Abstract
ABSTRACTWhy hasn’t Uruguay enfranchised emigrants yet? This study examines an underresearched case of nonenfranchisement and engages with debates on external voting, diaspora politics, and citizenship beyond borders. Building on qualitative and participatory methods, the analysis unveils the obstacles to franchise reform despite significant progress from 2004 to 2019. Although external voting was not enacted legally, emigrants’ voting rights were debated, formally acknowledged, and encouraged. It is not the lack of norm entrepreneurs but the cumulative effect of indecisive actions that perpetuates a counterproductive dynamic and de facto uneven access to this right. An unresolved debate simultaneously advances conversations but precludes compromises, turning resolution deferral into an implicit form of regulating emigrants’ political inclusion or exclusion. Presenting original evidence, this study expands existing accounts, highlights the interaction between institutional and social drivers of change, and invites further research on the role of policy diffusion, domestic politics, and timing.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science,Geography, Planning and Development
Reference111 articles.
1. El Observador (Montevideo). 2020. Suprema Corte declarö inconstitucional ley que interpretaba que uruguayos podian votar en el exterior. April 24. https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/supremacorte-declaro-inconstitucional-ley-que-interpretaba-que-uruguayos-podian-votar-en-el-exterior-2020424173616. Accessed April 27, 2020.
2. Towards a Political Theory of Migrant Transnationalism
3. Extraterritorial Political Rights and Dual Citizenship in Latin America
4. External Voting Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean: The Influence of Remittances, Globalization, and Partisan Control
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献