A recent report by the Migration Policy Group, a think tank based in Brussels, shows that Germany is among the best of the worst when it comes to enabling and encouraging the political participation of immigrants. Germany’s score in this is only a small part of the bleak findings from the report’s Political Participation Index, which shows that political participation and representation are the weakest areas when it comes to the integration of newcomers across Europe.
“The Political Participation Policy Index clearly shows that most immigrants face limited opportunities to influence and shape the policies that directly affect their lives” the authors write.
Research shows that the political participation of immigrants can strengthen their sense of belonging and trust in the institutions where they live. When people feel heard and that the government understands and represents their interests, they are more likely to feel connected and favourable towards it. Exclusion works in the opposite way.
A democratic gap: who gets to vote — and who doesn’t
Political representation is also a question of having a healthy democratic system. (As WahlheYmatPost has mentioned several times, approximately 25% of people living in Berlin do not have the right to vote in the national or local elections because they don’t have German nationality.)
Since 2004, the Migration Policy Group has used the MIPEX Index to rank governments’ efforts to support “migrant integration” in more than fifty countries, covering areas such as access to education and health services, family reunification, and anti-discrimination laws.
Not having the right to vote is only one way in which migrants can be politically disenfranchised. The report assessed 27 EU member states across eight indicators that encompass opportunities and realities for including migrants in political life:
- Existence of a national strategy to increase political participation
- Full political and civil rights through citizenship
- Right to vote in elections for foreign citizens
- Encouragement to vote
- Promotion of representation in political life
- Representation of migrant-led civil society
- Enabling collective civic engagement
- Civic education for a diversifying society
These indicators were measured for different “categories” of immigrants in each country, including “third-country nationals” (non-EU citizens), EU citizens, refugees, asylum seekers and second-generation migrants. The resulting country scores represent the average results for each of these groups.
Germany: strong in civic engagement, weak in voting rights
All countries assessed scored poorly, but in different ways. For example, compared to other countries, Germany performed best when it came to “enabling collective civic engagement” and “civic education for a diversifying society”. However, Germany was among the worst when it came to the “right to vote in elections for foreign citizens”. Only those with German nationality have the right to vote in federal and regional elections. While citizens of other EU states can vote in local elections in Germany, this leaves “third-country nationals” without the right to vote, regardless of how long they’ve lived in the country. However, this isn’t the same elsewhere in Europe – the report found that immigrants from outside of Europe are allowed to vote in (at least) local elections in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden.
The question of inclusion in democracies is not new. The report notes that extending voting rights to immigrants from outside Europe and to mobile EU citizens has specifically been a topic of discussion since the 1970s. But even today, including “new Europeans” in civic and political life is largely overlooked. Even at the EU level, the European Commission’s current “Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion” encourages countries to adopt consultative bodies with migrants, but doesn’t connect integration to extending voting rights.
Naturalisation as a filter, not a solution
In the Migration Policy Group’s policy brief accompanying their Political Participation Policy Index report, the authors argue that the poor performance of all countries amounts to structural discrimination against immigrants. They show how, for example, even though naturalisation is portrayed as a straightforward way to gain a political voice — since citizenship grants the right to vote — there are reasons why people may not want to obtain the citizenship of the country where they live, but still want their needs and perspectives represented.
Furthermore, there are significant institutional barriers and delays in naturalisation processes, serving as active tools for states to filter out those who are considered “undesirable” members of a society. The report specifically points to the fact that in today’s naturalisation process in Germany, applicants must prove they have an income deemed “adequate” by the German state. In the past, applicants for citizenship were allowed to rely on public assistance if they could show that their need for support resulted from circumstances beyond their control.
The authors also highlight the lack of “accessible, targeted, and timely information for new citizens and resident non-nationals who are eligible to vote” as a form of systemic discrimination not faced by non-migrants. They found that only a few countries in Europe (i.e. Sweden and Finland) take proactive steps to increase political access and participation, such as through automatic voter registration and targeted voter information campaigns.
Underrepresentation in political institutions
Immigrants also face significant barriers when it comes to political representation. The report finds that most countries restrict political party membership and the right to stand for elections to citizens. They cite Spain, where people from Morocco, Romania, countries in Latin America, and EU mobile citizens represent over 10% of the population, but less than 4% of the proportion of candidates in municipal elections.
Luckily, the report leaves policymakers with several recommendations for how they can improve the current situation. They can start by:
- Recognising structural discrimination as a barrier to political participation
- Advancing access to voting and candidacy rights
- Dismantling administrative barriers to political participation
- Ensuring meaningful consultation and sustained financial support for racialised minorities’ and migrants’ civil society organisations
For cities like Berlin, where a large share of residents have a migration background, the question of political inclusion is becoming increasingly urgent. When large parts of the population cannot participate in elections or are rarely represented in political institutions, it raises broader questions about how inclusive modern democracies really are. As migration continues to shape European societies, the challenge will not only be integrating newcomers economically and socially, but also ensuring they have a meaningful voice in the political decisions that affect their lives.
