How much do national political parties in Europe try to reach citizens who live abroad? Traditionally, party organisations operated within state borders, but the increasing mobility of national citizens requires new forms of interconnectedness. A transnational arena has emerged in which parties connect external citizens with domestic politics to secure votes, writes Adrian Favero
In 2022, an estimated 281 million people (about 3.6 % of the world’s population) lived in a country other than their country of origin. This is an increase of nine million since 2019, and 128 million more than in 1990. In 2019, 3.3% of working-age EU citizens – around 14.8 million – resided in an EU country that was not their state of citizenship.
With larger migration flows, democratic representation, universal suffrage, and governance are no longer exclusively based on place of residence
The rise in citizen mobility has implications for democratic participation. Traditionally, the Westphalian state model defined political rights. The boundaries of the nation state were the defining arena of citizenship rights, such as voting. However, with larger migration flows, political will formation, democratic representation, universal suffrage, and governance are no longer exclusively based on the congruence of place of residence and citizenship.
Consequently, numerous countries have enfranchised non-resident citizens. Globally, over 149 states have introduced voting rights for citizens living abroad. In Europe, 39 of the 46 states in the Council of Europe allow extensive political participation of expatriates. This migrant enfranchisement has compelled national political actors to reinvent and transform their political paradigms.
The global – and especially European – emergence of external citizenship rights demonstrates a 'progressive adaptation of democratic practices to changing conceptions of political membership'. The new democratic rights for external citizens constitute a new challenge for national political parties. It prompts them to rethink their ability to provide a link between the state and citizens. A growing number of citizens are now living abroad. Political parties, therefore, must adapt and expand their activities to compete in an arena that exceeds national boundaries.
Consequently, the strategies and organisational methods used to reach these non-residents become increasingly decisive for political parties. Engaging with external citizens is instrumental for political communication. Parties need to mobilise these voters to win elections and ensure their political rights. Examining the variations in parties’ outreach operations is crucial to understand how and why they connect with citizens living abroad.
National political parties developed new models in response to cross-border movements of large numbers of people who retain citizenship and democratic rights in their country of origin. We can define these transnational party operations and strategies as 'any formal or informal establishment, function, or activity of a national political party, outside the borders of the country of origin'.
Political parties developed new models in response to cross-border movements of large numbers of people who retain citizenship and democratic rights in their country of origin
By reaching out to citizens abroad, political parties perform democratic functions. They act according to their objectives through online and offline operations and activities. Many parties employ a cost-effective social media presence or online services to reach diasporas. Fewer parties invest in a physical transnational infrastructure to reach external citizens. This is interesting because direct engagement is often seen as more effective than connecting by phone or email. Such physical transnational organisations can include international divisions, participation in international networks, formal or informal party branches abroad, or single contact persons.
Existing studies find multiple factors that influence physical party engagement abroad. From a utilitarian perspective such engagement may be driven by cost-benefit calculations. Other reasons for investments in transnational party organisations include; legitimacy-seeking, mobilising the expat electorate, comparatively fewer restrictions on voting from abroad, proportional voting systems, electronic or postal voting, and if expats have special emigrant representatives in the national parliament. If the number of external citizens is large and concentrated in urban areas, and if they show a consistently high voter turnout, national political parties tend to be more transnationally focused.
Aside from incentives, it is also important to evaluate which parties develop physical operations abroad. Looking at larger parties in Germany, France and the UK, one study finds that they invest in more formal physical outreach in countries where they expect the most financial and electoral gains.
Another study looks at countries outside Europe: France, Germany, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, and the US. This study examines the outreach strategies of the largest political parties based on national legal frameworks. The authors find that many of these parties strive to build transnational networks. However, ties with the political party in the home country vary and do not follow a specific pattern.
Smaller, regionally orientated parties provide only limited transnational infrastructure
In my recent research, I compare all 22 parties represented in the national parliaments in Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. I find that smaller, regionally orientated parties provide only limited transnational infrastructure. In contrast, larger and more institutionalised parties are more likely to invest in transnational organisations and in a more formally organised way, too. However, some well-established parties – like the Greens in all three countries – rely mostly on existing networks of parties that share their ideology and goals. I also find that being left or right, and being part of the populist party family, does not affect the extent or type of transnational party organisation.
Increased migration flows and new social realities challenge traditional understandings of the relationship between borders, citizenship rights, and political participation. As the democratic sphere extends beyond national boundaries, transnational party organisations and activities have a larger part to play. Parties abroad integrate the diaspora into domestic politics, act as channels of democratic representation and motivate external residents to vote. Therefore, it is essential to learn more about how and why (or why not) political parties try to reach citizens who live abroad.
