Dual Citizenship and Nepal’s Innovation Systems:-
- Nepal News Online
Dual or joint citizenship has become a genuine demand of time, not an option in the 21 st century. Global citizenship is not only necessary to find new ways of addressing global problems, such as climate change, food crisis and financial crisis but also local problems, such as poverty, hunger, malnutrition, social exclusion, having global implications. The more we interact as global citizens, the better solutions can emerge.
The concept of citizenship is changing with increasing transnational mobility of human beings and greater concerns for our planet earth. This urges us to redefine citizenship in new ways, and subsequently challenging the conventional view of citizens as residents of a particular country. In its simplest meaning, citizenship is the state of being a member of a particular country or a group of countries and having rights and responsibilities because of it. For example, dual citizenship provides membership of two countries at a time, joint citizenship presents association of an individual with two or more countries, and global citizenship relates to self-declared responsibility to our planet earth. Indeed, we are global citizens.
Dual or joint citizenship has become a genuine demand of time, not an option in the 21 st century. Global citizenship is not only necessary to find new ways of addressing global problems, such as climate change, food crisis and financial crisis but also local problems, such as poverty, hunger, malnutrition, social exclusion, having global implications. The more we interact as global citizens, the better solutions can emerge.
International migration is one way to facilitate human interaction as global citizens. In this process, both sending and receiving countries can benefit from transnational act of learning and innovation, the former can benefit more than the latter, specifically if the sending country is less developed. Dual citizenship is one way to facilitate this process. But how is the country like Nepal that sends immigrants benefits more than a receiving country?
Based on a study of the World Bank Institute, in an earlier Nepalnews guest column I had discussed five major ways the Diaspora can contribute the building of national innovation systems of a sending country, with specific example of Nepal: remittance, donation, investment, learning and innovation, and institutional reforms. How does a provision of dual citizenship to Nepalese Diaspora facilitate these ways of building new Nepal, and what implications would it have for a receiving country like Canada where dual citizenship is a long tradition? Why should sending countries like Nepal keep on bothering about dual citizenship if they are gainers in this global exchange of knowledge and skills?
Within the economic realm, sending countries need to change their preoccupation that Diaspora is simply the source of remittance. Remittance flow can continue without the provision of dual citizenship as long as individuals hold loyalties based on privately held identities, such as religion, race, ethnicity, kinship and ideology.
Similarly, human beings as global citizens are free to donate money irrespective of citizenship. Official grants for international development come through the tax payers, the citizens of developed countries who may not have traveled to developing countries. Moreover, an individual citizen in a developed country like Canada sponsors a child in developing countries irrespective of his or her citizenship. However, citizenship matters for investment, innovation and institutional reforms.
Then how joint or dual citizenship facilitates innovation and growth in a low-income country? Individuals are more likely to invest in a country where they have continuous connection and belongingness, let alone a citizenship. It is a way to give back.
The first generation Diaspora is more obliged to give back because the sending country invested a lot on them. The subsequent generations of Diaspora would also consider giving back to their ancestral land provided enough connections are maintained. This is why the first generation Diaspora is seriously concerned to raise their kids in between two cultures, teaching values of both sending and receiving countries. Joint or dual citizenship can facilitate this process.
Regardless of the provision of dual citizenship in sending countries, receiving countries like Canada have substantial investments for developing language and culture of people with diverse cultural heritage. This is an expression of tolerance in a receiving country. It would be ironic if a sending country fails to express similar tolerance against her Diaspora community. Professor Richard Florida writes that technology, talent and tolerance (3T) are three key ingredients for the prosperity of an economy.
In the 21 st century, if nation states are competing for anything, it is mainly for talents. The new source of international competence lies on learning and innovation. Specifically, English speaking countries, such as Canada, the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, encourage their international graduate students to stay after graduation. Joint or dual citizenship can be a way to retain or attract talented people. While people are inherently on the move, a provision of joint citizenship of sending and receiving country is very important to maintain two-way human mobility and to facilitate transnational learning and innovation. But how can we increase our tolerance in terms of citizenship?
Citizenships are either based on jussanguinis (based on blood or race as in Germany) or jus soli (based on birth right as in most other countries). If Nepal’s new constitution adopts a mixed approach to define Nepalese citizenship integrating these two bases, Nepalese Diaspora would automatically fall under the new definition of Nepalese citizenship.
