It came as a bit of surprise to learn that several Kenyan diasporans do not back the proposal for a diaspora MP. One such argument was made on these pages by Stephanie Migot : a pleasure to read, but I am unable to see a way to agreeing with her view. So I'd best set out my reasons.

My instant reaction, as I posted to my Twitter account, as “Hell to the no!” As far as I am concerned, while I take a keen interest in events at home and feel I have the right to agitate for reform, I am fully recognizant of the fact that by living abroad, I have placed myself at a remove from the democratic process. With no business interests in Kenya, I pay no taxes. As I can't be there on polling day, I don't vote. I am an observer rather than a participant.

The issue here is representation -- not merely the right to agitate for reform. The argument, as given, is that by going abroad, and placing oneself at a remove from the democratic process one has given up the right to political representation. That's because it's not entirely clear how the other reasons are supposed to work. Paying taxes can't be a necessary condition of political representation, since tax-evaders; all those whose earnings fall below the minimum taxable amount; the churches and charities which take direct tax exemptions; members of religious orders who take vows of poverty and the MPs who so famously managed to protect their incomes from the taxman, all retain their right to participate and representation. Presence in the country for voting purposes simply folds into the first point about living abroad, since what matters here is the effect of location on one's right to political representation.

But that argument is unpromising. Our ambassadors and high commissioners and whatnot don't lose their right to representation simply because they voluntarily choose to live outside the country -- if anything, they're perhaps too closely involved in the political process for their own good. One might think that there's a difference here in that the ambassador is, ideally, a public servant who happens to be doing his job abroad. He remains under the jurisdiction, the legal power, of the Kenyan state, which allows him to continue his participation in its politics. The would-be diaspora voter, by contrast, has voluntarily left the jurisdiction of the state. Perhaps that's what really counts. But this can't save the argument as stated, because, remember, the original point was that having voluntarily left Kenya was enough to remove the right to participate in the democratic process.

Let's take stock. Migot's main argument against a presumed right to diaspora representation has two parts: taxes and location. Taxes simply can't do the job: not paying taxes is perfectly compatible with a right to political participation. No representation without taxation isn't true. We're left with location. That won't do either, because there's a bunch of cases in which people voluntarily leave the country (even for quite long periods) while retaining their right to political participation and representation. The distinction is between voluntarily leaving the country, and voluntarily renouncing citizenship (or whatever legal status is necessary to participate in Kenya's politics). Too many arguments about the diaspora run them together.

It's one thing to show that some group that has the right to political representation, quite another to show that the group has actual members. Migot's next argument is that there is no clear way to decide who counts as diaspora for the purpose of representation, so no clear way of finding if the group has actual members.

Nevertheless, I don't want an MP to represent my interests, and I don't believe the diaspora needs one. For one, who are the diaspora? Are they the Kenyans who have moved to the USA but still make the occasional visit home? Or are they the students who have travelled to universities in India? Do the children of Kenyans who moved abroad count? What about those who have moved abroad with their foreign spouses? How to decide who gets a say? Next, given that the diaspora – by their very nature – are scattered to the four corners of the globe, how on earth would a single MP represent their interests? Where would this MP be based, and would the diaspora be expected to subsidise the costs of their travel as they travelled from country to country seeking votes?

But this is fairly unconvincing, I think. The main division is between those who are out of the country temporarily, and those who have left the country for a long time, or permanently. I think both of them count as diaspora. Migot's argument gains its initial plausibility from the obvious diversity of the cases: it seems very odd to count someone who has just left the country to work or study for a few years, and someone who has left to make a life elsewhere, as equally entitled to diaspora representation. But once we separate diaspora representation and representation as diaspora, then things look better. The first has to do with the right of non-resident Kenyan citizen to exercise their political right to choose their representative. The second is about the right of non-resident Kenyans to have their interests as non-resident Kenyans represented. The first problem can be solved by making it possible for non-residents to vote in Kenyan elections even when they're outside the country; the second by allowing them to vote and allowing a diaspora MP's seat (or a diaspora Senator). Conflating the two is what appears to drive the objection. The Australian example is some use here: we might allow Kenyans who haven't been resident in the country for up to five years to vote in their last constituency. Any Kenyan who has not been resident in Kenya for more than five years would be eligible to vote, but only for the diaspora MP and Presidential candidates, on registering as a non-resident at the nearest Kenyan consulate. That seems to me to catch the distinction that Steff is looking for: there are clearly non-resident Kenyans who are out of the country for short or temporary stays, and it seems pointless to count them as diasporans.

I would, incidentally, count the children of Kenyan diasporans as themselves diasporans. Kenyan law allows transmission of citizenship by descent. The children of Kenyan citizens born abroad are already Kenyan citizens. If I am right, Kenyan citizens abroad have or should have the right to representation as diaspora. If so, they should be able to transmit that right to their children, as with citizenship.

Finally, Migot wonders where the funds for the diaspora MP are to be found. I'm not very sympathetic to this worry. In general, public funds pay for lots of things which not all of the public likes: Catholics aren't delighted when the government uses their taxes to pay for the distribution of contraceptives. If the state can't afford to pay for the exercise of basic citizen's rights, then it's not very much use. But even if one concedes the point, the diaspora MP could be paid for out of a very very small tax on remittances: over $600 million in 2008.