How does emigration shape politics in home countries? Migration and Democracy: How Remittances Undermine Dictatorships explores this important question. Over the years, it has been observed that emigration has both a negative and a positive impact on the political growth or decline of democracy. Is emigration, in some ways, a cautionary move by the state to allow volatile youth to settle abroad? Conversely, will protest become more widespread in home countries with millions of people working abroad?
Migration and Democracy: How Remittances Undermine Dictatorships
Princeton University Press (2022)
Pages: 320
Price: $29.95
When citizens emigrate from a polity, “they necessarily forgo using ‘voice’ to change the status quo”. Covadonga Meseguer, Joseph Wright and Abel Escribe-Folch, the book’s authors, elaborate on this by citing a common theory that “emigration of the young and unemployed… constitutes an economic ‘safety valve’, which, because young men may be the most likely to protest, translates into a political safety valve”. In other words, “an economic brain drain can also be a political brain drain, whereby those most interested in political change and most capable of pursuing it, and who at the same time may be the most frustrated and aggrieved, leave instead of organising for change at home”.
El Salvador experience
Emigration, therefore, relieves domestic pressure “in the form of social discontent and civil unrest” and sustains dictatorships by giving no space for public grievance. This was evident in the case of El Salvador, where, in 1987, President Napoleon Duarte pleaded with US President Ronald Reagan to give refuge to those fleeing the country. The intention was unmistakably to get as many opponents of the regime out of the way as well as have the emigrants send back remittances that would help stabilise the sagging economy. Duarte estimated a transfer of more than $600 million to his country. The motive was to hold on to power.
These notions about remittances can be countered by the view that the exodus of a section of the population can, in fact, promote the inflow of new radical ideas on the process of upholding democracy. Emigration would thus benefit the consolidation of the very structure of democracy. This is “social remittance” (a term coined by Peggy Levitt in her essay “Social Remittances: Migration Driven Local-Level Forms of Cultural Diffusion” and refers to “ideas, behaviours, identities, and social capital that flow from receiving to sending-country communities”).
The book is about migration and its effects on democracy in the Global South. Contrary to popular belief that migration and remittances give a fillip to populism, the authors argue that migration promotes liberal politics that enables the rise of oppositional forces against an authoritarian state. Increasing the resources available to political opponents helps in establishing anti-authoritarian struggles, which are necessary for the sustenance of democratic institutions. Unlike Levitt’s idea of social remittance, which indirectly undermines authoritarianism, monetary remittances have a direct impact in advancing the rule of democracy.
What is often disregarded is the effect of migration, which includes the money sent to relatives back home on a regular basis. It is seen as having a strong impact on freedom, allowing people to reject so-called acts of benevolence and patronage shown by an oppressive leadership in order to win the support of the masses through welfarism. People begin to feel self-contained and, as a result, become difficult to appease.
This view challenges the idea of despotism through the financial funding received by emigrants. As Joseph Wright, one of the authors, puts it, “This is money that flows between individuals and families and largely circumvents governments and that’s a hugely important point, because the real take home of the book is that when these financial flows are controlled by citizens, it tips the balance of power in favour of citizens. When the international financial flow goes to governments, it tips the balance of power in terms of governments.”
Interestingly, unlike overseas aid which comes under the state mechanism, remittances are the largest source of foreign income that flows directly into the hands of the public. Around the world, transfer of funds to relatives reached a record high of $548 billion in 2019, far exceeding either foreign direct investment or development assistance.
According to the authors, “these funds facilitate protest and undermine authoritarian tactics” by mobilising public remonstration for democratic change. In short, global migration may be one of “the most powerful drivers of global democracy—simply by letting people move, work, and share what they earn”. Examining the case studies of Senegal and Cambodia, the authors analyse the size and importance of remittances in developing economies and conclude that “when global microanalysis is combined with microdata, the visible effects of increase in public protests is tangibly felt in electoral politics”.
Transforming life in Senegal
Migration has transformed politics and social life in Senegal. It was responsible for ending the tyrannical rule of the Socialist Party in 2000, more than four decades after its independence. Senegal is one of the top remittance beneficiaries in Africa. Most of the remittances came from France, Spain and the US in the years preceding the crucial presidential election of 2000.
Faced with a severe economic crunch as a result of the decline in the market for peanuts, the main cash crop, many Senegalese migrated abroad for better prospects. Consequently, the economy shifted from peanuts to resources generated abroad, facilitating the end of state dominance over the people of Senegal. As the authors point out, “Broader political space and growing international connections contributed to the emergence of a vibrant civil society, including new associations of young Murids (members of a Sufi brotherhood) with an urban base and strong desire for change, which became their political rallying cry.”
By the late 1990s, the number of migrants had increased and their financial and social inflow had become significantly relevant to the radical changes in Senegalese society. The support of the diaspora was significant in Senegal’s transformation from an authoritarian rule to a more democratic one that gave the opposition its rightful place. Mobilisation of civil society, the media and the diaspora became the catalyst for a democratic change.
Change in Cambodia
Similarly, significant socioeconomic changes in Cambodia in the 2000s favoured the rise of a credible challenge to the autocratic Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) and its leader Hun Sen. In the 2013 elections, the opposition, uniting behind a single candidate supported by resources from abroad, fought the CPP as the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP). The Human Rights Party also joined the alliance. The outcome of the elections was indeed a surprise, with the CPP getting 49 per cent of the votes and the CNRP getting 44.5 per cent.
As in Senegal, it was remittances from migrants that helped the opposition in funding its campaign against the CPP’s agenda of a false kind of welfare, mostly at the rural level, where low-income groups were made to believe that they lived in a state ruled by a “philanthropic party—the CPP”. It must be noted that “between 2000 and 2015, the number of Cambodian emigrants more than doubled”, putting Cambodia “among the top four remittance-receiving countries in ASEAN”.
Thus, as a consequence of remittances, the foundations of democracy are gradually reinforced, demonstrating that migration to developed countries in order to escape brutal oppression at home contributes to upholding the very idea of democracy. Dictators are thus put in a rather shaky spot, with much of the public support eroding at the grassroots. Rising public opinion puts pressure on the leadership to bring about extensive reforms in governance, political freedom and social welfare.
Moreover, remittances give a stimulus to the fragile economy in developing countries by increasing consumption and larger investment in human capital and public goods. Migration, therefore, “produces economic benefits for both those who move and those who stay”. Democratic sentiments, sharpened by a sense of adequacy among the common public, and economic reforms go hand in hand in bringing change in developing societies.
Very little has been written about the role of remittances in the body of work defining and elaborating the institution of democracy. With empirical data, the book establishes that remittances are vital to the political process in authoritarian regimes. The subject assumes importance in the dark period of democratic decline and the destruction of constitutional bodies by power hungry leaders.
Professor Shelley Walia has taught Cultural Theory at Panjab University.
The Crux
- Emigration relieves domestic pressure “in the form of social discontent and civil unrest”.
- Authors argue migration promotes liberal politics, enabling rise of forces against authoritarianism.
- Owing to remittances, people feel self-contained and become difficult to appease.
- Remittances strengthen fragile economy in developing countries by boosting consumption.
- Support of diaspora was significant in Senegal’s transformation to more democratic rule.
COMMents
COMMents
SHARE