The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: A Mobility Perspective

• In Event: The Politics of Migrant Visibility and Invisibility

Abstract

In democratic theory, there is a significant debate on determining who should be part of the demos. Scholars have challenged the national and territorial membership boundaries of the modern state as the basis for defining the demos. In order to justify the formation of the demos, they proposed principles such as the all-affected principle, the all-subjected principle, coercion principle, residency principle, social membership principle, and stakeholder principle. These principles expanded the boundaries of the demos in different ways and included those who have not been considered as members of a polity before (e.g., non-citizen residents), and sometimes those who do not even reside in that polity (e.g., external voting). Besides, some of these principles that suggest differentiated jurisdictions for each democratic decision-making blur the distinction between members and non-members, residents and non-residents, and raise further questions. In this paper, I explore the demos question from a mobility perspective and ask: What rights of democratic participation, if any, are owed to non-citizen travelers, short-term and circular migrants who do not reside in the country that they visit? I argue that travelers, short-term and circular migrants are owed circumscribed rights of democratic participation, though not necessarily citizenship or a full set of voting rights.

Author

• Ugur Altundal, Loyola University Maryland