This is pretty sad to hear. As an outside observer, a 10-year waiting period to vote seems very reasonable and I wonder what voting rights residents of that length had before the law. Maybe...
This is pretty sad to hear. As an outside observer, a 10-year waiting period to vote seems very reasonable and I wonder what voting rights residents of that length had before the law. Maybe someone more familiar with the history and current situation can answer, is this some classic racism or something else? Why would the local population, who has cohabited with French for awhile, I assume, be so upset about something so reasonable?
From the linked article: ... ... So their colonial overlords are attempting to dilute their representation at a time when they're actively working towards self-determination, and counter to prior...
From the linked article:
Some local leaders fear this change would dilute the share of the vote held by Kanaks, the Indigenous group that makes up about 41% of the population and the major force in the pro-independence movement.
...
On Wednesday, a New Caledonia pro-independence leader, Daniel Goa, asked people to “go home”, and condemned the looting. But he added: “The unrest of the last 24 hours reveals the determination of our young people to no longer let France take control of them.”
...
In the Nouméa accord of 1998, France vowed to gradually cede more political power to the Pacific island territory of nearly 300,000 people.
So their colonial overlords are attempting to dilute their representation at a time when they're actively working towards self-determination, and counter to prior accords.
It's not that clear. At the same time, it's somewhat absurd that voting lists have no been updated since 1998. Some people have been there for 35 years and yet are still not eligible to vote. Are...
It's not that clear. At the same time, it's somewhat absurd that voting lists have no been updated since 1998. Some people have been there for 35 years and yet are still not eligible to vote. Are they going to be disenfranchised forever? As citizens? The law merely updates the voting lists, as they should have been to begin with.
It's hard to call it some malicious flooding of the voting population when said voting population has been for over two decades already.
New Caledonia has had 3 independence referendums per the Noumea accord. Independence lost in all three.
Sorry, I was only aiming aiming for a little snide, given that I was able to resolve the confusion of the person I was responding to entirely by quoting the article. I'll take it out, since it's...
Sorry, I was only aiming aiming for a little snide, given that I was able to resolve the confusion of the person I was responding to entirely by quoting the article. I'll take it out, since it's really not discussing in good faith. Thanks for calling me out on it.
I thought I read the whole article, but I didn't catch that last part. That's a pretty big deal if France is diluting their voting power after making that commitment.
I thought I read the whole article, but I didn't catch that last part. That's a pretty big deal if France is diluting their voting power after making that commitment.
I am extremely not an expert on the subject, but from what I have gathered, New Caledonia is a Melanesian island in the South Pacific (very far away from France) that belonged to the Kanak people...
I am extremely not an expert on the subject, but from what I have gathered, New Caledonia is a Melanesian island in the South Pacific (very far away from France) that belonged to the Kanak people until it was colonized by France in the 1800s. In mid 1900s, when most other colonized lands were regaining independence, France Declared New Caledonia a territory instead. (It is worth noting that France, in general, has been much less willing to part its colonies than other European nations have been — and even when it has released its colonies, it has done much more illegal interference in their democracies after their so-called independence.)
Since the 1970s, there has been a strong Kanak independence movement wishing to break away from France, which has led to violent conflicts at times. More lately, there has some effort and headway in establishing independence through referendum, but the referendum will definitely fail if France makes this change to the voting laws in New Caledonia.
I am personally torn on this subject. Philosophically, I believe that residents should have the right to influence policy in the location where they live.
On the other hand, I can completely understand that, to the Kanak people, this feels like a deliberate effort to erase their voices at the crucial moment that will determine the Kanak can ever be independent again or if they will always be subjects of France.
Although I don't know if this is exactly what has been happening in New Caledonia, there are many examples in history of nations deliberately encouraging citizens to settle in a foreign territory to make that territory easier to seize (e.g., how the US seized territory from Mexico and seized all of Hawaii, how Russia is has been seizing territory from Ukraine, and how Israel has been seizing territory from Palestine).
They literally had 3 legally binding referendums and they all resulted in a majority for remaining with France.
More lately, there has some effort and headway in establishing independence through referendum, but the referendum will definitely fail if France makes this change to the voting laws in New Caledonia.
They literally had 3 legally binding referendums and they all resulted in a majority for remaining with France.
I believe their intention is to keep trying. They may be hoping that the political views will shift in their favor in the future, since it looks like that is the way the wind has been blowing...
I believe their intention is to keep trying. They may be hoping that the political views will shift in their favor in the future, since it looks like that is the way the wind has been blowing (e.g., New Caledonia made the Kanak flag one of its official flags, and it changed its anthem and banknotes to be different from mainland France's). The referendum in 2021 was boycotted, but the other two referendums were close (56.9% in 2018 and 53.26% in 2020), and I imagine they are hoping they can win within the next few years. With this law change, it probably won't ever happen.
I am of two minds. I lean pretty hard toward universal suffrage as a matter of principle (I'm actually an extremist on this matter — I think even children should vote, for reasons that I won't get into here because it would take too long to explain), but I do sympathize with the Kanak and I hate to see colonization incentivized and rewarded.
