By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Estonia’s Riigikogu passed a constitutional amendment, with 93 votes in favor and 7 against, revoking voting rights in local elections for Russian and Belarusian citizens. While stateless residents may vote in this year’s October elections, this privilege will be removed after the next election cycle. The amendment, passed via an expedited process, also removes voting rights for citizens of NATO member states, leaving only Estonian and EU citizens eligible to vote in future local elections. This change follows a proposed amendment to limit voting rights for third-country nationals, passed with 55 votes.
Read the original article here
Estonia’s recent constitutional amendment revoking the voting rights of Russian and Belarusian citizens residing in the country has sparked considerable debate. The initial surprise stems from the fact that these citizens previously held the right to vote in Estonian elections. This raises questions about the historical context and the implications of this change.
The amendment specifically targets third-country nationals, including those from Russia and Belarus, who will no longer be able to vote in local elections. This change will extend to stateless individuals after the next election cycle. This alteration shifts the focus from long-term residency permits to the necessity of Estonian or EU citizenship for participation in local elections. Parliamentary elections, however, remain exclusive to Estonian citizens.
The amendment is a significant shift in Estonian electoral policy. The rationale behind the change likely involves concerns about foreign influence and the potential for manipulation of the electoral process. This perspective is understandable, especially given Estonia’s history of Soviet occupation, which involved substantial Russian influence. The experience of Soviet rule, including forced assimilation, the suppression of Estonian culture, and the influx of Russian settlers, casts a long shadow on current political decisions.
While the amendment is arguably a matter of national security in this context, many observers see a shift towards a more nationalist approach. This policy adjustment may be viewed as a necessary measure to safeguard Estonia’s sovereignty and protect its democratic processes from external interference, particularly from Russia. It’s easy to understand why such protective measures might be enacted, and they do align with a broad definition of national interest.
The amendment’s effect will be felt primarily in local elections, leaving parliamentary voting rights unchanged for non-Estonian EU citizens. This nuanced approach acknowledges the differing levels of influence exerted at the local and national levels. The exclusion of Russian and Belarusian citizens from local voting rights comes in response to decades of subtle and blatant interference in Estonian political and societal structures.
However, a crucial point to consider is the distinction between nationalism and patriotism. The change may be seen as a protective measure born out of national security concerns, rather than a blanket rejection of foreign residents. The line between a responsible safeguarding of national interests and a more exclusionary nationalism is blurry and undoubtedly a subject of vigorous debate both within and outside of Estonia.
A comparative perspective reveals that some countries permit non-citizens to vote in local elections, while others, like Estonia now, do not. The permissiveness of non-citizen voting in different countries varies widely, with many examples and many exceptions. Some European countries have historically allowed such voting in local contexts. These differences often reflect a blend of historical, cultural, and political factors that vary significantly from country to country.
The debate is further complicated by the dual citizenship issue. Even where dual citizenship is permitted, the right to vote isn’t necessarily guaranteed universally. The amendment simplifies the equation by linking the right to vote in local elections exclusively to Estonian or EU citizenship. This eliminates the complexities that arise from multiple citizenships and differing national laws.
Estonia’s decision is not made in a vacuum, and it reflects a history heavily influenced by its tumultuous past and ongoing relationship with Russia. The desire to shield its democracy from external manipulation is paramount, which explains the rationale behind these legislative changes. These changes undoubtedly serve to protect Estonian interests and identity. The debate, however, is far from settled and highlights the delicate balance between national security, immigrant rights, and the very definition of democratic participation.