Saturday, December 10, 2011

This house would extend the right to vote in French municipal elections to non-EU residents - opening speeches

First proposing speech
Ladies and Gentlemen, France was once famous for being the country of the human rights. As the members of the chambers of Parliament have to give a ruling on whether granting or not the voting right in municipal election to non EU-residents, the senate eventually being in favor of this motion, it seems that for some French officials the motto “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” is applicable as long as you are a French national.  […]

by AJ

First opposing speech
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, our nation is undergoing a serious crisis, not only economic, but social and political too. More than ever, this nation needs to gather round ideas and values which founded our Republic and our Democracy. […]

by RV

First proposing speech
Ladies and Gentlemen, France was once famous for being the country of the human rights. As the members of the chambers of Parliament have to give a ruling on whether granting or not the voting right in municipal election to non EU-residents, the senate eventually being in favor of this motion, it seems that for some French officials the motto “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” is applicable as long as you are a French national.

We strongly support the motion, and so does the public opinion1. It raises the issue of integration and representation of a certain population and as a result questions the notion of citizenship.  But first I would like to warn the reader that my speech only concerns the foreigners whose stay in France is legal, as considering illegal immigration would lead to a whole another debate.

The principles of citizenship have been discussed since the ancient Greece, and theorized in social contract theories (Rousseau’s for example). In short a citizen is a member of a community willing to participate into the community’s life and decision making process. He is, as a result, given rights, such as the right to vote, and duties. A foreigner who has lived and worked in France for several years pays taxes, including a local residence tax, without any occasion to decide how his money will be spent as he enjoys no actual political rights such as the right to vote. “No taxation without representation” said the colons in America back in the 18th century, before the American Revolution. Let’s imagine that the only resident of a charming village lost in the French Alps2 is Japanese, it is very unlikely but it exhibits a paradox: the only member of the community is officially out of the decision making process. If such situation occurred the Prefect would design a French mayor and counselors from the municipalities around. Giving a limited, but yet significant, political clout to foreigners allowing them to vote in local elections is more than just a reward in exchange of tax money, it is a moral obligation.

Don’t misunderstand me, the motion’s purpose is not to give complete citizenship to foreigners without passing through a naturalization process, it is a rather unique occasion to destroy some sort of ethnical sectarianism through dialogue. Most non-EU residents in France are from Africa, and especially Maghreb. Sometimes living in sensible areas of the country and with limited income, such right to vote could give those people the opportunity to be involved and have a sort of responsibility in their municipality’s local life. The process of naturalization, although simpler in France than in other European country, is heavy in meaning and we have to respect every resident’s right to have his own national identity. The dual nationality procedures are likely to be a compromise for some people, but it excludes a non negligible amount of people from various countries in the world including Argentina for example. Allowing foreigners to participate in local debates could give them a first taste of the French democratic system and might sometimes be a first step towards the French democracy.

Some say that this only is political coup for the French socialists, a political manipulation right before the presidential elections in 2012, taking advantage of the majority recently won in the senate. Yet such measure is not only strongly encouraged by European institutions, it has been on the agenda of the high chamber since the presidency of François Mitterand, and its examination has been blocked until this year. The Senate has decided to be in favor of this right to vote and we strongly encourage the MPs reading those lines to reconsider their position and vote in favor of this motion, not taking in account any political calculation.

AJ
  1.  http://www.leparisien.fr/politique/sondage-61-des-francais-favorables-au-vote-des-etrangers-28-11-2011-1742468.php
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochefourchat
  3. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/144.htm

First opposing speech
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, our nation is undergoing a serious crisis, not only economic, but social and political too. More than ever, this nation needs to gather round ideas and values which founded our Republic and our Democracy.

Today, the proposition of giving the right to vote to non European people in local election is resurfacing in the political debate. I am going to prove you that even if this proposition needs to be debated in other period of time, to pass this law today would be hazardous and would lead to negative consequences on society.

