Voting Rights, Electoral Systems, and Political Representation of Diaspora in Croatia

Abstract

Croatia represents in many respects a unique case in the world in the way it standardized the right to vote, the electoral model, and the pattem of political representation of the diaspora in the national parliament. Besides standard theoretical arguments that explain the right of diaspora members to vote in parliamentary and presidential elections in the country, the authorities made use of a number of contextually specific political, economic, military, and moral reasons for that. It was shown that principled reasons which were used to justify legalizing diaspora voting rights and institutionalization of special electoral models as well as the pattems of political representation in the Croatian parliament were subordinated to the interests to symbolically integrate the Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina in the political system of Croatia, who would then, as a sort of generic voters, secure safe votes and bonus seats for the Croatian Democratic Union, Legalizing Diaspora Voting Rights in CroatiaDespite the fact that different types of diaspora voting and voting of citizens temporarily living outside their mother countries existed akeady in some older historical periods,' this issue did not come into focus of theoretical and political disputes until the end of the twentieth century. Economic, political, and cultural globalization, mass migration from economically undeveloped to developed countries, an increasing number of refugees, expellees and displaced persons from conflict and postconflict societies, the third wave of democratization, and the formation of new nation-states in Europe and Asia as well as political activation of old and new diasporas changed the perception, standardization, and institutionalization of constitutive political categories such as citizenship, voting rights, and political representation.

The extra-territorial paradox of voting: the duty to vote in extra-territorial elections

“…43 However, kin-states such as Romania and Croatia offer an emotive and reparative justification for kin-citizen enfranchisement, where citizenship is both a form of "moral compensation" and reward for past contributions. 44 This logic needs to be combined with a more cynical analysis of domestic politics, where this kind of enfranchisement (via citizenship facilitation of co-ethnic communities) is advanced primarily by right-wing populist governments in states with dynamic election rules to use post-territorial nation-building as a mechanism also of electioneering by creating sympathetic new co-ethnic citizens, and hence, voters. 45 Empirically, kin-citizen voting practices remain more contentious and influential, such as in Romania.…”

“…The demos too has become post-nationalized: By the beginning of the twenty-first century, over 100 states had enfranchised the right of permanently external citizens "to keep their citizenship and voting rights". 6 This article shifts away from the migration-centred focus of citizenship acquisition and political participation towards the enfranchisement of citizens following their acquisition of citizenship from kin-states in which they have never resided (kin-citizens). This expansion, and extra-territorialization, of citizenries is especially concentrated in postcommunist examples (for example, Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Serbia) where states facilitate citizenship acquisition for external communities considered "kin" (co-ethnic).…”

“…For example, in Croatia's 2005 presidential elections, extra-territorial kin-citizens forced a run-off election between the incumbent president and the more nationalist Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) candidate, a party favoured by kin-citizens, especially ethnic Croats residing in Bosnia Herzegovina (BiH). 8 Analysing this puzzle of extra-territorial kin-citizen participation, this article uses the case study of Moldova to analyse those who have "reacquired" Romanian citizenship, and unpack whether, how, and why Romanian kin-citizens within Moldova participate in Romanian elections.…”

'Abolishing All Mechanisms for Fixing Elections': The Citizens' Initiative to Change the Electoral System of Croatia

“…In 1995, the Croatian Parliament 'invented' separate seats for the diaspora, i.e. Croatian citizens who live abroad, although the number of diaspora MPs has changed several times, ranging from 12 to 3 (see Kasapović, 2012). The Parliament also changed the legal threshold for single parties or coalitions several times.…”

“…The electoral threshold for the allocation of mandates applied at the level of the electoral constituencies amounts to 5 per cent. Additionally, there are two non-territorial electoral constituencies, from which three diaspora representatives (see Kasapović, 2012) and eight national minority representatives (see Omejec, 2004) are elected.…”