Search results
Bauböck is ascribing to expatriate voting rights. The second concerns the non-identity of citizenship and authorial membership of the demos. I'll address these in turn. In earlier work explicitly addressing the external franchise, Bauböck ( 2007 ) argues that expatriate voting is neither required nor forbidden by justice. Consider two sets of remarks. In the first, Bauböck reiterates the stakeholder principle
set of circumstances under which expatriates would have a justice-based claim to inclusion in a constitutional demos. It is not entirely clear to me for what kind of decisions a constitutional demos would have to be specified. Owen identifies a narrow class of constitutional decisions that “directly [concern] [non-residents’] very status as citizens” and that “specify the entitlements and obligations of citizens – such as, for example, laws
Borders .” Political Theory 36 : 37–65 . Arrhenius , Gustaf . 2005 . “ The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory .” In (ed.), Democracy Unbound , edited by Folke Tersman . Stockholm : Stockholm University : 14–29 . Bauböck , Rainer 2015 . “ Morphing the Demos into the Right Shape: Normative Principles for Enfranchising Resident Aliens and Expatriate
expatriates, 13 which could eventually undermine the salience and stability of territorial political boundaries. A second reason is that democracy also needs a sense of “ownership” and belonging to the polity. It is difficult to imagine how hypermobile populations could be citizens of the territorial polity who authorize the government that issues and implements the laws to which they are subjected. If there is a relatively sedentary core population