Why Migrants’ Voting Rights Should No Longer Be Left at the Airport Gate
Photo courtesy of SCMP
Sri Lanka has long depended on the remittances of its citizens abroad. These flows sustain households, stabilise the balance of payments and provide resilience in times of crisis. Yet while economic remittances are celebrated, their democratic equivalent remains untapped. Just as money sent home strengthens livelihoods “democratic remittances”, meaning the participation of migrants in elections, could substantially strengthen Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions, reinforce their legitimacy and foster greater political accountability.
Across South Asia, the disenfranchisement of vast numbers of absent citizens is being challenged more assertively than ever. In Bangladesh, the upheaval of 2024 placed diaspora participation in national elections firmly on the reform agenda. In Nepal, youth-led protests have drawn attention to the blanket exclusion of a migrant generation, predominantly young people, whose absence at the ballot box leaves a substantial segment of its society without a political voice. Sri Lanka has already undergone its own form of political crisis. The 2022 aragalaya movement, fuelled by economic hardship and widespread anger at corruption, reshaped the country’s political landscape, enabling the rise of the NPP while severely weakening the once-dominant parties. As in Bangladesh and Nepal, Sri Lanka offers a stark reminder of the consequences when political institutions lose credibility: discontent does not remain contained within formal processes but erupts into the streets.
Nearly three million of Sri Lankans, one in eight citizens if not more live abroad. They build in the Gulf, provide care in Europe, study across Asia and work in professional sectors across North America. Their presence is also felt in Australia and beyond where Sri Lankan communities have become integral to academic, technical and service sectors. Their contribution to Sri Lanka is immense. According to the Central Bank, in 2024, migrant workers sent home more than $6.58 billion via formal channels, accounting for a vital share of foreign exchange. Yet when elections take place, migrants are denied the opportunity to translate their economic contribution into political representation. In law they remain enfranchised and thus in normative terms, part of the electorate. In practice, however, participation is near impossible: the only option is to return to Sri Lanka on election day and cast a ballot in the assigned polling station. The result is that a constituency formally included within the political community is effectively excluded from it. Sri Lanka’s barriers to migrant enfranchisement are evident. With no out of country voting in place, returning home to cast a ballot is beyond reach for most. Flights are costly, employers rarely grant leave and polling remains confined to a single day. The result is a widening gap between principle and practice: citizenship is recognised in the constitution yet suffrage is impeded by logistical and political obstacles.
Encouragingly, the debate on migrant enfranchisement is no longer dormant. As recently reported in the Daily FT, the government has formed a committee to explore legal amendments and draft new laws that would allow Sri Lankans living abroad to participate in national elections. This signals recognition of the issue at the highest political level. The question now is how this intent can be translated into effective legislation, institutional preparation and sustained political will.
Out of country voting is not a problem without solutions. International practice offers tested pathways forward. Postal voting, adopted in countries from Mexico to South Africa, enables ballots to move securely through diplomatic channels, supported by safeguards such as barcodes, rigorous deadlines and centralised counting. In person voting at embassies and consulates, long familiar to Indonesians abroad, replicates domestic polling on a smaller scale. The Philippines has recently introduced online voting with some degrees of success. While each context differs, these approaches show that migrant remote electoral participation can be enabled while safeguarding electoral integrity.
For Sri Lanka, the practical entry point is clear. A phased rollout could start with postal voting and in person polling in select high density migration corridors where diplomatic missions already exist. This could include Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Italy and South Korea. Such rollout would provide a controlled environment to test, refine and evaluate procedures before expanding to other destinations or additional voting methods in subsequent electoral cycles. Pilots could be subject to independent observation, with turnout data published transparently and lessons systematically incorporated into subsequent stages.
Protracted concerns over the cost of out of country voting, which have long paralysed electoral reform, can no longer credibly justify inaction. The expense would be incredibly modest when set against the billions of dollars in annual remittances that already sustain the economy. Just as financial remittances provide economic stability, so too would “democratic remittances” reinforce political inclusion. The cost of enabling migrant participation would be entirely proportionate to its value and could be reasonably borne by those who would directly benefit from the extension of the franchise.
Accessibility will require close attention. Many Sri Lankan migrants in the Gulf face employer restrictions on mobility so even if out of country voting was introduced participation would remain constrained unless these barriers are addressed. Bilateral labour agreements are key: provisions guaranteeing leave for voting, with diplomatic missions authorised to certify such leave, would help translate voting rights in law into practice. Extended postal voting periods, active consular outreach and multilingual information campaigns would further broaden participation.
The elephant in the room is the composition of Sri Lanka’s diaspora. For decades, most overseas citizens were from communities that had experienced conflict, displacement and systemic exclusion. This demographic reality fuelled reluctance among past governments to advance out of country voting amid fears that expatriate voters would overwhelmingly support opposition parties. Today, however, the context has shifted. The current government has garnered unprecedented support from historically marginalised groups within Sri Lanka, making it more politically feasible to extend the franchise abroad. What was once perceived as a threat can now be understood as an opportunity to demonstrate inclusivity and strengthen the legitimacy of the democratic process.
Questions of dual citizenship often surface in discussions on migrant enfranchisement but they are distinct from the issue of voting rights. The right to vote is separate from the right to stand for office. Extending the franchise to citizens abroad does not alter candidacy rules; it simply affirms that citizenship is not diminished by distance. Many countries already make this distinction, allowing their migrants to vote while maintaining separate eligibility rules for parliament. Sri Lanka could adopt the same approach.
The enfranchisement if Sri Lanka’s can be achieved through a clear sequence of steps. Parliament could enact enabling legislation to define overseas electors, authorise postal and in person voting, and mandate the Election Commission to regulate procedures. The Commission could then lay firm foundations: review comparative models, assess feasible voting methods, secure financing, put in place safeguards for integrity and secrecy and reach agreements with host states on legal and logistical issues. Pilots could then be launched in selected countries, with transparent reporting on participation, and lessons learned. Out of country voting arrangements could subsequently be expanded step by step, helping Sri Lanka begin to close the gap between constitutional voting rights and actual suffrage, showing that its institutions can deliver both innovation and inclusion.
The dividends would extend well beyond the number of ballots cast. Enfranchising migrants would bring political rights into line with their economic contributions, compel representatives to answer also to citizens abroad, and send a clear signal to young people at home and overseas that their voices matter. It would also place Sri Lanka among the states recognising that democracy must adapt to human mobility rather than remain bound by residency requirements that exclude large segments of the citizenry.
Citizenship is indivisible and its rights cannot be left behind at the airport gate. They are portable; they travel with people and the legitimacy of elections depends on extending them to citizens abroad.
For Sri Lanka, the question is no longer whether to enfranchise its migrants but when. Out of country voting ultimately begins with a political choice.
