One of the issues nation-states are going to have to face is an increasing number of the active global labor market who are disenfranchised. The nation-state view of citizenship is pretty myopic and Australia just had another round of legislation where more were prohibited from democratic involvement such that the AEC is better at purging the rolls than adding voters. But what to do about diasporans of all nations that full economic actors including taxpayers in the countries they work in but have no democratic expression there or at home?

Firstly, I am one of those who are completely disenfranchised. I cannot vote in Australia or America. I have no democratic expression whatsoever at the ballot box. I am a peculiar and very modern form of statelessness.

I am a citizen of Australia and travel on an Australian passport. I am not an American citizen despite having a greencard for many years. In most cases for permanent residents in Australia and American the only value of citizenship is the ability to vote.

I am not politically active in Australian politics, Vosper's motto rings in my ears, besides no 'side' matches my politics. However I am quite knowledgeable on Australian politics and make sure I stay abreast of what is going on politically in the media and parliament. It is the same with American politics, I know what is going on nationally and locally. If I did vote in either country my vote would be an informed one.

Australia is a leader in globalisation and the freeing up of the movement of labor. The Australian diaspora is approximately one million people. This is about 5% of the nation and 10% of the current Australian workforce. Australia is also an immigrant nation and approximately 26% of the current Australian workforce is foreign born.

The Australian electoral act requires Australians overseas to reaffirm their presence on the electoral roll each year. So forgetting one year, a bureaucratic mistake, or a personal decision not to vote means disenfranchisement.

But is it fair for Australians overseas to vote in Australian elections? Diasporans have no direct representative and vote in their previous electorate. By being diasporans their views and interests are probably much different than if they are in the electorate of Bennelong or Stirling for instance.

Diasporans also have an interest in having a representative to represent their views in parliament as the diaspora is very turgid and people are coming and leaving constantly. So a diaspora would be an advocate in areas of self-interest such as getting a foreign spouse a work visa or citizenship for a child born overseas and other complexities that are required to navigate the byzantine laws of the nation-state.

The obvious location for such a representative is in the Senate. I have argued for this in the past. The Imagining Australia folks have also argued for direct representation for the diaspora in the Senate as well.

Another solution, and a more obvious one, is to allow the diasporan to vote locally where they pay taxes, own property and have a dog in there being good governance. In my case that would mean enfranchising me in the US. For those working in Australia that are not Australian citizens it would mean placing them on the Australian electoral roll and allowing them to vote in the local electorates.

A pure republican approach would be for an individual above the age of reason regardless of nationality or citizenship to be able to vote. But that is probably too much for most people, let alone nativists and nationalists. A compromise approach can be that any individual on a work visa or with permanent residency can vote. This enfranchisement can be extended to their spouse and children above the age of reason too.

This would make politics local and solve the problem of disenfranchisement that a nation-state's restrictive citizenship laws create.

Update - Oz writes on direct representation for the Australian Diaspora: "It's more feasible that Senate representation could be created for this specific purpose, having two Senators to represent external citizens." However Oz notes that there may be constitutional issues involved with this policy.

I received a media release from the Southern Cross Group in my inbox this evening. The media release is titled: Overseas Australians Should Enrol to Vote Now [pdf]. It is a reminder for diasporans that the Electoral Act has changed and the diasporans need to enrol each year to remain on the electoral roll. The AEC can strike a diasporan off if they miss voting in an election.

From the media release:

Jacqui Mowbray, spokeswoman for the SCG in Sydney, said that 2006 changes to the closing date for the electoral roll, coupled with limitations in the law on enrolling from abroad, meant that many Australian expats who had left Australia in recent years faced a very real prospect that inaction on their part would lead to them becoming disenfranchised for their entire sojourn abroad.

"Australians overseas must organise their electoral enrolment now, and not wait until the Prime Minister calls the election", she said. "The old seven day window between the calling of the election and the closing of the electoral roll is gone. Once the election is announced, the roll will close almost immediately."

The release contains some interesting statistics too. The SCG estimates that nearly five hundred thousand, or half, of the Australian diaspora are disenfranchised because the electoral act prevents them from re-enrolling. In addition there are low levels of voting by diasporans:

In the 2004 election, only 68,544 votes were issued by overseas posts. In 2001, the figure was 63,016, and in 1998, 65,086. In 1999, only 57,955 votes were issued overseas for the referendum on the Republic.

It is not compulsory for diasporans to vote. I can understand a level of apathy from diasporans as the House of Representatives doesn't have the national focus that diasporans would have. Local issues in the electorate would hardly be something a diasporan would gun for. However I can imagine a large level of interest in the Senate. If there was an elected President - a national position - then there may be more interest from the diaspora.