I mean obviously they want to keep trying, but equally something to be reconciled is that a lot of people in New Caledonia want to be part of France, including Kanaks; they get to be French...
I mean obviously they want to keep trying, but equally something to be reconciled is that a lot of people in New Caledonia want to be part of France, including Kanaks; they get to be French citizens, and that's quite nice. It's not like the US and guam, where you get to be some kind of pseudo citizen. It's particularly strong among the urban youth; there's a lot of economic advantages, not to mention opportunity.
It's fair to sympathize that the independence movement will be hampered, but it's also important to recognize that they've been artificially boosted by the purposeful disenfranchisement of long-standing residents of New Caledonia, and also that they do not represent the entirety of the Kanak people by a longshot.
Yes, I agree, and this is why I'm torn. My intention here was not to argue for one side or another, but to explain why emotions are so heightened around this issue that France has had to declare a...
Yes, I agree, and this is why I'm torn.
My intention here was not to argue for one side or another, but to explain why emotions are so heightened around this issue that France has had to declare a state of emergency. Both sides have very real and important grievances, which are unfortunately at odds.
After looking into the referendums myself, I think just saying "there were three referendums" is a massive disservice. The three referendums were in 2018, 2020, and 2021, with 2021 being the final...
After looking into the referendums myself, I think just saying "there were three referendums" is a massive disservice.
The three referendums were in 2018, 2020, and 2021, with 2021 being the final one. In the 2018 and 2020 referendums, the votes rejecting it were 57% and 53% respectively, likely due to younger people (who seem to be the main proponents for independence based on the article) reaching voting age.
Then in 2021? It skyrocketed to 96%.
Some MAJOR important context from Wikipedia:
As a result of the referendum taking place amid a boycott from the independence parties, the results were extremely lopsided in favor of status quo: voters overwhelmingly rejected independence, with 96% voting against independence and 4% in favour.[1] The referendum took place amid a boycott from the indigenous Kanak population, whose leaders had called for the vote to be postponed following a large-scale COVID-19 outbreak beginning in September 2021 which caused a total of 280 deaths, and highlighted that Kanak mourning rituals lasted up to a year.[2][3]
For further context, the 2020 referendum had 154,918 votes, out of 180,799 registered voters, an 85% turnout. 2021, meanwhile, had 80,881 voters out of 184,364 registered voters. That's only 43.87% of the voters. Even 2018 had an 81% voter turnout.
Looking at those numbers, I think the third referendum should have been postponed or rescheduled. More than half the voting population did not participate in the final referendum. Even with the mindset of "well they shouldn't have boycotted the vote if they wanted their opinions to matter", the difference in those numbers combined with the history of violent protests that led to this accord in the first place should have been viewed as a strong sign of potential unrest and violence in the future.
They should have rescheduled the vote afterwards to make sure no one could argue against the results being unfair. As it stands, it feels pretty opportunist on France's part to me as an outsider, because the downward trend of the first two votes suggests the third could have dipped below 50%. I imagine that many people within New Caledonia feel similarly, and much more strongly than I do.
Well yeah, the independence side "boycotted" the election, which worked out about as well as you'd expect boycotting an election to work. You can't force people to vote.
Then in 2021? It skyrocketed to 96%.
Well yeah, the independence side "boycotted" the election, which worked out about as well as you'd expect boycotting an election to work. You can't force people to vote.
You could just as accurately say that the dependence side "rammed through" the vote, knowing that the independence side had a moral concern regarding the timing, yeah?
You could just as accurately say that the dependence side "rammed through" the vote, knowing that the independence side had a moral concern regarding the timing, yeah?
Sure, but the date and time of the election had been determined decades ago. It was the "default" time. The real concern with the timing of the vote is that there was a lot of political goodwill...
Sure, but the date and time of the election had been determined decades ago. It was the "default" time. The real concern with the timing of the vote is that there was a lot of political goodwill towards the French government because they did a bunch of stimulus in response to COVID. Which feels like something they should just deal with.
This is pretty sad to hear. As an outside observer, a 10-year waiting period to vote seems very reasonable and I wonder what voting rights residents of that length had before the law. Maybe someone more familiar with the history and current situation can answer, is this some classic racism or something else? Why would the local population, who has cohabited with French for awhile, I assume, be so upset about something so reasonable?
From the linked article:
...
...
So their colonial overlords are attempting to dilute their representation at a time when they're actively working towards self-determination, and counter to prior accords.
It's not that clear. At the same time, it's somewhat absurd that voting lists have no been updated since 1998. Some people have been there for 35 years and yet are still not eligible to vote. Are they going to be disenfranchised forever? As citizens? The law merely updates the voting lists, as they should have been to begin with.
It's hard to call it some malicious flooding of the voting population when said voting population has been for over two decades already.
New Caledonia has had 3 independence referendums per the Noumea accord. Independence lost in all three.
Not sure if it's meant that way, but this comes across as very condescending to me.
Sorry, I was only aiming aiming for a little snide, given that I was able to resolve the confusion of the person I was responding to entirely by quoting the article. I'll take it out, since it's really not discussing in good faith. Thanks for calling me out on it.
