The role of the diaspora in constitutional order has been in the news recently, most immediately in stories out of Kenya, Haiti, Grenada, and Jamaica, where questions of the diaspora’s constitutional power have arisen in two distinct ways.
For Jamaica, Haiti, and Kenya, the issue is whether or not members of the countries’ diaspora should be allowed to vote in general elections or run for office. In Jamaica, where calls to give members of the diaspora some or all of those rights have been contested by other members of the diaspora, the debate has been complicated by Sections 39 and 40 of the nation’s constitution. Those provisions permit citizens of the Commonwealth countries who have lived in Jamaica for twelve months to be appointed to the nation’s Senate or elected to the House of Representatives. The argument is that this provision already dilutes citizenship by politically empowering people with only the most tenuous connections to the country.
For Jamaica, Haiti, and Kenya, the issue is whether or not members of the countries’ diaspora should be allowed to vote in general elections or run for office. In Jamaica, where calls to give members of the diaspora some or all of those rights have been contested by other members of the diaspora, the debate has been complicated by Sections 39 and 40 of the nation’s constitution. Those provisions permit citizens of the Commonwealth countries who have lived in Jamaica for twelve months to be appointed to the nation’s Senate or elected to the House of Representatives. The argument is that this provision already dilutes citizenship by politically empowering people with only the most tenuous connections to the country.