EDITORIAL: Ghanaians abroad can afford ROPAA

We begin this editorial with excerpts of Hansard of the Westminster Parliament House, UK, during a debate on overseas voting introduced in 1984, held on 15 December 1999:

Mr. Simon Hughes [Lib Dem]: I understand the logic of the right Hon. Gentleman's argument and I do not want to associate myself with the arguments deployed against it by the previous Conservative Government.

However, what would he say to my older brother—this is a real example—who was living in Herefordshire and given a job by Barclays International, for which he worked, which required him to go abroad for an uncertain period? He is married to a woman working for the British services in Cyprus. He always intended to come home and did so as soon as he was able. He retained as many links with, and interests in, the British political process as was possible during his time abroad, which was fewer than 10 years but more than none.

Surely he should have been allowed to continue to take part in decisions affecting the country in which he had paid taxes, in which he continued to have a financial interest and to which he has returned to pay taxes and contribute fully. Mr. Kaufman [Labour]: The franchise in this country is based purely and simply on residential qualification. We have debated this in our consideration of amendments moved by my Hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire.

I am sorry about the misfortune that might afflict the Hon. Gentleman"s brother, but when he comes back, he can resume his vote. It is as simple as that. I do not see why anybody living for whatever reason in Kuwait, Nepal or Peru should be able to decide who governs the country in which they are not present at the time of a general election.

Before this Bill there were all sorts of problems for those living in this country. There were problems with qualifying for a postal vote or a proxy vote. Hard decisions may be made, but the decision is much harder on a man living in Stanley grove who misses his vote because he falls ill after the closure of the postal vote than it is for the Hon. Gentleman’s brother, nice though I am sure he is…"

There is an estimated 3 million British adults living outside of the country. It is interesting to note that when Britain’s Conservative Government under Mrs Thatcher introduced the overseas vote legislation in 1984, they forecast 800 overseas voters per constituency.

That would have meant more than 500,000 people. The figure for 1999, at the time of the above debate, was not 3 million or 500,000 but 13,677. That is an average of 21 overseas voters per constituency. The highest number of overseas votes in 1991 was 34,454, or 0.08 percent of the electorate. In 1990 it was 1,836. That figure was so small that the statistics counted it as 0.00 percent of the electorate.

Also, according to figures conveyed of the French nationals voting overseas by the Ministry for the Interior and Regional Development, the number of registered voters was 822,944. The number of people voting in the first round of the presidential race was 331,681 (it was 143,689 in the first round of voting in 2002). Voter turnout was therefore 40.30 percent as against 37.27 percent for the first round in 2002. For the second round, 42 percent of the electorate abroad voted. This figure is, of course, subject to confirmation by the Constitutional Council.

For the January 2005 elections in Iraq, the opportunity was extended to the about four million Iraqis spread around the world. The exercise was expensive but the authorities felt it was necessary. In the final analysis less than 5 percent of the number registered to vote. For the 1998 Australian federal elections, less than 62,000 overseas postal votes were cast, even though an estimated 700,000 Australians live abroad. Our message is two-fold: Ghana can make the extension of voting rights to Ghanaians affordable. And, for those who fear the significance of that vote, practice elsewhere has shown that on an average less than 10 percent of citizens legally domiciled abroad do in fact take steps to register and then vote.

In the Philippines for the 2004 elections the total number of registered voters was 359,297. Personal voting was conducted in 70 countries covering 245,627 overseas absentee voters, with postal votes totalling 13,670. There are more than 10 million overseas Filipinos worldwide, about 11 percent of the total population of the country. Their compatriots abroad contributed last year over $12.8 billion to the local economy. The amount, representing 13.5 percent of the country’s GDP, does not include cash sent by overseas-based Filipinos to relatives through informal, non-bank channels.

The situation there is quite similar to that of Ghana where our citizens abroad contribute between 15 to 30 percent of our GDP. It is estimated that less than half of the 3 million Ghanaians estimated abroad have resident permits. Even if half of these are of voting age, going by international trend we cannot expect more than 200,000 Ghanaians living abroad to vote. Extending the franchise to Ghanaians abroad should not cost more than $5 million.

The solution in our view could be in the new national ID Card. It can be arranged for Ghanaians living abroad to apply for a national ID at our missions abroad before they can register to vote. The processing fee for that ID can be put at $50. The Mexicans did same, selling their IDs at $54. If 150,000 Ghanaians register that would be a cool $7.5 million. If 200,000 register, $10 million; if 400,000 register the figure shoots up to $20 million.