Why foreigners should be allowed to vote in legislative elections in Luxembourg, according to migrant platform MINTE

1. Plate – forme Migrations&Intégration
www.minte.lu
Statement in favour of voting rights for all
Luxembourg residents.
Context and arguments
Context
Position of the platform
Arguments IN FAVOUR OF voting rights
Arguments AGAINST voting rights… and why they are unconvincing
The ‘real’ reasons behind reticence... lessons for the campaign
Luxembourg, 20th
October 2014

2. Plate – forme Migrations&Intégration
www.minte.lu
Context
The debate on voting rights (VR)
1
for all residents is neither new nor exclusive to Luxembourg. In our
country, ASTI brought the subject forward in 1981, as it was one of the reasons this organisation was
established. As for the rest of the world, this matter has been debated in many countries over the last
few decades, and was particularly lively in countries with a large influx of immigrants. In the European
Union –the first political structure of its kind in history–, the debate gave rise to the establishment of
EU citizenship
2
, which was added to the national citizenship and put the concept ‘foreigner’ into
perspective.
But the situation is very particular in Luxembourg, where foreign nationals make up more than 44% of
the resident population and are currently not eligible in national elections. This percentage will
continue to increase and the division between the electorate and the resident population will continue
to broaden
3
. This situation endangers both social cohesion and the future of our country. It is
unacceptable that non-national residents have the same obligations than Luxembourg nationals, but
do not enjoy the same rights. These residents are, somehow, reduced to citizens that don’t count
and, consequently, we are depriving ourselves of a crucial contribution to the establishment of the
Luxembourg of tomorrow.
Position of the platform
The platform welcomes the Government’s initiative to launch a constructive debate on this subject,
within the framework of the constitutional reform.
Faithful to its motto ‘live, work, decide together’, the platform has always defended granting
residents the right to vote –as opposed to voting rights linked to citizenship– during previous
campaigns in local and European elections. In the current context, in light of the scheduled
referendum –amongst other facts– on this matter, the platform calls for voting rights for all
residents.
With its advocacy, the platform wants to find a broad consensus in society on this matter. It aims to
unite the different components of civil society that are also in favour of this democratic enlargement.
Arguments IN FAVOUR OF voting rights
Extending voting rights to foreigners means...
...satisfying a democratic requirement
Some people that have lived in Luxembourg permanently for many years, paying taxes, enrolling their
children in the country’s schools, shaping its everyday life and contributing substantially to its success,
cannot participate in political decisions. This goes against the democratic principles of participation
1
National Voting Rights - Droit de vote ‘national’
2
Treaty of Maastritch of 1992: "Every citizen who is a national of a member state is also a citizen of the Union”.
Regarding elections, EU citizens have the right to vote and be elected in European elections, as well as to vote
and be elected in local elections of the member state in which they reside (as long as they have resided there for
at least three months).
3
Even if nationalization laws are softened.

3. Plate – forme Migrations&Intégration
www.minte.lu
and legitimacy. How can a government that has been elected by less than half of the resident
population
4
be considered to legitimately represent society as a whole?
...acknowledging the very particular demographic situation of Luxembourg
In 2014, more than 44% of our country’s population did not have Luxembourg nationality. Therefore, it
is hard to consider the Chamber of Deputies as the representative of the people. Furthermore, the
great divide between the resident population and the electorate, far from being stable or decreasing
with time, will continue to broaden. Urgent action is needed. The democratic deficit will worsen and the
‘voiceless’ minority will progressively become the majority.
...favouring integration and fighting against communitarianism
Voting rights allow foreign residents to feel recognized and represented, which favours the integration
of the foreigners living in Luxembourg. To deny them this right prevents them from participating in the
political scene at a national level. This might lead to communities to turn in on themselves, as well as
to the appearance of other types of claims, often stronger and communitarianist. Integration efforts are
important both for migrants and for the receiving country.
...making society more dynamic and establishing Luxembourg as a forerunner in
Europe
Extending VR to everyone, far from being a concession to foreigners that would ‘weaken’ the society
of Luxembourg, is a pledge for a more dynamic society. Invinting all citizens to participate in debates
that affect all of the country’s residents means benefiting from a broader range of opinions and skills. It
also allows to regain a greater and more representative social diversity, especially regarding the
working population that constitute the electorate; allowing us to more easily find answers to the
challenges that our country will face today and in the future.
As the European country with the highest rate of foreign residents, Luxembourg must lead the way to
other EU member states. Luxembourg –which is seen by many simply as an international financial
centre– would establish itself as an example of political and social integration in Europe.
...acknowledging that the foreigner is not so foreign, and that the distinction
between nationals and foreigners is rather artificial
In 2014, 86.13% of foreigners living in our country are nationals of a EU member state. They can,
therefore, already vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament. They are –
just like expats from Luxembourg–, European citizens. What makes these foreigners any different
from Luxembourg-national residents, other than the front cover of their passport?
Arguments AGAINST voting rights...
...and why they are unconvincing
Four types of arguments are made. Firstly, those that appeal to national sovereignty.
Then, those arguments that insist on the aspect of cultural identity, and consider that ‘generously’
extending VR is a hurdle to integration.
4
In the election of October 2013, 44.6% of the resident population was eligible

