Advertisement

Res Publica

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 101–117 | Cite as

A Fluid Demos for a Hypermigration Polity

  • Enrico BialeEmail author
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In this paper I will hold that it is desirable to ensure people be included within the borders and the political community both, but I will point out the potential incompatibility of the two. In an open-borders society, members of a polity would not be exclusively individuals who expect to stay in a country for a long time but also people who temporarily work and live there. Among this latter group would be individuals who would continuously migrate—call them hypermigrants. While I agree that hypermigrants cannot be fully included in the decision making, excluding them is problematic because it justifies a hierarchical society. The case of hypermigrants points to the tension between treating people as equals by including them in a democratic system whose members do not simply support their own interests but strive for the common good and by including them in an open-borders society that acknowledges their life plans as of equal worth. To overcome these problems I will claim that it is possible to justify an account of a fluid demos that provides different levels of political inclusion and addresses the challenges of a hypermigration polity. In this account, citizenship and full political inclusion are granted to permanent members only but hypermigrants are partially included. This perspective recognises every member of the polity as equal and ensures that she has control over the relevant political decisions without undermining the idea that citizenship requires a sense of belonging to the political community and concern for its long-term interests.

Keywords

Democratic boundary Open borders Demos Migration Citizenship Political inclusion 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank, for their insightful comments, Emanuela Ceva, Francesco Chiesa, Federica Liveriero and Valeria Ottonelli, as well as two anonymous referees.

References

  1. Arrhenius, Gustaf. 2005. The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory. In Democracy Unbound, ed. F. Tersman, 14–28. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  2. Bauböck, Rainer. 2009. Global Justice, Freedom of Movement, and Democratic Citizenship. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européenne de Sociologie 50: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauböck, Rainer. 2011. Temporary Migrants, Partial Citizenship and Hypermigration. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14: 665–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauböck, Rainer. 2017. Democratic Inclusion. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beitz, Charles. 1989. Political Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Biale, Enrico. 2015. Democratic Control and Contestation. Philosophy and Public Issues 5: 9–24.Google Scholar
  7. Biale, Enrico, and Federica Liveriero. 2017. A Multidimensional Account of Democratic Legitimation: How to Make Robust Decision in a Non-idealized Deliberative Context. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20: 580–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonotti, Matteo. 2011. Conceptualising Political Parties: A Normative Framework. Politics 31: 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carens, Joseph. 2013. The Ethics of Immigration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Castles, Stephen. 2006. Guestworkers in Europe: A Resurrection? International Migration Review 40: 741–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cole, Philip. 2000. Philosophies of Exclusion: Liberal Political Theory and Immigration. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dahl, Robert. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eldring, Line, Ian Fitzgerald, and Jens Arnholtz. 2012. Post-accession Migration in Construction and Trade Union Responses in Denmark, Norway and the UK. European Journal of Industrial Relations 18: 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erman, Eva. 2014. The Boundary Problem and the Ideal of Democracy. Constellations 21: 535–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald, Ian, and Jane Hardy. 2010a. ‘Thinking Outside the Box’? Trade Union Organizing Strategies and Polish Migrant Workers in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Industrial Relations 48: 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fitzgerald, Ian, and Jane Hardy. 2010b. Negotiating ‘Solidarity’ and Internationalism: The Response of Polish Trade Unions to Migration. Industrial Relations Journal 41: 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fung, Archon. 2013. The Principle of All-Affected Interests: An Interpretation and Defence. In Representation: Elections and Beyond, ed. J. H. Nagel and J. R. Smith, 236–268. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goodin, Robert. 2007. Enfranchising All-Affected Interests and Its Alternatives. Philosophy & Public Affairs 35: 40–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kostakopoulou, Dora. 2008. The Future Governance of Citizenship. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larmore, Charles. 1999. The Idea of A Life Plan. Social Philosophy and Policy 16: 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. LaVaque-Manty, Mika. 2002. Arguments and Fists. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Lenard, Patti Tamara. 2012. Why Temporary Labour Migration is Not a Satisfactory Alternative to Permanent Migration. Journal of International Political Theory 8: 172–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Governments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, David. 2000. Citizenship and National Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  25. Muirhead, Russel. 2014. The Promise of Party in A Polarized Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Näsström, Sofia. 2011. The Challenge of the All-Affected Principle. Political Studies 59: 116–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ottonelli, Valeria. 2012. Equal Respect, Equal Competence and Democratic Legitimacy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15: 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ottonelli, Valeria, and Tiziana Torresi. 2012. Inclusivist Egalitarian Liberalism and Temporary Migration: A Dilemma. Journal of Political Philosophy 20: 202–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ottonelli, Valeria, and Tiziana Torresi. 2014. Temporary Migration Projects and Voting Rights. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17: 580–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Owen, David. 2011. Transnational Citizenship and the Democratic State: Modes of Membership and Voting Rights. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14: 641–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Owen, David. 2012. Constituting the Polity, Constituting the Demos: On the Place of the All Affected Interests Principle in Democratic Theory and in Resolving the Democratic Boundary Problem. Ethics & Global Politics 5: 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peter, Fabienne. 2009. Democratic Legitimacy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rosenblum, Nancy L. 2010. On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saffon, Maria Paula, and Nadia Urbinati. 2013. Procedural Democracy, the Bulwark of Equal Liberty. Political Theory 41: 441–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schaffer, Johan Karlsson. 2012. The Boundaries of Transnational Democracy: Alternatives to the All-Affected Principle. Review of International Studies 38: 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlotzman, Kay L., Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Song, Sarah. 2012. The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: Why the Demos Should Be Bounded by the State. International Theory 4: 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Uetricht, Micah. 2014. Strike for America. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  40. Verba, Sidney, Norman H. Nie, and Jae-on Kim. 1978. Participation and Political Equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Whelan, Fredrick. 1983. Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem. In Nomos XXV: Liberal Democracy, ed. J. Pennock, J. Ronald, and J. W. Chapman, 13–47. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  42. White, Jonhatan, and Lea Ypi. 2010. Rethinking the Modern Prince: Partisanship and the Democratic Ethos. Political Studies 58: 809–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. White, Jonhatan, and Lea Ypi. 2016. The Meaning of Partisanship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HumanitiesUniversity of Piemonte OrientaleVercelliItaly

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options