While democracy is founded upon the values of freedom and self-determination, the determination of this self, namely its definition as citizen or as foreigner, escapes the individual’s choice and influence. Far from being of purely theoretical interest, this paradox of democratic theory has profound practical consequences. This is particularly true for long-term resident non-citizens: Barred from becoming full members of their host society and hence from enjoying equal voting rights in their state of residence, they are permanently subjected to the latter’s law without having a say in its making.
In order to reduce this problem of citizen tyranny, a number of political theorists suggested extending the rights of citizenship to permanently residing non-citizens. This paper argues, however, that a simple conferral of additional rights to resident non-citizens is insufficient to protect the conditions of their political autonomy. Depending upon a status which is not self- but other-determined, these rights remain at the disposition of the host state and can hence easily be withdrawn when the political or economic climate changes. And even the grant of comprehensive voting rights to resident non-citizens can only solve the problem to a limited extent. Although empowering them to participate in the decisions concerning their political status, they would now be confronted with a new form of tyranny, namely the tyranny of the citizen majority, which could curtail the rights of resident non-citizens against their will.
A useful source of inspiration on how to overcome the precarious situation of resident non-citizens is provided by Union citizenship. As political status in-between citizenship and foreignness, it strengthens not only the legal protections of intra-European migrants, but also renders these protections more robust by granting all European citizens – via their participation in European decision-making – influence upon the rights they enjoy in another member state. While the risk of a citizen tyranny over the status of resident non-citizens is hence reduced, EU citizenship also prevents its collapsing into the second form of tyranny described above. Indeed, thanks to its transnational nature, Union citizenship reconciles the interests of European non-citizens with those of their host polity, which is itself made up of potential non-citizens benefiting from the same European rights when moving to another member state.
Despite these advantages, EU citizenship proves so far, however, insufficient to sustainably protect the political autonomy of resident non-citizens. Not only are the voting rights it entails limited to local and EU Parliamentary elections, but also are all Third Country Nationals excluded from their scope. In order to overcome these shortcomings, two reforms will be discussed: (1) a transfer of the European model to the global level and hence the introduction of a worldwide status of (Non-) Membership granted to all individuals permanently residing outside their home state, and (2) an internal reform of Union citizenship, which would strengthen both its substance and its scope and consequently grant all permanent residents of the EU access to its transnational rights regime.