4. Plate – forme Migrations&Intégration
www.minte.lu
There are also the arguments that point out the danger of a potential destabilisation of the political
landscape.
And, lastly, the ones based on an alleged lack of interest amongst foreigners.
National sovereignty: RV must be exclusive to Luxembourg nationals. To vote,
one must acquire Luxembourg nationality.
For some, it would be sufficient to grant Luxembourg citizenship more generously to those residents
who wish to have it.
• Firstly, some countries do not grant double nationality. Therefore, their citizens that live in
Luxembourg would be forced to choose either one or the other.
• Secondly, obtaining the citizenship of a country and VR do not follow the same approach.
Gaining citizenship comes from a more emotional place; identifying with a certain history,
culture or common values... Having the right to vote, on the other hand, is a civic act in which
the individual expresses his or her confidence in the candidates that they believe offer the
best solutions to the problems and issues they face as Luxembourg residents.
• Furthermore, an increasing amount of residents (particularly nationals of another EU member
state) live in our country for professional reasons for many years, but not their entire life. They
would like to have a say in political decisions that affect their everyday lives, without
necessarily wanting to become Luxembourg nationals. Why continue to exclude them from
participating in the democratic life of Luxembourg? So, if somebody lives for 10 years in
France, 15 years in Luxembourg, 5 years in Germany and decides to retire in Greece... do
they need to obtain all 4 citizenships to have the right to participate in political decisions?
Cultural identity: having VR requires identifying with the values of
Luxembourg, including the language
These types of arguments are based on three mistaken hypothesis.
The first is believing that there is such a thing as a well-defined Luxembourg identity that remains
unchanged in time.
The second claims that all holders of a Luxembourg passport feel reflected in this unique identity and
know it in and out.
The last one postulates that the only way to fully integrate in society is by naturalisation.
The matter of Luxembourg identity is a lot more complex than some people want us to believe. Long
gone are the days when, due to hegemonic powers, we could simply describe ourselves with the
motto ‘Mir wëlle bleiwe wat mir’. The identity of our country –which is also one of its assets– is now its
diversity and its ability to adapt to the ongoing changes in Europe and in the rest of the world, thanks
to its acquired skills and multiculturalism.
As regards to the language, it is undeniable that Luxembourgish has progressively become one of the
essential elements of what some call the ‘Luxembourg identity’. It is also true that political debates are
mainly in Luxembourgish, both in the Chamber of Deputies (where Luxembourgish started to be
commonly used in the late 1980s) or within political parties. But to make language proficiency a
requirement for residents to participate in the political life of the country is unreasonable and
unrealistic. Nowadays, the society of Luxembourg is characterised by multilingualism.
Political destabilisation: granting VR would increase communitarianism and
extremes.

5. Plate – forme Migrations&Intégration
www.minte.lu
This argument is somewhat hard to believe. It is based on a quite simplistic view of both the national
and the foreign population. It is as though, on one side, all Luxembourg nationals; and, on the other,
non-nationals, all shared similar and common interests. The electorate is not a single entity, it consists
of different ideologies and movements, and this applies both to Luxembourg nationals and to
foreigners. Actually, research shows that the political views of foreign residents depend mainly on their
social class, just like for nationals. However, one thing that is common to all residents –Luxembourg
nationals and non-nationals– is the commitment to building a prosperous future, ensuring social
stability, employment, their families’ future and the welfare of the country.
Lack of interest amongst foreigners: non-nationals are not interested in VR
It is true that only 17% of the foreigners that could register to vote in the last local election actually
exercised their right (12%, in the last European election). There are several reasons for this low voter
turnout: the cumbersome bureaucracy of the enrolment system, weak campaigns, a certain shyness in
exercising this new right, language barriers and the unwillingness of the political power and parties, at
all levels, to allow the participation of the potential new constituents.
The ‘real’ reasons behind the reluctance - lessons for the
campaign!
But, if there are so many arguments IN FAVOUR of VR for all residents and if all arguments AGAINST
them can be refuted, how is it possible that the resistance to extending VR is still so strong?
There are three answers:
! On the one hand, there is fear... the fear to lose the ‘Luxembourg identity’ (and the language)
by allowing foreigners to participate in the national political life.
! On the other hand, there is the will to protect and reserve political power to nationals only.
! Lastly, there is the very widespread opinion that those people who wish to vote should simply
become Luxembourg citizens.
The campaign for VR for all residents should take into account these three reasons and the
reservation / reluctance that are so deeply rooted for many people. It is important to show:
" That fear is unjustified, especially because national identity is the expression of a constant
evolution, and because extending this right, far from impoverishing the country’s identity,
would strengthen it.
" That protecting exclusively the interests of one section of the population, even if may offer
some advantages in the short term, harms everybody –including nationals– in the long term;
just like protectionism always does. That it is the inclusion of all actors in society which will
ultimately guarantee the well being and the social harmony of all sections of the population.
" That the granting of citizenship –even if it is more ‘generous’– cannot itself make up for the
democratic deficit in our society. The immigration rate in Luxembourg continues to be high
and the national population is ageing. Furthermore, unlike VR, acquiring Luxembourg
nationality is not necessarily of any special interest to nationals of other EU member states
living in Luxembourg (which represent almost 90% of all foreigners). Indeed, what is the
added value of a specific citizenship within a Europe that is increasingly politically integrated?