3. Methods of Engagement
Frequently in the diaspora literature, the “brain drain” resulting from a large diaspora is identified as having deleterious effects on sending states’ development and is suggested as a reason why a strong nation state – in the vein of Weberian democratic ideal – does not surface in sending states’ governments. This concern unveils two assumptions: one, the aforementioned “brains” that join a diaspora are crucial to building a stable, responsive nation-state and two, it is their physical presence within a sending state’s physical borders that brings such a strong state to fruition. Those advocating such fears clearly see a large, strong diaspora as a threat to developing a strong nation-state in the sending state. …show more content…
Today, this fear has dissipated and African countries are eager to gain not just the remittances of their diaspora but their expertise as well. One way is by increasing the citizenry; as of 2013, twenty-three African states allowed for dual nationality while another three states are debating amendments that would allow for this. In addition to citizenship, African states have increasingly granted the right to vote to their diaspora, with 30 states having granted this right to overseas citizens as of 2014. As Kenya’s Assistant Minister of Planning and Development in 2013 said while campaigning, “our brothers and sisters in the diaspora are as much stakeholders in this country as anybody else and therefore deserve the right to choose the leadership of this country…. Their representation of the Kenyan identity and Brand Kenya abroad are a great source of pride for us all.” These actions enhance the sending state’s legitimacy within the state, within its domestic population, and within the international community. While certainly most popular in democratic states, even non-democratic states have reason to empower their diaspora as a means of bolstering a regime’s
Frequently in the diaspora literature, the “brain drain” resulting from a large diaspora is identified as having deleterious effects on sending states’ development and is suggested as a reason why a strong nation state – in the vein of Weberian democratic ideal – does not surface in sending states’ governments. This concern unveils two assumptions: one, the aforementioned “brains” that join a diaspora are crucial to building a stable, responsive nation-state and two, it is their physical presence within a sending state’s physical borders that brings such a strong state to fruition. Those advocating such fears clearly see a large, strong diaspora as a threat to developing a strong nation-state in the sending state. …show more content…
Today, this fear has dissipated and African countries are eager to gain not just the remittances of their diaspora but their expertise as well. One way is by increasing the citizenry; as of 2013, twenty-three African states allowed for dual nationality while another three states are debating amendments that would allow for this. In addition to citizenship, African states have increasingly granted the right to vote to their diaspora, with 30 states having granted this right to overseas citizens as of 2014. As Kenya’s Assistant Minister of Planning and Development in 2013 said while campaigning, “our brothers and sisters in the diaspora are as much stakeholders in this country as anybody else and therefore deserve the right to choose the leadership of this country…. Their representation of the Kenyan identity and Brand Kenya abroad are a great source of pride for us all.” These actions enhance the sending state’s legitimacy within the state, within its domestic population, and within the international community. While certainly most popular in democratic states, even non-democratic states have reason to empower their diaspora as a means of bolstering a regime’s