Wherever people travel for whatever reasons, they are recognised based on the cultural heritage of sending countries, such as Nepalese Canadian, Nepalese American, Nepalese German and so on, ever after several generations irrespective of their specific citizenship status. Citizenship is just a piece of legal document and our outlook and value systems matter in everyday life. For example, the US president Barrack Obama has become first African American president although he was born and brought up by a white American mother. One of the sources of tolerance in the 21 st century is to acknowledge mixed identities, and one way to recognize this is through joint or dual citizenship.
Naturalisation of immigrants in receiving countries is equally beneficial for sending countries. For example, Canada grants dual citizenships to her landed immigrants after three years of residence, and this is one way to express tolerance to multiculturalism. Moreover, Canadian citizens and immigrants exercise equal rights and responsibilities except their participation in political processes and some federal employments. This facilitates naturalization of immigrants speeding up their integration into to Canadian society.
In Canada, once an immigrant becomes a citizen, he or she can unconditionally participate in political processes, employment in federal ministries including military service no matter whether one carries the citizenship of the sending country or not. Since professionally established immigrants are more likely to facilitate learning and innovation is their ancestral land, constitutional activists ask that why sending countries hesitate to grant dual citizenship to their Diaspora. Is it a potential threat to national sovereignty?
In Canada there is no realised threat of the constitutional provision of dual citizenship to her immigrants from all over the world. There is not realised threat to national sovereignty. Since immigrants are loyal to both sending and receiving countries, unconditional citizenship of two or more countries does not provide a threat to national sovereignty of neither receiving nor sending country.
There are also evidences that federal services including military service, can be offered to foreign citizens even before foreigners are granted citizenship. For example, Gurkhas have been serving in the British Army for decades and it is an excellent example of how British sovereignty is maintained despite the recruitment of Nepalese citizens in the military service. Only recently they have been offered permanent residence in the UK. Any kind of restriction to Nepalese Diaspora to serve their ancestral land is ironic and will be against the demand of time.
Research finds that when sending countries like Nepal do not have a provision of dual citizenship, immigrants hesitate to denounce citizenship of his or her country of origin and they subsequently delay or never become a citizen of a receiving country. For example, there are instances that one of the spouses remains citizen of the receiving country even after decades of residence in a receiving country simply to maintain legal attachment to their country of origin. This practice can have several negative implications including ones involvement in political processes and institutional reforms. Gender equity is another concern arising from this practice.
Since the sending countries are usually the winner of the provision of a dual citizenship, the constitutional provision of Nepal should meet the genuine aspirations of Nepalese Diaspora for a provision of unconditional dual citizenship. Diaspora should be allowed to involve in political processes, policy formulations and government employment including military services. One way to attract the pool of talents among Diaspora is to remove the age limit to recruit in government services and facilitate lateral entries based on educational qualification and experience. This helps transnational learning and innovation.
In addition to the provision of unconditional dual citizenship, low-income countries should attract the worldwide pool of talents through various other means. Ghana, one of the countries of Sub-Sarahan Africa, not only passed Dual Citizenship Act (2000) but also the former president Jerry Rawlings is in favour of allowing African Diaspora the rights to apply for Ghanaian citizenship while maintaining their foreign citizenship recognising their potential to invest and innovate in Ghana. This was a call to grant citizenship to all African Diaspora based on race and blood, not just Ghanaian Diaspora.
In Nepal, there can be constitutional provision to grant permanent residency to people of not only Nepalese heritage living in developed countries, but also to citizens of the industrialised countries as some of them may choose Nepal as their destination. For example, Barbara Adams, an American lady who first came to Nepal in the 1960s, patiently wanted for nearly five decades before she received Nepalese citizenship.
Who knows Nepal can regain the name of Himalayan Shangri-La through charismatic political leadership. Constitutional provisions need to be strategic and farsighted without any potential compromises in the future. Let us think beyond what is obvious in the present time. The new constitution of Nepal may include a provision of global citizenship to our fellow human beings, not just dual or joint citizenship to Nepalese Diaspora.
(The author is completing a PhD at the University of Guelph, Canada. His PhD dissertation investigates innovation systems in agriculture in Nepal and India. Write to him: laxmi_pant@yahoo.com)
(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to editors@mos.com.np)
(Registration required)
