Citizenship and Constitution Mismatch in Australia - 29 July 2017

 

Citizenship and Constitution Mismatch in Australia

The issue of dual citizenship has caused much angst in the Australian Parliament. Several senators and members of Parliament appear to be affected. Many appear to be interested in this issue from a narrow point of view of protecting the current regime or simply getting rid of it. However, the crux of the matter that needs to be considered is whether the constitution is appropriate for the current globalised era. The contradiction between the national and international character of states are becoming pretty evident. Currently, a citizen swears allegiance to the country’s constitution and to abide by its laws. Under this arrangement, a dual national needs to swear allegiance to two national constitutions. In practice, they usually abide by the constitution of the country where they are currently resident. However, they are still supposed to respect and observe the constitutions of all the countries they are citizens of. Under these circumstances, how can one prove that s/he does not adhere to the constitution of her/his original country?

Subsection 44 (i) of the Australian Constitution relates to the dual citizenship issue, " ... under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power". Can this stipulation be considered just and fair? The Australian Constitution, passed in the British Parliament as part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, came into effect on 1 January 1901. Obviously, it was designed to safeguard the privileges and interests of the then colonialist British rule.

Australia still holds onto the monarchy and the British designed constitution, meanwhile the world has changed and the question of the relevance of the constitution is never aired. The world has become more liberal and we are passing through a neo-liberal economic phase. Many countries enacted legislation to protect democratic rights of individuals and communities. The world has become more globalised. Many states have changed from mono-cultural to multi-cultural. Capital investment can freely roam around the globe, but the citizens as individuals cannot yet do so. Capitalist globalisation is limited to the extent that a global citizenship to match the free movement of investment is yet to develop.

Subsection 44 (i) of the Constitution appears to prevent or disqualify dual nationals who are about half the Australian population; unless they proactively rescind the other citizenship and rebut the stipulated disqualification. Many people have moved to Australia from overseas at a very young age, mostly with their parents. These young people may not have an idea about their citizenship status as it relates to the laws that were prevalent at the time they crossed national boundaries and moved to the new country.

If people are disqualified because of their association with or relationship to another country, how could then one expect that internationalism or globalisation is something positive and constructive? In a progressively globalising world, do we need to hold onto gradually weakening nationalistic concepts such as allegiance to a constitution of a single country? Could we say the same thing about those individuals such as business stakeholders with multiple citizenships, who would hold higher ranks in many transnational commercial enterprises?

Why is a person with dual or multiple citizenship not suitable for representing the people of a country, where national sovereignty is increasingly becoming transgressed due to the economic necessities of capitalist globalisation? In countries like Australia and Canada a significant part of the population has been born overseas. Over 28 per cent of Australians were born overseas. As a matter of fact, their dependants will continue to have cultural ties with the country which their parents originally came from. We need to accept the fact that these people with such international connections are assets to the country where they reside, not a burden. Despite this change, there has been only a marginal shift in the way this population is represented in the Parliament.

What happens with these people whose rights needs to be guaranteed under the UN Human Rights Charter that recognises basic rights and fundamental freedoms as inherent to all human beings? If they are disqualified by law to be elected to be representatives of the people in their new adopted country, how can we guarantee that their basic rights and fundamental freedoms are protected? In this light, don’t states like Australia bound under the international law to protect peoples’ fundamental democratic and human rights?

Isn't it time to make a commitment to upholding dignity and justice for all, irrespective of our nationality, language, religion, colour, place of residence, gender, ethnic or national origin etc.? Therefore, the challenge would be to accept the status of a person, who has sworn her/his de facto allegiance to the constitution of the country where s/he resides in. Disqualification of allegiance to the people of a state should be based on substantiated evidence and proof that one has committed acts that have contradicted that allegiance.

As such, subsection 44(i) of the Constitution conceived and written with a colonial mindset, sees nationalism restricted to a single country. It is increasingly becoming irrelevant and a bar for a large percentage of population in engaging in parliamentary politics. It needs to be rescinded.