More professional than this: www.lorenzopiccoli.eu. It has been alive for two years now but I never advertised it anywhere.
About a year has passed since my Ph.D. defence and here comes the first publication out of the dissertation: The Regional Battleground: Partisanship as a Key Driver of the Subnational Contestation of Citizenship has been published on Ethnopolitics as part of a project on Where Borders Migrate: The Rescaling of Territory and Citizenship in Europe. The other contributions to this project were written by Jean-Thomas Arrighi, Dejan Stjepanovic, Stephen Tierney, Rainer Bauböck, Julija Sardelic, Maja Spanu, Gezim Krasniqi, and Michael Keating.
The article is the result of four years of research at the European University Institute and an extra spell of one year at the nccr – on the move. It challenges the idea that territorial rescaling invariably leads to a race to the bottom in the provision of rights for vulnerable subjects. I already presented some ideas that are in it during the three-minute speech you can watch below.
This is the link to the article I published together with Jean-Thomas and Sam on European Political Science. You can read it for free thanks to the funding we have received from GLOBALCIT and the Global Governance Programme to make it open access.
In the article, we present ELECLAW, a new set of indicators that captures the subtle and variegated legal landscape of persisting electoral rights restrictions.
If I could chose an image for this piece it would be the 1913 feminist manifesto pictured above. The electoral franchise has become more universal as restrictions based on criteria such as sex or property have been lifted throughout the process of democratisation. Yet, a broad range of exclusions has persisted to this date, making the suffrage non-universal, even in established democracies. The exclusion of prisoners or persons with a mental disability, for instance, remains a divisive issue in most contemporary democracies. Another particularly widespread and controversial form of disenfranchisement stems from international migration, as a result of which non-naturalised immigrants are often excluded from elections held in their country of residence and, to a lesser degree, in their country of citizenship. In democratically governed states, regions, and cities, these infringements to the sacrosanct principle of universal suffrage have sparked debates about the very nature of the political community and the essential qualities of citizenship, resulting in frequent changes in the electoral law. Ultimately, a broad range of more or less severe restrictions has persisted to this date, making suffrage non-universal, even in established democracies.
I am very pleased to be among the contributors to the new Handbook of Territorial Politics with a chapter on Regional Citizenship in a System of Plural Memberships and Multilevel Rights.
Our two editors, Eve Hepburn (whom I already spoke about here) and Klaus Detterbeck, did such a splendid job. You can read their introduction here and you can contact me to have a copy of the chapter I wrote.
Together with Jelena, I wrote a blogpost on citizenship and football published on the observatory on citizenship I work for. We did some research and found out that 220 players at the world cup, that is one out of three, have dual citizenship. These include the likes of Lionel Messi (citizen of Spain and Argentina), Kylian Mbappé (France, Cameroon and Algeria), Dele Alli (Nigeria and England). These players could well be representing another national team, if they had made the choice. And so could other players in the past: imagine what previous world championships would have looked like if Patrick Viera had chosen to play for Senegal instead of France, John Barnes for Jamaica instead of England, Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski for Poland instead of Germany. You can see the visualisation we have made following this link and you can read the article here.
Post scriptum, July 23 2018: we have now published an updated version of this post on the nccr – on the move blog.
I was looking for good articles to share with you after the Italian elections of March 4. Not much. In a blatant act of self-promotion, I would simply recommend a short read and an interview (minute 11:30) I’ve made on Radio France International together with Fabio and professor D’Alimonte. In addition, I would also suggest a deeper read by Old Tom on the politics of frustration.
I have written a post for the blog of the nccr – on the move, the Swiss research centre I have been working for since early September. The post sets out from the debate concerning the dual citizenship of politicians: this issue has caused a government crisis in Australia and has also been at the centre of the debate in Switzerland. In my post I use two existing datasets, from GLOBALCIT and MACMIDE respectively, to show which countries around the world establish legal restrictions that make it more complex and sometimes impossible for individuals with dual citizenship to stand as candidates for elections. You can click on the image below to open my interactive map.
Following the publication of my post, I have asked other academics to take up the same question from their perspective. You can find a contribution written by Barbara von Rutte here and one by Nenad Stojanovic here.
You can also read these posts in Italian here.
Al centro di ricerca con cui collaboro da qualche anno ci occupiamo di studiare, tra altre cose, come cambia l’estensione del suffragio elettorale tra paesi e sistemi politici diversi. In pratica, confrontiamo centinaia di elezioni in tutto il mondo per capire chi ha diritto a votare e chi no. È un tema importante, perché a seconda di dove viene tracciata la linea tra questi due gruppi si favorisce un candidato anziché un altro. L’ultimo caso in cui le decisioni relative al suffragio potrebbero aver avuto un esito determinante su una competizione elettorale è quello delle presidenziali americane del 2016. Leggete il resto del mio articolo su Unimondo.