By Gamini Abeywardane
With the
passing of the 21st amendment to the Constitution the issue of dual
citizens holding key political positions has come to the public domain again.
Unfortunately in our country greed for political power, rivalry and ill-gotten
money appear to be playing a key role behind the scene and as a result there is
no genuine public discussion on the matter. The majority of those who make
public utterances on this issue do so, on those lines and not on what is good
for the country at this point of time.
The
allegations are that the restrictions imposed target individuals, but it need
not be the exact case as many countries have continued to maintain such
citizenship restrictions for long due to a variety of reasons.
There have
been instances of nationals of one country holding important positions in
another country even without dual citizenships when that person is most
qualified and there are advantages for the country employing such person. Mark
Joseph Carney, a Canadian economist and a former governor of the Bank of Canada
was appointed the governor of the Bank of England in 2013 and served till 2020.
Another example is John Exter, the American economist who founded the Central
Bank of Ceylon and became its first governor. They were appointments
selectively made for very valid reasons.
If one wants
to argue in favour of dual citizenship holders there are so many examples, but
the question is whether a country should allow a dual citizen to hold a vitally
important position like a legislator, the prime minister or head of state. Most
countries do not allow such things.
India
Our closest
neighbour and comparable democracy India does not allow holding Indian
citizenship and citizenship of a foreign country simultaneously. In terms of Article
9 of the Constitution of India any person voluntarily acquiring the citizenship
of a foreign country will be relinquishing the Indian citizenship.
They have a
scheme called Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) which only allows people of
Indian origin and their spouses to live and work in India indefinitely, but
does not grant the right to vote in Indian elections or hold public office.
Although
India does not allow dual citizenship at all, they have introduced this system
to get the best out of overseas Indians who want to come and work in India. As
of 2020, there were around six million holders of OCI cards among the Indian
Overseas diaspora.
Australia
Australia is
also strict in their citizenship laws and native or ‘born and bred’ Australians
cannot obtain the citizenship of another country without losing Australian
nationality. However since they are a country which has been enjoying the
benefit of immigration for decades they allow the immigrants who obtain Australian
citizenship to retain dual citizenships in their countries of origin if it is
allowed by such countries. But the Australian citizenship laws expressly
prohibit foreign nationals and dual citizens from sitting in the parliament.
Section 44 of the Australian Constitution bars foreign citizens and dual
citizens from sitting in the federal legislature.
However in
this issue Australia seems to be alone compared to other major immigration
countries like the USA, Canada, and New Zealand, in prohibiting its citizens
from taking out another citizenship. The UK, it appears, has long promoted dual
citizenship. In these countries having a dual citizenship is not a
disqualification to be a legislator or to hold any other position.
Singapore
despite its much liberal economic outlook has long maintained restrictions on
citizenship. Anyone obtaining Singapore citizenship has to renounce citizenship
in his or her home country as they do not recognize dual nationality.
However it
appears that most countries have restrictions arising from government policy
and preferences which again depend on their own circumstances. There is no
universal rule to say whether dual citizenship should be allowed or even if it
is allowed whether that category of persons should be given the right to sit in
the legislature or hold high political positions.
National identity and sovereignty
A key factor
that has gone into consideration in this matter seems to be the core issue of national
identity and sovereignty and security.
Powerful
countries like the US and the UK have no such issue because no country can
interfere in their internal politics so that they can be quite liberal with
citizenship issues. Similarly migrants are unlikely to outnumber the natives in
those countries.
The
sensitivity of these issues will be paramount where foreign interferences are
dominant in internal politics of a country and it can be worst when a country
has economically collapsed.
The decision
of the Sri Lankan government to ban dual citizens from sitting in the
parliament in the latest constitutional amendment has to be viewed against this
background.