The political rights of emigrants: the Portuguese case in a comparative perspective Professor André Freire SOS, University of London, 23 June 2015

1. «Emigrants’ political rights: The Portuguese
case in comparative perspective»
André Freire - ISCTE-IUL (Lisbon University
Institute), and CIES-IUL
Paper delivered at the Seminar Emigrants’ Political Rights,
Organized by Migrantes Unidos,
SOAS – School of Oriental & African Studies,
University of London, London, 23 June, 18h20h.

2. Scientific Coordenation: Professor André Freire (CIES-ISCTE-IUL), Phd
Executive Coordenation: Master Frederica Rodrigues (OIM)
Authors:
Frederica Rodrigues (OIM)
André Freire (CIES-ISCTE-IUL),
Isabel Estrada Carvalhais (NICPRI-UM)
Inês Amador (OIM), Viriato Queiroga (OIM),
Joana Morgado (OIM)
Electoral Participation of Portuguese
Foreigners: Emigrants and Immigrants

3. Objectives:
Assumption:
Portugal – country of migrants – huge diaspora & significant community of immigrants
1st
)
To understand how the Portuguese state has dealt with its communities of migrants in terms of political inclusion, political rights
Comparative perspective - political rights of both immigrants and emigrants in the EU countries
2nd
)
To scrutinize how the associations of both immigrants, in Portugal, and Portuguese emigrants, abroad, view their situation in terms of politica
rights, and political reforms concerning that topic

4. Methodology&Data(I):
- Analysisofsecondarydataandliterature
- Analysisofofficialstatisticsanddocuments

5. Methodology & Data (II):
- Survey (using a standard questionnaire with both closed and open-ended questions, but mainly closed questions) about immigrants’ and
emigrants’ political rights in the EU countries (27) taking as respondents the staff in IOM’s offices in those countries:
Sarah Tietze, IOM Berlin, Alemanha
Adel-Naim Reyhani, IOM-Viena, Áustria
Elizabeth Petzl, IOM, Viena, Áustria
Judith Wiesinger, IOM-Viena, Áustria
Giovana Solari, IOM Brussels, Bélgica
Reiner Schmitz, IOM Brussels, Bélgica
Radoslav Stamenkov, IOM Sofia, Bulgária
Jenny Svensson, IOM Copenhagen, Dinamarca
Morten Sonne, IOM Copenhagen, Dinamarca
Barbara Pohmerobar, IOM Bratislava, Eslováquia
Cármen Peñalba, IOM Madrid, Espanha
Meelis Nine, IOM Tallin, Estónia
Hans-Peter Boe, IOM Helsinki, Finlândia
Tobias von Treek, IOM Helsinki, Finlândia
Maurizio Busatti, IOM Paris, França
Ioannis Papageorgiou, Doutorando na U. Tessalónica, Grécia
Eftichia Teperoglou, Investigadora CIES-IUL, Grécia
Lisa Tousek, IOM The Hague, Holanda
Ralph Welcker, IOM The Hague, Holanda

6. - Survey (using a standard questionnaire with both closed and open-ended questions, but mainly closed questions) about immigrants’ and
emigrants’ political rights in the EU countries (27) taking as respondents the staff in IOM’s offices in those countries:
Martin Wyndham, IOM Budapest, Hungria
Attila Peteri, de ACEEEO (Association of European Election Officials) e ACEEEO Secretariat in general, Hungria
Chris Gaul, IOM London, Inglaterra
Clarissa Azkoul, IOM London, Inglaterra
Kelly Mackei, IOM Dublin, Irlanda
Siobhán O’Hegarty, IOM Dublin, Irlanda
José Oropeza, IOM Rome, Itália
Nadan Petrovic, IOM Rome, Itália
Ilmar Mezs, IOM Riga, Letónia
Henrikas Germanavicius, IOM Vilnius, Lituânia
Eleonora Servino, IOM Malta, Malta
Petr Karban, IOM Prague, República Checa
Erik Amnå, Orebro University, Suécia
Michael Hagos, Swedish Ministry for Integrations and Gender Equality, Suécia
Nihad Bunar, Suécia

