‘Dual citizenship is attractive for many reasons, but there are times when it simply should not be tolerated. Serving as the elected official of a country at the national level is one of those times. No congressman or senator should have even the appearance of divided loyalties that dual citizenship brings’ (https://www.forbes.com/).
The discourse about the right of Guyanese dual citizens to become parliamentarians, government ministers, etc., came to the fore after the 2018 no confidence motion (NCM). As a parliamentarian for many years and unlike many of the 15 Australian MPs who in 2017 did not realise that dual citizens could not sit in parliament, I was aware that it was illegal for MPs to be dual citizens but as with so many archaic laws I treated the situation as a relic that is not unusual in any jurisdiction. Indeed, so commonplace is this behaviour that the legal doctrine of desuetude holds that long and continued non-use of a law renders it invalid and sufficient notice of the intention to restart enforcement is required if the courts are to punish transgressors. The NCM and its consequences were to be the catalyst that forced upon us a string of important considerations that will undoubtedly be on the agenda of any future constitutional reform process.
There are benefits to being dual citizens. They and their families usually have access to two social welfare and services systems; can work and improve their education and skills in either country without needing a work permit; children can usually attend school at the local fee, they can own property in either country where ownership is restricted to citizens, and have two passports that may avail them of easier entry and longer stay in many other countries. On the other hand, depending upon how you look upon it, dual citizens may have to do military service and pay taxes in both countries and may be unable to hold certain positions in one or both countries. However, more importantly for this discourse, they are bound by two sets of laws and can be protected or pursued by both countries.
Of the 196 countries in the world, about 40 do not allow dual citizenship and many of those who do have restrictions of various sorts on the rights of citizens. The United States of America has no legal restrictions upon dual citizens, but history has shown that entering politics as one can be a major disadvantage: hence the quotation above. Further, being a dual citizen can effectively prevent you from gaining the security clearance necessary to access certain sensitive employment. (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/031315/advantages-disadvantages-dual-citizenship.asp). In the United Kingdom dual citizens have the right to vote, become an MP and most of the other rights of British citizenship. But under international law the U.K. government cannot provide diplomatic help when you are in your home country (https://www.westernunion.com/blog/understanding-dual-citizenship-in-the-uk/).
Singapore does not allow dual citizenship, but a child born abroad of Singaporean parents who acquires the citizenship of the country of birth, may maintain dual citizenship until the age of 21 years. The Chinese government does not recognize dual citizenship and once you become a citizen of another country you immediately lose Chinese citizenship. Like others in the Middle East, in the monarchy of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – whose prince recently visited Guyana – dual citizenship is prohibited and the right to vote or be a member of parliament is limited to Emirati citizens by ‘descent’ (https://www.insider.com/countries-dont-allow-dual-citizenship-2018-9).
In Israel, diplomats and members of parliament must renounce any other citizenship before assuming their jobs. In the Philippines, dual citizens cannot run for any local elective office and in Colombia, dual citizens cannot be ministers of foreign affairs or defence. While nationals of any Commonwealth country meeting the local residency requirements are eligible to vote in elections and run for parliament in many CARICOM countries, anyone who ‘is by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state’ might be barred from becoming a member of parliament! Guyana has a liberal citizenship regime that allows citizenship by birth, descent, naturalization, or marriage. Dual citizenship is recognized and dual citizens can vote in national and regional elections, but are not allowed to sit in parliament or become ministers of government. (https://www.refworld.org /docid/492ac7c9c.html).
In 2018, Guyana received some US$334m or about 8.1% of GDP from remittances and can benefit even more by taking advantage of the skills of the diaspora if a more creative diaspora policy is implemented (Future Notes, SN: 07/11/2012; 28/10/2020). Quite apart from any primordial consideration, those who argue in favour of dual citizens in parliament and government tend to make these benefits the major plank of their contention, positing that there are no serious disadvantages to making dual citizens parliamentarians, etc. This is not, however, what the NCM suggested to me.
Firstly, dual citizens are bound and come under the protection of two sets of laws and this complicates the issue of sovereignty when, as in the case of the NCM, in breach of international law, high officials from the embassy of a second country took advantage of facilitated safe passage for its citizen. Secondly, consequent upon the NCM a few people were required to relinquish their foreign citizenship and some refused, clearly demonstrating divided loyalties. We cannot know for sure the depth of their feelings and that is why in both the USA and Britain getting security clearance for certain employment becomes problematical. Thirdly, dual citizens are bound by and can be protected by two sets of laws and the consequences of this for political policy makers both during and after their period in office are unknown.
In passing and interestingly, since about the early 1830s, the international law doctrine of ‘dominant and effective nationality’ has held that a dual citizen will have one primary and one subordinate nationality and allows a court/tribunal to determine what is that nationality in specific situations. Applied to some trade rules, it allows dual citizens to sue the subordinate country for not treating them as it promises to treat the citizens of the primary country. In one such case an international tribunal found that the claimants were suing their effective nationality since what they held to be their dominant was their subordinate nationality. (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/10/30)!
Lest it be mistaken, my position here has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the 2018 NCM. I merely want to indicate that it raised some interesting issues and in considering a policy on dual citizenship more should be considered than the more-or-less ethical position quoted above and the dollars and cents approach. One can never truly assess the consequences of complicated international laws and rules on state management and it is better to be safe than sorry. This is why many countries, particularly those dependent upon international law for their survival, believe it is safer to underpin their sovereignty and security by not having dual citizens at certain policy levels of government.
