Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ACEEEO en
ACEEEO en
IN AN
AGE OF GLOBALIZATION:
POLITICAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS AT RISK
Introduction
A review of the professional literature and best practices in the field of election management shows a dearth of material on the subject of standardized out-of-country registration and voting guidelines (OCV). For example, the subject is addressed in the Voting From Abroad section of the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network web site, but their review of the issues raise more questions than they answer.1 What established conventions demand, however, is that universal suffrage must not be threatened or sacrificed. One of the clearest examples of this demand is found in the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers, which explicitly states: Migrant workers and members of their families shall have the right to participate in public affairs of their State of origin and to vote and to be elected at elections of that State, in accordance with its legislation. The States concerned shall, as appropriate and in accordance with their legislation, facilitate the exercise of these rights. 2 As ever more people seek opportunities across the globe due to trends, pressures, and opportunities offered by the modern world economy, the political and governing institutions of the home countries of these diaspora need to better address the issues of political and voting rights of citizen diaspora. And, election management bodies (EMBs) need to find solutions to problems related to registration and voting processes in order to produce truly representative elections. Resolving the issues of out-of-country registration and voting issues is of utmost importance to states that have significant percentages of their citizenry living abroad. For whatever reasons these diaspora find themselves away from home on Election Day, be it economic, political, or personal security, they should not be deprived of their constitutional right of suffrage. As the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network web site points out . . . Administrative problems or delays in the external voting are often viewed as deliberate acts of fraud by an incumbent government or even by the election management body (EMB). This is particularly true for external voting. It is important to eliminate any potential cause for suspicion when planning the implementation of external voting.3
http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/va International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, UN document A/RES/45/158, 18 December 1990, article 41. 3 http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/va
2
This is a chilling and aberrant policy that should be immediately repudiated by the Georgian government.
Georgians living in the European Union told Georgian Voice representatives that they believed that the Georgian government had made an agreement with the EU to turn over addresses of Georgians living in the EU to EU officials as part of the negotiation of an EU-Georgia visa-free travel regime. For possibly undocumented Georgian EU residents, this raised fears of deportation. EU officials have confirmed that, not only does such an agreement not exist, but that EU governments have no mechanism for receiving and acting upon such information. To do so, is a self-appointed duty that is at odds with the traditional role of embassies and consulates, which is to protect the rights of its citizens abroad, not persecute them for imagined offenses against host governments. 3
http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/2687_september_6_2012/2687_elections.html 4
Under current conditions, Georgia is not meeting the Copenhagen political criteria.
Georgias introduction of online consular registration via Skype was an important step toward meeting standards of best practice, but unfortunately the mechanism has been vitiated by the imposition of the unnecessary proof of address verification requirement. Georgian citizens living abroad need to be able to register to vote easily and under conditions that they do not perceive as threatening to their status in their countries of residence. International standards of best practice in overseas voting systems include consular voting, postal ballots and, in a small but growing number of situations, online voting. If in-person voting is to be conducted by consulates, consulates have an obligation to open polling stations sufficiently close to concentrations of diaspora populations that at least a majority of overseas voters can cast ballots without significant cost in time or money. Polling stations must also contain a sufficient number of ballot boxes that all voters who present themselves can be processed within a reasonable amount of time on Election Day. One significant disadvantage of consular voting is that, even if consulates open polling stations wherever concentrations of Georgians live, a significant number of overseas Georgians will still find themselves living too far from consulates for voting to be practical and affordable. Stephen Reader, Explainer: Why are Expats Represented in Home Countries?, Its A Free Country, WNYC.com, 27 June 2012, http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-freecountry/2012/jun/27/explainer-why-do-french-expats-get-representative-parliament/, accessed 27 August 2012. 5
5
Europa, Summaries of European Legislation, Glossary, Accession criteria (Copenhagen criteria), http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/accession_criteria_copenhague_en.htm, accessed 27 August 2012. 7 Civil.ge, NATO Parliamentary Assembly on Georgia's Constitutional Reform, 17 November 2010, http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22854, accessed 27 August 2012. 6
PROPOSAL TO ACEEEO
Proposal
to
ACEEEO
We respectfully request that ACEEEO consider examining the issues facing diaspora registration and voting, as described above, in a formal and structured manner. Once again referring to the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network web site, the note: Little comparative research has been carried out on the subject of external voting. Some articles on the topic can be found in the legal literature for certain countries, but there are almost none in the social-sciences fields. There is a general absence of systematic information on the relevant legal provisions of individual countries. Furthermore, a set of criteria is needed by which the functioning of some of the institutional arrangements associated with external voting can be evaluated. This is all the more important because a number of countries have already scheduled external voting for future elections but have still no regulations in place for implementing it. Examining these issues in greater detail will provide ACEEEO with the opportunity to produce thoughtful, definitive, and needed theoretical and practical contributions to the field of election administration. We make this request under ACEEEOs Charter, Article 3.4.a., which states that; The General Assembly shall consider issues of common interest and adopt decisions in accordance with the provisions of this Charter and its own rules of procedure. It shall in particular: a. Consider proposals or questions of common interest submitted by its members, the Executive Board or the Secretariat.