Objectives
News 
Immigrants' political participation in Romania, between legal constraints and lack of vision
Ovidiu Voicu, Foundation for an open society
30 March 2015
The international study MIPEX III, published in 2011, placed Romania as the last of the 31 states analysed with respect to immigrants' political participation. The updated report of the MIPEX research will be published this year, most probably in May. Romania will probably rank again on the last place for this indicator, because things have not changed at all. It is therefore useful to remember which are the barriers to the political participation of immigrants, particularly of third country nationals.
When speaking about political participation we do not speak only about the right to vote and to be voted. We also include indicators regarding the exertion of other fundamental rights: participating in political events, petitions, association for political purposes. For all such situations, the Romanian legislation, starting with the fundamental law, imposes major restrictions to the political participation of immigrants.
Romania's Constitution provides that only citizens have the right to vote (Article 36) and to be voted (Article 37), with the exception of citizens of other EU members states domiciled in Romania. The latter may vote and be voted in local elections (Article 16), but only for the Local Council and County Council, not for the Mayor position. European citizens may of course vote and candidate on the Romanian lists for the European Parliament, according to European treaties. These provisions are resumed in the specific legislation , namely Law 67 of 25 March 2004 republished, on the election of local public administration authorities (art. 4^1) and Law 33 of 16 January 2007 republished, on the organisation and development of elections for the European Parliament (art. 5).
In short, third country nationals who have not become citizens may not vote and may not be voted. One of the conditions for obtaining citizenship is the legal continuous stay for at least eight years in Romania (or five years for persons married to Romanian citizens). During this period immigrants work or do business in Romania and participate to consumption, paying thus direct and indirect taxes and fees. Legislation does not allow them to have a say regarding what happens to the money paid by them. From this perspective, more and more countries grant immigrants political rights, including for voting, at least at local level, thus naturally considering them community members with equal rights. This is an effect of global changes produced by the migration process, which changes paradigms.
In Romania, during the debates on Constitution reform commenced in 2013, the special Commission of the Parliament did not take into account amending those articles of the fundamental law. No non-governmental organisation has transmitted such proposals to the Commission and no member of the parliament has filed such amendment. The relaunch of this discussion in the Parliament, announced for this year, could be an opportunity for a debate on the political integration of immigrants.
Legislation, at a lower level this time, also hinders the political involvement of immigrants by other methods. Emergency Ordinance (OUG) 194/2002 on the regime of aliens in Romania provides in Article 4: „Aliens may not organise political parties or other similar organisations or groups in Romania and may not be part thereof, they may not occupy public positions or titles and they may not initiate, organize or participate in manifestations or meetings which bring prejudice to the public order or national safety”. Sanctions may go as far as cancellation of the right to stay, that is, expulsion.
This text is typical for the Romanian state's philosophy on immigration, almost exclusively based on control. The National Strategy for Immigration itself has only one out of five strategic objective for integration; the others are about control. It is eloquent that the competent institution for this field is a force institution, Police, and not an inclusion one associated with the Ministry of Labour.
The cited text of OUG 194/2002 has major repercussions, given that in Romania both the Police and the Gendarmerie tend to overreact against their own citizens who "dare" to use their constitutional rights for protests, all the more against foreigners. If an immigrant organisation set an objective such as a convincing the Local Council to open or to fund a centre for alien integration, this could be associated to a political aim and the organisation would be assimilated to political parties. Its non-citizen members could be punished. Similarly, any manifestation can be interpreted to be against public order, so the presence of an immigrant at a march could entail their expulsion. In practice most immigrants refrain from public involvement, exactly because Romanian institutions are known for the abusive way how they interpret such legal provisions. It is not surprising that most actions of immigrant organisations are cultural ones.
This situation visibly limits fundamental rights of people who have no fault. Unlike the right to vote, which requires an amendment of the Constitution, a difficult and long-lasting process, the relaxation of conditions for immigrants' political participation is easier to achieve and requires mainly a modern vision upon the positive role of diversity in the life of a society.