7. Methodology&Data(III):
- Survey(usingastandardquestionnairewithbothclosedandopen-endedquestions,butmainlyclosedquestions)aboutimmigrants’
politicalrightsandtakingasrespondentstheassociationsofimmigrantsinPortugal:
 Brazil:CasadoBrasileAssociaçãoLusofonia,CulturaeCidadania;
 Ukraine: Associação Apoio ao Imigrante, Associação dos Ucranianos em Portugal, AMIZADE – Associação Imigrantes de Gondomar, Associação
MIR;
 Cape Vert: Associação Caboverdiana, Associação Unidos de Cabo Verde, MORABEZA – Associação para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento,
AssociaçãoLusoCaboverdianadeSintra,EloAssociativoparaoDesenvolvimentoSocial,FederaçãodasOrganizaçõesCaboverdianasemPortugal.
Responserate:
4in12=33,3%.

8. Methodology & Data (IV):
- Survey (using a standard questionnaire with both closed and open-ended questions, but mainly closed questions) about emigrants’
political rights and taking as respondents the associations of Portuguese emigrants abroad :
 France: Federação das Associações Portuguesas de França;
 USA: Confederação das Associações Luso-Americanas de New Jersey;
 Brazil: Federação das Associações Portuguesas e Luso-Brasileiras;
 Switzerland: Federação das Associações Portuguesas da Suiça Romanda;
 Canada: Aliança dos Clubes e Associações Portuguesas de Ontário;
 Spain: Fórum dos Portugueses em Madrid;
 Germany: Federação das Associações Portuguesas na Alemanha;
 UK: Centro Português de Apoio à Comunidade Lusófona;
 Angola: Associação 25 de Abril;
 South Africa: Federação das Coletividades Portuguesas da África do Sul;
 Venezuela: Federação de Centros Portugueses da Venezuela;
 Luxemburg: Confederação das Associações Portuguesas no Luxemburgo.
Response rate:
1 in 12 = 8,33% (Not analyzed).

9. Figure1.2–Theconceptof embeddeddemocracy
Socialandeconomicrequirements
CivilSociety
Stategovernment(stateness)
Civil
Rights
C
Political
liberties
B
Electoralregime
A
Horizontal EffectivePowerto
Accountability
D
Govern
E
Source:WolfgangMerkel,2004,p.37.
Globalization–HugegrowthinthenumberofMigrants,especiallyinrich countries –DemocraticTensions –ExclusionaryDemocracies?

10. Table 1 – Arguments pro and against immigrants’ and emigrants’ political rights in a democratic regime
Immigrants Emigrants
Pro Against Pro Against
No taxation without
representation
Alien interests / Foreign
interests
If they have to pay taxes
and comply with military
duties, right to self-rule
No representation without
taxation
Self-rule of those affected
by government decisions
Contribute to the economy
of the country of origin
Self-rule of those affected
by government decisions:
not clearly affected
To be governed: also
implies right to self-rule
(in a democracy)
Emigrants against their
will
If diaspora is large,
emigrants with too much
weight (remedy: limit nº
of seats)
To obey the law, right to
self-rule
To obey the law, right to
self-rule
Political inclusion,
political and social
stability
Threat to political stability
and public order
Lack of knowledge about
current affairs in country
of residence (requirement
to prove it…)
Lack of knowledge about
current affairs in country
of origin (requirement to
prove it…)
Only if there is reciprocity Need for reciprocity
Naturalization Naturalization
Dual citizenship Dual citizenship