Above all, this proposition would endanger the unity of the nation. To cope with the crisis, the inhabitants of the country have to stick together and to show solidarity. On the one hand they have to be ready to make sacrifices for their country, and on the other hand the country must be strong and united to inspire these sacrifices. That is why the duty of politicians is to reinforce the founder values of the nation and to clarify the notion of citizenship in people’s mind. Even if the idea of citizenship and of nationality becomes woollier and woollier in people’s mind, it remains at least one point which doesn’t suffer of any confusion: the nationality is deeply linked with the right of vote and vice versa. It is a strong symbol because the universal vote is one of the most crucial value of our Republic. Eventually, if we want to be more flexible, we could say that the right of vote needs to go along with the feeling of membership of a group. In France the group is Europe and it’s absolutely normal to give the right of vote to European people for local election. In England the group is the Commonwealth, and as the feeling of belonging to this group is strong and linked with their idea of monarchy, it is absolutely not shocking to widen the right of vote to the whole Commonwealth. Now let have a look to the system of the others great powerful European countries. In Germany and Italy, the government logically refuses the right of vote to non European people, but the case of Spain is particularly interesting: the country gives the right of vote to people who come from a country where Spanish people have the right of vote. It’s fair and logical: they sign a sort of pact of reciprocity. Once again, this system highlights the fact that the right of vote is connected to the idea of the membership of a group: here the group is created by a reciprocity treaty. These examples show that it would be senseless to break the fundamental relation which links the right of vote with the group identity feeling. If we give to foreigners the same rights than citizen’s, how can I feel that I belong to this country?  Admittedly my opponents could argue that they only suggest giving to foreigners the right of vote for local and not national election, but senators are elected in local election while they vote national laws. So let be clear: this proposition give to any foreigners the ability to influence the national politics.

Nevertheless, if foreigners want to take part to the political life of their host country, which is absolutely praiseworthy, the easiest solution is to ask for the naturalization. It would be a proof of their attachment to the country, and they would be also totally legitimate to vote and to influence politics.

Eventually, if we refuse the right of vote to non European people, it is not due to a lack of confidence, but because it puts into questions the bare notion of nation. Tackling this issue is dangerous in this turbulent period that our country is going though because it divides people when more than ever, French people must gather round founder values.

RV

4 comments:

  1. Dear Opposers,

    So far I understand that, to unite people, we have to reject non-european inhabitants.

    I think a genuine union of France inhabitants around the values of democracy and "civitas"(1) would be a better option than yours. Thus, this time IS the very time to allow foreigners to vote, on the contrary of your speech.

    (1) Designed the smaller administrative entity in the Roman Empire.

    GM

    ReplyDelete
  2. I liked that the proposing side really tried to define their idea of some of the concepts in this debate, citizenship for instance, which I felt was lacking from the opposing side. One thing that I missed though was how to motivate the right for foreigners to vote in municipal elections, thus indirectly influencing national politics, whilst denying them to vote directly in national elections. This point was also addressed by RV in his speech, and it is of utmost importance for the proposers that this question be rebutted in order to convince at least me.

    Furthermore, I feel that some of the points made by the opposers were accepted as fact without any proper justification, e.g. that giving the right of vote to foreigners would threaten the unity of the nation, why it would be logical for Germany and Italy to refuse these rights etc. It would have been more convincing to hear the chain of thoughts behind these statements.

    RJ

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ First Prop

    A foreigner pays taxes, including local tax, as you wrote. Therefore, your conclusion is that it is logical for him to take part in the decision over what is done with his tax money. Following your logic, foreigners should therefore be given the right to vote in any election. The tax one pays also finances other activities which do not depend upon the "conseil municipal". So why shouldn't one take part in those other decisions too?
    Furthermore, companies pay taxes also. Yet, they don't have the right to vote. Why not give it them so they have a say over the decisions that impact them?
    Such a proposition is absurd, obviously. Yet, companies do, however, manage to participate in the political debate through lobbying. Therefore, having a say over political decisions does not necessarily require having the right to vote.

    MD

    ReplyDelete
  4. @MD

    I think you missed one of the premises of my argument. The reason foreigners should be given a sort of "local citizenship", according to my definition of citizenship, is because they are part of a local community under the authority of a mayor. Having the same obligations (to pay taxes) and the same status INSIDE this specific community they also should be given political rights, that is to say the right to vote for local elections. However not being part of the community of French citizens, but being an American citizen or a Japanese citizen for example, prevents them from participating to national elections.

    It is the same for companies, which are only moral entities. Yet they can physically be represented by the employees who have the right to vote. You're point about lobbying is right, companies do have a say. But having a say and taking the actual decision through voting is a lot different.

    AJ

    ReplyDelete