled to vote by choosing a proxy living in the home country to cast a vote on his or her behalf on the day of the election. Examples of countries include Mauritius and Togo.⁽¹⁹⁾
4. Electronic means or e-voting: Here, the voter may use the internet, personal digital assistants (PDAs), telephones or mobile phones to cast his or her vote. Some countries permit the use of the fax to cast votes. Despite its current susceptibility to manipulation, e-voting is likely to become more common in future as it is cheaper to conduct and does not require voters to travel long distances to a designated polling station. Even though no African country has practiced it yet, it has been done successfully in countries such as Estonia and the Netherlands.⁽²⁰⁾

Who should exercise the diaspora vote?

As noted above, the increased globalisation of political, social, professional, and cultural life, as well as the spread of democracy, has contributed towards a massive increase in migration and the ballooning of the diaspora. According to estimates from a study by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in 2005, around 190 million people lived in a country different from the one in which they were born.⁽²¹⁾ This represented over 3% of the world's population. This number should be considered a very conservative figure considering the level of globalisation at the present moment.

The International IDEA Handbook identifies four categories of people who stay abroad who are entitled to vote. These groups are: (a) migrant workers; (b) refugees; (c) individuals in certain professional groups, such as military personnel, public service officials or diplomatic staff (and their families); and (d) all the other country's citizens living or staying abroad, temporarily or permanently within the restrictions of legislation.⁽²²⁾

By 2007, there were 28 countries in Africa where external voting was exercised in one form or the other.⁽²³⁾ As can be seen in Tables 1 and 2 below, some countries have extended the right to vote only to people that are outside of the country in the service of the state, such as diplomats and armed forces. Other countries have restricted entitlement according to the length of the period one has resided outside of its borders.

Table 1: Countries that have restricted the right to vote according to the activity one is doing outside the country ⁽²⁴⁾

Table 2: Restricted entitlement according to length of time outside the country ⁽²⁵⁾

Clearly, this kind of selection - based on political and military office - will strip some deserving individuals of the ability to exercise their right to vote. Such disenfranchisement is often hidden behind the veneer of resource shortages, as well as lack of information on the whereabouts of citizens that are in the diaspora. Of course if no systems have been put in place to keep a database of citizens that are in the diaspora, such information on their location will never exist.

Concluding remarks

While the legal frameworks of many countries in Africa (and throughout the world) permit the right to vote for all citizens, in reality, diaspora citizens are disenfranchised. This is because of a lack of willingness on the part of the authorities that organise elections and procedures that will ensure the fulfilment of that right. As shown above, even though many African countries do provide the right to vote from outside the country, in one form or another, that right is reserved mainly for people who are in the service of the state.

Can the state and its relevant institutions legitimately justify this act of exclusion? For those few countries that have managed to extend the right to vote to all interested and properly registered citizens in the diaspora, how have they achieved this? These questions and others will form the basis of Part 2 of this article. Part 2 will also analyse the extent to which countries that are considered models of democracy in Africa have fared in their endeavour to realise the right to vote for the diaspora. Furthermore, the paper will discuss two aspiring democracies and consider whether they properly utilised the opportunity presented in the writing of their new constitutions to enshrine the universal right to vote.

Click here to read Part 2 of this discussion paper

Written by Zenzo Moyo ⁽¹⁾

NOTES:

(1) Contact Zenzo Moyo through Consultancy Africa Intelligence's Rights in Focus Unit (rights.focus@consultancyafrica.com). This CAI paper was developed with the assistance of Laura Clarke and was edited by Kate Morgan.
(2) 'Diaspora voting rights', Sierra Leone Policy Watch (SLPW), 2012, http://slpw.org.
(3) 'Diaspora rejects cabinet move to block diaspora vote', Kenya Diaspora Alliance, 2012, http://kenyadiasporaalliance.org; Bell, A., 'Diaspora vote put aside by government', Shortwave Radio Africa, 2012,  http://www.swradioafrica.com; 'Diaspora voting rights', Sierra Leone Policy Watch (SPLW), 2012, http://slpw.org.
(4) Russell, M., 'Diaspora engagement through representation', Diaspora Matters, 2011, http://diasporamatters.com.
(5) Braun, N. and Gratschew, M., 2007. "Introduction", in Voting from Abroad: The International IDEA Handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA): Stockholm.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Ellis, A., 2007. "The history and politics of external voting", in Ellis, A., et al., Voting from Abroad: The International IDEA Handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA): Stockholm.
(8) Chulov, M., 'Saudi women to be given right to vote and stand for election in four years', The Guardian, 25 September 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk.
(9) Ayitey, G., 'Opinion: What Ghana can teach the rest of Africa about democracy', CNN, 6 December 2012, http://edition.cnn.com.
(10) 'Diaspora voting in 2013 a mirage', Ole-Shitemi, 14 December 2012, http://oleshitemi.wordpress.com.
(11) 'Diaspora voting rights', Sierra Leone Policy Watch (SLPW), 2012, http://slpw.org.
(12) Russell, M., 'Diaspora engagement through representation', Diaspora Matters, 2011, http://diasporamatters.com.
(13) Sundberg, A., 'The history and politics of diaspora voting in home country elections', Overseas Vote Foundation, 2007, https://www.overseasvotefoundation.org.
(14) Molutsi, P., 2007. "Botswana: Disappointing results of external voting", in Ellis, A., et al., Voting from Abroad: The International IDEA Handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA): Stockholm.
(15) Plaut, M., 'Sudanese diaspora in Europe vote for secession', BBC News, 16 January 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk.
(16) 'Let the diaspora vote – Hon Peter Kenneth says', Kenya London News, 28 November 2012, http://www.kenyalondonnews.org.
(17) Navarro, C., Morales, I. and Gratschew, M., 2007. "External voting: A comparative overview", in Ellis, A., et al., Voting from Abroad: The International IDEA Handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA): Stockholm; Russell, M., 'Diaspora engagement through representation', Diaspora Matters, 2011, http://diasporamatters.com.
(18) Ibid.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Navarro, C.F., 2007. "The political rights of migrant workers and external voting", in Ellis, A., et al., Voting from Abroad: The International IDEA Handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA): Stockholm.
(22) Braun, N. and Gratschew, M., 2007. "Introduction", in Ellis, A., et al., Voting from Abroad: The International IDEA Handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA): Stockholm.
(23) Navarro, C., Morales, I. and Gratschew, M., 2007. "External voting: A comparative overview", in Ellis, A., et al., Voting from Abroad: The International IDEA Handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA): Stockholm.
(24) Compiled by the author using data available from Navarro, C., Morales, I. and Gratschew, M., 2007. "External voting: A comparative overview", in Ellis, A., et al., Voting from Abroad: The International IDEA Handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA): Stockholm.
(25) Ibid.