However Romanian institutions in charge with immigration management have not even raised the question in these terms so far, not even from curiosity. This is an important shortcoming of the Romanian strategy for integrating aliens who chose to stay, to live, to work in Romania. The new immigration strategy for 2015-2018, long awaited for and delayed, could bring some novelty in this area, probably not through its original text but at least through the public debate associated with it.
When speaking about political participation we do not speak only about the right to vote and to be voted. We also include indicators regarding the exertion of other fundamental rights: participating in political events, petitions, association for political purposes. For all such situations, the Romanian legislation, starting with the fundamental law, imposes major restrictions to the political participation of immigrants.
Romania's Constitution provides that only citizens have the right to vote (Article 36) and to be voted (Article 37), with the exception of citizens of other EU members states domiciled in Romania. The latter may vote and be voted in local elections (Article 16), but only for the Local Council and County Council, not for the Mayor position. European citizens may of course vote and candidate on the Romanian lists for the European Parliament, according to European treaties. These provisions are resumed in the specific legislation , namely Law 67 of 25 March 2004 republished, on the election of local public administration authorities (art. 4^1) and Law 33 of 16 January 2007 republished, on the organisation and development of elections for the European Parliament (art. 5).
In short, third country nationals who have not become citizens may not vote and may not be voted. One of the conditions for obtaining citizenship is the legal continuous stay for at least eight years in Romania (or five years for persons married to Romanian citizens). During this period immigrants work or do business in Romania and participate to consumption, paying thus direct and indirect taxes and fees. Legislation does not allow them to have a say regarding what happens to the money paid by them. From this perspective, more and more countries grant immigrants political rights, including for voting, at least at local level, thus naturally considering them community members with equal rights. This is an effect of global changes produced by the migration process, which changes paradigms.
In Romania, during the debates on Constitution reform commenced in 2013, the special Commission of the Parliament did not take into account amending those articles of the fundamental law. No non-governmental organisation has transmitted such proposals to the Commission and no member of the parliament has filed such amendment. The relaunch of this discussion in the Parliament, announced for this year, could be an opportunity for a debate on the political integration of immigrants.
Legislation, at a lower level this time, also hinders the political involvement of immigrants by other methods. Emergency Ordinance (OUG) 194/2002 on the regime of aliens in Romania provides in Article 4: „Aliens may not organise political parties or other similar organisations or groups in Romania and may not be part thereof, they may not occupy public positions or titles and they may not initiate, organize or participate in manifestations or meetings which bring prejudice to the public order or national safety”. Sanctions may go as far as cancellation of the right to stay, that is, expulsion.
This text is typical for the Romanian state's philosophy on immigration, almost exclusively based on control. The National Strategy for Immigration itself has only one out of five strategic objective for integration; the others are about control. It is eloquent that the competent institution for this field is a force institution, Police, and not an inclusion one associated with the Ministry of Labour.
The cited text of OUG 194/2002 has major repercussions, given that in Romania both the Police and the Gendarmerie tend to overreact against their own citizens who "dare" to use their constitutional rights for protests, all the more against foreigners. If an immigrant organisation set an objective such as a convincing the Local Council to open or to fund a centre for alien integration, this could be associated to a political aim and the organisation would be assimilated to political parties. Its non-citizen members could be punished. Similarly, any manifestation can be interpreted to be against public order, so the presence of an immigrant at a march could entail their expulsion. In practice most immigrants refrain from public involvement, exactly because Romanian institutions are known for the abusive way how they interpret such legal provisions. It is not surprising that most actions of immigrant organisations are cultural ones.
This situation visibly limits fundamental rights of people who have no fault. Unlike the right to vote, which requires an amendment of the Constitution, a difficult and long-lasting process, the relaxation of conditions for immigrants' political participation is easier to achieve and requires mainly a modern vision upon the positive role of diversity in the life of a society.
However Romanian institutions in charge with immigration management have not even raised the question in these terms so far, not even from curiosity. This is an important shortcoming of the Romanian strategy for integrating aliens who chose to stay, to live, to work in Romania. The new immigration strategy for 2015-2018, long awaited for and delayed, could bring some novelty in this area, probably not through its original text but at least through the public debate associated with it.
Back