11. Table 2: Relative presence of foreigners in EU countries and foreigners’ right to vote in local elections (2011)
Countries
% foreigners in total
population
Right to vote Right to be elected
Luxemburg 43,1 Yes Yes
Cyprus 20,0 No No
Latvia 18,3 No No
Estonia 15,5 Yes No
Spain 12,3 Yes Yes
Austria 10,8 No No
Belgium 10,6 Yes No
Germany 8,8 No No
Greece 8,5 Yes Yes
Ireland 7,9 Yes Yes
Italy 7,5 No No
United Kingdom 7,2 Yes Yes
Sweden 6,6 Yes Yes
Denmark 6,2 Yes Yes
France 5,9 No No
Malta 4,9 No No
Portugal 4,2 Yes Yes
Netherlands 4,0 Yes Yes
Slovenia 4,0 Yes No
Czech Republic 4,0 No No
Finland 3,1 Yes Yes
Hungary 2,1 Yes No
Slovakia 1,3 Yes Yes
Lithuania 1,1 Yes Yes
Bulgaria 0,5 No No
Poland 0,1 No No
Romania * No No
Source: Rodrigues, Freire, Carvalhais, Amador & Queiroga, 2012.

12. Table 3: Relative presence of extra-EU foreigners in EU countries and foreigners’ right to vote in local elections (2011)
Countries
% extra EU foreigners in
total population
Right to vote Right to be elected
Latvia 17,5 No No
Estonia 15,3 Yes No
Spain 7,4 Yes Yes
Greece 6,8 Yes Yes
Austria 6,6 No No
Luxemburg 6,0 Yes Yes
Cyprus 5,8 No No
Germany 5,7 No No
Italy 4,6 No No
United Kingdom 3,9 Yes Yes
Denmark 3,8 Yes Yes
France 3,8 No No
Portugal 3,4 Yes Yes
Slovenia 3,3 Yes No
Sweden 3,2 Yes Yes
Czech Republic 2,5 No No
Malta 2,4 No No
Netherlands 2,1 Yes Yes
Ireland 1,7 Yes Yes
Finland 1,7 Yes Yes
Lithuania 1,2 Yes Yes
Hungary 0,8 Yes No
Slovakia 0,4 Yes Yes
Bulgaria 0,3 No No
Romania 0,1 No No
Poland 0,1 No No
Belgium * Yes No
Source: Rodrigues, Freire, Carvalhais, Amador & Queiroga, 2012.

13. Table 4: Right to vote of foreigners living in EU country by type of election
Type of election Yes No
National
elections
Head of
State
Portugal (Brazilian people with the statue of equality of political right, and with 3
years living in the country).
Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Slovakia, Slovenia, Finland, France, Ireland,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania.
In Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
Latvia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Czech Republic and
Sweden, the head of State is not elected by the people.
Parliament
Ireland, based on reciprocity (UK & Commonwealth citizens),
Portugal, based on reciprocity (Brazilian people with the statue of equality of political
right, and with 3 years living in the country) and UK, based on reciprocity (Irish and
Commonwealth citizens).
Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Netherlands,
Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Poland, Czech
Republic,, Romania, Sweden. .
Local elections
Only EU citizens: Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Italy (except in Rome),
Latvia, Malta, Poland, Czech Republic and Romania.
X
Also non EU citizens: Ireland (no condition), Belgium (5 years of residence), Denmark
(5 years of residence), Slovakia (permanent residence), Slovenia (permanent
residence), Spain, based on reciprocity (Bolívia, Cape Vert, Chile, Colômbia, Corea,
Equador, Iceland, Norway, New Zeland, Paraguai and Peru), Estonia (permanent
residence), Finland (2 years of residence, except for Icelandic and Norwegian citizens),
Grécia (permanent residence), Holanda (5 years residence), Hungary (permanent
residence), Lithuania (permanent residence), Luxemburg (5 years residence in
country), Portugal (3 years based on reciprocity – Argentina, Chile, Iceland, Norway,
Peru, Uruguai and Venezuela, except citizens from Brasil and Cape Vert, 2 years), UK
(Commonwealth citizens with no entrance barriers and permission for permanente
stay); Sweden (3 years of residence, except for Icelandic and Norwegian citizens: no
limits).
Source: Rodrigues, Freire, Carvalhais, Amador & Queiroga, 2012.