I thought I read the whole article, but I didn't catch that last part. That's a pretty big deal if France is diluting their voting power after making that commitment.
I am extremely not an expert on the subject, but from what I have gathered, New Caledonia is a Melanesian island in the South Pacific (very far away from France) that belonged to the Kanak people until it was colonized by France in the 1800s. In mid 1900s, when most other colonized lands were regaining independence, France Declared New Caledonia a territory instead. (It is worth noting that France, in general, has been much less willing to part its colonies than other European nations have been — and even when it has released its colonies, it has done much more illegal interference in their democracies after their so-called independence.)
Since the 1970s, there has been a strong Kanak independence movement wishing to break away from France, which has led to violent conflicts at times. More lately, there has some effort and headway in establishing independence through referendum, but the referendum will definitely fail if France makes this change to the voting laws in New Caledonia.
I am personally torn on this subject. Philosophically, I believe that residents should have the right to influence policy in the location where they live.
On the other hand, I can completely understand that, to the Kanak people, this feels like a deliberate effort to erase their voices at the crucial moment that will determine the Kanak can ever be independent again or if they will always be subjects of France.
Although I don't know if this is exactly what has been happening in New Caledonia, there are many examples in history of nations deliberately encouraging citizens to settle in a foreign territory to make that territory easier to seize (e.g., how the US seized territory from Mexico and seized all of Hawaii, how Russia is has been seizing territory from Ukraine, and how Israel has been seizing territory from Palestine).
They literally had 3 legally binding referendums and they all resulted in a majority for remaining with France.
I believe their intention is to keep trying. They may be hoping that the political views will shift in their favor in the future, since it looks like that is the way the wind has been blowing (e.g., New Caledonia made the Kanak flag one of its official flags, and it changed its anthem and banknotes to be different from mainland France's). The referendum in 2021 was boycotted, but the other two referendums were close (56.9% in 2018 and 53.26% in 2020), and I imagine they are hoping they can win within the next few years. With this law change, it probably won't ever happen.
I am of two minds. I lean pretty hard toward universal suffrage as a matter of principle (I'm actually an extremist on this matter — I think even children should vote, for reasons that I won't get into here because it would take too long to explain), but I do sympathize with the Kanak and I hate to see colonization incentivized and rewarded.
I mean obviously they want to keep trying, but equally something to be reconciled is that a lot of people in New Caledonia want to be part of France, including Kanaks; they get to be French citizens, and that's quite nice. It's not like the US and guam, where you get to be some kind of pseudo citizen. It's particularly strong among the urban youth; there's a lot of economic advantages, not to mention opportunity.
It's fair to sympathize that the independence movement will be hampered, but it's also important to recognize that they've been artificially boosted by the purposeful disenfranchisement of long-standing residents of New Caledonia, and also that they do not represent the entirety of the Kanak people by a longshot.
Yes, I agree, and this is why I'm torn.
My intention here was not to argue for one side or another, but to explain why emotions are so heightened around this issue that France has had to declare a state of emergency. Both sides have very real and important grievances, which are unfortunately at odds.
From what I read online, people who are born in Guam actually are US citizens. Did you mean American Samoa?
Ah, yeah, it's American Samoa that don't have citizenship. Although Guam still doesn't get to participate in federal elections.
After looking into the referendums myself, I think just saying "there were three referendums" is a massive disservice.
The three referendums were in 2018, 2020, and 2021, with 2021 being the final one. In the 2018 and 2020 referendums, the votes rejecting it were 57% and 53% respectively, likely due to younger people (who seem to be the main proponents for independence based on the article) reaching voting age.
Then in 2021? It skyrocketed to 96%.
Some MAJOR important context from Wikipedia:
For further context, the 2020 referendum had 154,918 votes, out of 180,799 registered voters, an 85% turnout. 2021, meanwhile, had 80,881 voters out of 184,364 registered voters. That's only 43.87% of the voters. Even 2018 had an 81% voter turnout.
Looking at those numbers, I think the third referendum should have been postponed or rescheduled. More than half the voting population did not participate in the final referendum. Even with the mindset of "well they shouldn't have boycotted the vote if they wanted their opinions to matter", the difference in those numbers combined with the history of violent protests that led to this accord in the first place should have been viewed as a strong sign of potential unrest and violence in the future.
They should have rescheduled the vote afterwards to make sure no one could argue against the results being unfair. As it stands, it feels pretty opportunist on France's part to me as an outsider, because the downward trend of the first two votes suggests the third could have dipped below 50%. I imagine that many people within New Caledonia feel similarly, and much more strongly than I do.
Well yeah, the independence side "boycotted" the election, which worked out about as well as you'd expect boycotting an election to work. You can't force people to vote.
You could just as accurately say that the dependence side "rammed through" the vote, knowing that the independence side had a moral concern regarding the timing, yeah?
Sure, but the date and time of the election had been determined decades ago. It was the "default" time. The real concern with the timing of the vote is that there was a lot of political goodwill towards the French government because they did a bunch of stimulus in response to COVID. Which feels like something they should just deal with.