diaspora myth, debate missing over vote from abroad

Albania is the country with the highest percentage of migration in the world, but the way their vote is being handled is extremely problematic.

Foreign voting, through mail, poses significant risks for deforming our democracy and discriminates against citizens living in Albania. The data released by Albania's latest population provision, when examined in connection with the civil registry, points out that at least 48% of the population or 2.2 million Albanian citizens live currently outside Albania (not counting those who have relinquished citizenship or children of immigrants who have not registered at all in Albania but have a right to citizenship). This makes Albania the first country in the world in terms of the percentage of the displaced population, leaving Guyana, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Syria and Afghanistan behind. But what is surprising is that even though we have the highest percentage of the diaspora, the special ministry we had and written down while more than 80 states have ministries or agencies for the diaspora, despite having lower percentages of the population abroad than we do. The diaspora in us is only being treated in terms of populism and empty rhetoric, with electoral calculations and has never been dealt with properly with by a genuine rational debate. Such was the case of recent election reform that included voting by mail for immigrants. This visual reform may seem to be an achievement for the diaspora, but it actually poses a lot of risks and may even be counter-active.

As I explained in a previous scripture, the vote by post of migrants, in itself, can increase the possibility of electoral manipulation and instrumentise immigrants as a tool to distort Albanian democracy. Posting from abroad is a difficult process to control and oversee by responsible authorities in Albania, which have no jurisdiction in the countries where immigrants live. So providing equal conditions for all candidates, as well as implementing the same standards of security, transparency and legal supervision, is almost impossible for a population distributed in many different countries, where Albania's authorities and legislation are of no value. Beyond the potential for manipulations this writing aims to debate the ethical and moral aspects of the foreign vote, which there has been no debate in Albania at all. This neurosurgeon is not even being addressed because of the diaspora's extreme romance and lack of courage to tell bitter and unpopular truths.

Due to a vision coloured by homesickness for the diaspora, it has been forgotten to say that with this newly adopted reform it has violated constitutional principles. Leaving the post office vote for immigrants could be considered a violation of the fundamental principle of equality before the law that discriminates against Albanian citizens who still live in their homeland and privileged the diaspora. Why should immigrants who may not have come to Albania for many years be allowed to fill out the ballot card in the comfort of their home by drinking coffee with family members and then quickly mail it while the citizens of Albania must travel toward polling stations on a certain day, hold their turn, go individually to secret ballot boxes (where they cannot even assist relatives with health problems). Leaving the postal vote for the diaspora could create unfair divisions and privileges among citizens living in Albania and those abroad creating a privileged electoral class.

Instead of a cold and frank analysis of the diaspora issue, discussions are filled with a huge emotional burden that has warped reality. The reform has not secured the right to the diaspora vote, as it is claimed, because this right has never been denied to immigrants. So it is an additional relief to enjoy more comfortable a righteous one that they have always had. They just had to come physically to Albania to vote. Here it should be noted that despite the naive rhetoric for the diaspora today heard about the vote by mail, the cold and rational truth is different. In fact, intellectual courage is needed to say that the joy of citizenship rights is closely linked to the territory of this country. Citizen rights services and guarantees, such as order, health, education, social security, etc., are closely linked to the territory of a state, as infrastructure, jurisdiction and resources needed to provide these services are limited within state borders, unable to implement and ensure them fully abroad. To illustrate, public order service or emergency care to its citizens is one of the tasks of a state's primary responsibilities, but it is absurd that an Albanian immigrant living in Crete or Sicily pretend to go to the aid of eagle patrols or Albanian ambulances if there is an accident.

To create a hygienic distance from emotional and politically correct speech, it is good to analyse international practices in terms of diaspora vote. According to a comprehensive global study by the prestigious institute I DEA, the vote by the diaspora is allowed at 115 (53.4%) countries and territories in the world (which organise multiparty elections and guarantee universal vote), while 100 others (47.6%) do not allow voter submission at all. But it should be added that from this figure 115, one-third partially limit the right to vote from abroad. This restriction often relates to the bonds of immigrants to the country of origin, the duration of their stay abroad, and their goal of returning. So for example, Australia won't let you vote if you've been a resident abroad for over six years, Canada five years, New Zealand 3 years, while the United Kingdom lifts the vote if you've had more than 15 years of residence abroad,

There are also countries which enable the diaspora to choose their representatives in the national legislature by leaving a group of mandates in the legislature, specially reserved as separate electoral districts for the diaspora. This practice is aimed at strengthening the link of foreign voters to the national political community, enabling promotion of their legislative agenda and direct intervention from a diaspora perspective to debates and processes of making political decisions. So for example, Croatia considers the diaspora to be a separate electoral zone with 3 MPs guaranteed (1.9% of 151 deputies), Italy 8 ( 2 % of 400 deputies), France 11 ( 1.9% of 577 deputies) Portugal 4 (1.7% of parliament) and so on.