14. Table5: Rights to vote and be elected of Emigrants, nationals from EU countries, by type of election
Type of election Yes No
Right to
vote
National
elections
Head of
state Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Slovakia, Slovenia, Finland,
France, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Romania.
Ireland and Malta
In Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia,
Luxemburg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Czech Republic and Sweden, the head
of State is not elected by the people.
Parliament
Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, Netherlands,,
Hungary, Italy Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Poland,
Portugal, UK, Czech Republic, Romania and Sweden.
Cyprus, Greece, Ireland and Malta.
Local elections Spain and Denmark. Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Estonia, Finland, France, Netherlands,, Hungary, Italy Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxemburg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, UK, Czech Republic, Romania and Sweden.
Referendum
Austria, Denmark, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Estonia,
Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Portugal and Sweden.
Germany, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Luxemburg,
Malta, UK, Czech Republic and Romania
Right to
be
elected
National
elections
Head of
state
Austria, Finland and Portugal
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Slovakia, Slovenia, France, Netherlands, Ireland, Lithuania,
Malta, Poland and Romania
In Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia,
Luxemburg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Czech Republic and Sweden, the head
of State is not elected by the people
Parliament
Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Slovenia, Spain,
Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxemburg, Poland, Portugal, UK, Czech Republic,
Romania and Sweden.
Belgium, Cyprus, Slovakia, Greece, Netherlands, Ireland, Lithuania and Malta
Local elections X
Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Malta, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, Netherlands,, Hungary, Italy
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Poland, Portugal, UK, Czech Republic, Romania
and Sweden.
Source: Rodrigues, Freire, Carvalhais, Amador & Queiroga, 2012.

15. Conditions to use the right to vote – Emigrants: Portugal
vs. Europe
- Presencial Vote (more usual, PT: both presidential and
leglistative elections)
- Postal vote (more usual; PT: both presidential and
leglistative elections)
- Others entitled to vote on your behalf (not common,
namely in PT: not used; some countries do use it: France,
UK, Netherlands)
- Electonic vote (not common, namely in PT: not used;
some countries do use it: Estonia, France, Netherlands)
- Structure of electoral districts (for emigrants: separated
districts, legislative PT, or not separated, presidential PT) – very
important to weight the influence of emigrants on local politics…

16. Conclusions
- Globalization of people’s movements, huge increase in migration:
increasing tensions within democracies, namely because the universality of
political rights (sine qua non of a democracy) is becaming a broken
promise…
- Mobile age: new conditions are needed to allow the exercise of the right to vote
of emigrants whenever they are entitled to vote
- Arguments pro and against the right to vote of imigrants are often
complementary to arguments pro and against the right to vote of
emigrants: the two things should be considered together:
Namely:
- taxation and representation
- right to self rule by those afftected by government decisions
- non-proportionality in terms of the right to self rule of emigrants (not so
directly affected by governmental decisions) vis-à-vis those directly affected by
governamental decisions (citizens living in their homelands, immigrants) - limit nº
of seats for emigrants

17. Conclusions
- Portugal is usually generous (vis-à-vis other EU countries/PT among the
more generous countries) in terms of offering the right to vote for both
immigrants and emigrants (exception: local elections for the latter)
- Improvements needed:
1) Articulate more the political rights to vote of immigrants and emigrants,
especially in Europe;
2) more agreements on reciprocity between states for the entitlement of poilitical
rights to migrants, and for the exercise of migrants’ political rights;
3) easier conditions for naturalization and for dual citinzenship (especially where
they are not so friendly – not the case of Portugal);
4) improve the logistics of the right to vote / Mobile Age (much is needed here for
the Portuguese case).