There are also countries and territories that limit the right to vote depending on the activity their citizens are abroad for. So for example, India, Israel and Ireland allow to vote from abroad, only citizens performing official missions abroad of diplomatic or military nature, while in addition to state officials, countries such as Fiji or Malaysia add the list to students, employees of international organisations where their country is part of as well as employees of companies that are registered to them. So the two elements that are missing in the Albanian debate are how long it has been cut off from the country, and whether the immigrant has left with temporary stay abroad or has left permanently and does not intend to return.

At the same time, when it comes to voting from abroad, it is noteworthy that there are four different voting methods in the world that are used for voting abroad, which are: personal voting in diplomatic missions or other designated places; procuring voting; electronic voting and postal voting, as approved in Albania. Most or more, 55 states organise voting in their diplomatic missions around the world. After all, the embassy is the main point of contact and provision of state services to immigrants outside sovereign territory, and this option guarantees jurisdictionary coverage by the mother state and provides some guarantees for the regulation of the voting process. Of all these countries that allow their citizens to vote from abroad, only 27 use the vote by mail because it is considered the most insecure and endangered process by manipulations. So it's no coincidence that this very voting method has been chosen in a country where manipulation still thrives massively.

Because of diaspora mythation and the lack of intellectual courage to cope with the bitter and unpleasant reality, some arguments have never been noted that have convinced dozens of states to restrict or prevent voting from outside the diaspora. Initially it should be said that immigrants, due to physical distance, are often not informed of the important and urgent issues of local communities, and economic, social, political, domestic judicial challenges. So it is questioned whether they have enough connection with the political, social and economic reality of their country of origin to make informed decisions in the voting process. Migrants may also be cut off from updates for candidates and local issues that matter to voters within the country and national interests, and immigrants may have limited access to full and accurate information not only for the country's priorities but also for political bid -- that is, for parties, candidates, policies and local developments -- thus leading to unformed voting decisions. Despite the internet and television, many immigrants who have been well integrated into the host country for a long time have lost direct contact with the daily reality of life in Albania, and it is not enough for those competing to get their vote.

Also, for the sake of truth it must be said that many immigrants visit Albania only for short periods (mostly during annual holidays), and their vote may be influenced by a temporary superficial perception of the situation, regardless of the country's long-term developments. This means that they may not be informed of recent developments in infrastructure, order, law, security, economy, or social policy, and therefore their vote may not reflect the country's interests accurately. In contrast, they may not be up-to-dated for the latest developments in the country, and as a result, their vote may not reflect the interests or needs of the local population as well as Albania's interests. However, they may have been updated only to the airport, roads leading to the new coast, hotels, and restaurants - tourism elements with which they are exposed during the few days of vacations they spend in Albania.

Here is another problem involving changing priorities because of migration. Life in a foreign country and exposure to a different culture and political system can affect migrants' priorities and perceptions. This means that their vote may be influenced by external realities that do not comply with Albania's domestic needs. So the question is, will immigrants really represent the interests of their country of origin, or will they be more focused on the interests of the country where they currently live? Migrants may be focused on the economic issues of the country they live in and not be so interested in Albania's economic developments. They may be more interested in issues related to diaspora, pensions or bilateral relations between Albania and the country than in having any interest in debates on domestic policies, infrastructure investments or public services for citizens living here.

Moreover, it must be said that immigrants who have gained other citizenship and have linked their lives to other countries for decades may have weaker emotional, moral and patriotic ties with Albania. Part of them have decided to integrate fully into the host country, and they do not even teach Albanian to children who may already have served military service and sworn allegiance to a foreign flag. Lastly every year about a thousand Albanians give up their citizenship in Albania, while in Kosovo the number of giving up citizenship has reached over 57 thousand. Albanian immigrants can live in countries with rhetoric, media debates or specific geopolitical interests in our region that are not necessarily in harmony with our nation's orientations, characteristics or interests. So for example, in countries like Italy or Greece where most of our immigrants live, there is a unified anti-American tradition within the historical left and extreme right, while the euro-barometer shows pro-Russian dominant tendencies in public opinion. On the other hand, orientation towards the US alliance is sacred and vital to our survival as a people historically surrounded by wolves with territorial claims on us.

Also, voting from abroad can create a sensitive area for external intervention by various state and non-state actors that can instrumentalise immigrant votes to achieve specific interests that could go against our national interests. Just remember the 1990s and Greece's official rhetoric at the time to engage our anti-government immigrants in Albania, to understand that the vote from abroad could enable foreign intervention in domestic elections. So the process can become subject to diplomatic pressures or international tensions, and such cases are fresh, such as voting in Georgia or Armenia, countries that have massive immigration in Russia.

When it comes to connection with the country of origin, there is naturally another concern, which concerns the lack of responsibility for the consequences of cast votes. One of the fundamental principles of democracy is the principle of representation. A vote represents the interests and attitudes of a group of people living within a certain territory, and directly affected by the political and economic decisions of the elected government. Most migrants do not have direct involvement in Albania's public life. They do not pay taxes, receive no direct services from the Albanian state, and do not share the daily challenges with local residents. So immigrants who vote do not face the effects of governance policies for which they vote. Otherwise, immigrants are not in Albania to feel the economic, social or political consequences of decisions the elected government makes. On the other hand, long-term policies can be influenced by voters who do not have a permanent commitment to Albania's economy and realities.

This creates a significant disbalancing between citizens living within the country and those outside it, undermining the principle of true representation. As a result, there is a danger that the immigrant vote will have an anti-invasive effect and deepen the gap between residents in Albania and diaspora, especially in the conditions when the immigrant vote reverses the outcome of the domestic vote. This is a particularly dangerous thing in countries like this one where the percentage of migrants on the list is almost equal to that of residents in Albania. It may be that voters who do not live in Albania for long periods of time change the outcome of the elections, creating a disbalancing between their interests and the local population. This could lead to the choice of governments that do not reflect the needs of the residential population by creating a huge gap among Albanians living abroad for a long time and those living in Albania. This could lead to a sense of division of interests and priorities between these two groups, creating tensions and inequality that question the legitimacy of our democratic system.

Here comes the risk of politicising and radicalising the diaspora at the expense of the country's interests and the citizens who have decided not to abandon Albania. If the diaspora vote is allowed on a large scale, it could also bring a fragmentation of the Albanian political scene. In short, there is danger, that the diaspora will become a target for political parties, which may try to manipulate their vote through rhetoric and specific promises that relate only to the narrow interests of immigrants. Political parties can begin to create policies dedicated only to the diaspora to secure their votes, while putting aside the most important issues for residents. For an irresponsible political leader, it is much easier to spark an empty nationalist rhetoric that easily affects the emotions of the exile; to invest in better quality consular services and efficient in our diplomatic representations in the states where we have many diaspora, or invest in public diplomacy initiatives, PR media ads in these host states rather than make Albania a dignified country.

So it's easier to invest for immigrants to feel better and appreciated in countries where they emigrated than to invest to make Albania a dignified country similar to the other side of the continent so that immigration can be contained (environd as it did after Ireland and Poland) developed and where youth choose not to leave but to see it as the homeland in which to build their own future. This potential situation could lead to a new polarisation of Albanian politics, create a imbalance in electoral bids for the domestic population, and diminish focus on national priorities and reforms needed for the country's development.

There are other questions that might be raised for discussion about voting from the diaspora, but to close this article, we must stress that while the Albanian diaspora plays an important role in the country's history and development, the possibility of their voting from outside by mail and without restrictions presents major challenges for the integrity of the vote and carries deep implications on Albanian politics. While it can be argued that it is a way to encourage the participation of Albanian citizens living abroad in the democratic process, it is also important to consider the possible risks that come from them. Personally, given the size of the Albanian diaspora, I would have preferred a hybrid version of voting from outside of our immigrants through our embassies, which combines two international practices, and makes a difference between citizens who are temporary abroad and the consolidated diaspora who have no plans to return. In the first case, I would use Canada or Australia's aforementioned model of voting with the years of residence abroad for citizens who pledge to return and have not stayed as permanent residences for over 6-7 years abroad. The vote of these citizens with a temporary stance outside Albania would have to be considered equal to any resident voters in our lives. Second, I would adopt the model of Croatia or Portugal and add a 13th electoral zone to Albania dedicated to the diaspora with 3 deputies, which I would invite to vote on all diaspora members, despite the duration of their stay outside Albania.

That's my personal opinion, but what matters most is the need to develop an open, rational and honest public debate to address this neuroglobal issue properly. This debate should involve all interested parties, including experts in the field of constitutional law, political science and sociology. In addition, it is important to create clear and transparent mechanisms for voting from the diaspora, ensuring accurate voter identification, preventing fraud and protecting the integrity of the election process. I believe that only through a comprehensive and well-based approach on competence and nationality and not on electoral national estimates, Albania can find a solution to protect and advance its democracy and strengthen ties with the diaspora.