Home > French Diplomats and Citizens: Looking Home While Abroad

French Diplomats and Citizens: Looking Home While Abroad

06/11/2025
French Consulate in Pondichery

Political scientist and member of CERI, Christian Lequesne has been interested in the diplomatic practices of states for many years, and more recently, in the way diplomats serve their country’s citizens abroad through various consular services and features. Each state, depending on its specific characteristics, fosters different relationships with its diaspora. Christian Lequesne answers our questions about these dynamics and what it means to "engage home".

You have recently contributed to an edited volume by Jan Melissen, HwaJung Kim, and Githma Chandrasekara (eds) Home Engagement in Diplomacy. Global Affairs and Domestic Publics. Can you provide some insights on the research presented in this paper, in terms of the relevant fields and the methodology employed?

My article explores the broader issue of how diplomacy has evolved to encompass interactions not only with foreign counterparts, but also with domestic audiences, and increasingly so. The diplomat has become as much a domestic actor as an international one. This engagement with national publics—as demonstrated by initiatives such as citizen panels designed to foster understanding of foreign policy decisions—also extends beyond the territorial boundaries of the state, through the relationships diplomats maintain with members of their country’s diaspora.

The article builds upon the research that informed my book Le Diplomate et les Français de l’Etranger (Presses de Sciences; forthcoming in English in 2026, Lexington Press, USA). It presents an ethnographic investigation into the practices of the French state toward the approximately 2.5 to 3 million French citizens living abroad. The analysis draws on several years of fieldwork conducted in five countries— the United Kingdom, Japan, Israel, Côte d’Ivoire, and Germany—examining how diplomatic actors negotiate the intersection between national belonging and international representation.

As you rightly point out, the increase of migrations (South-North and South-South and North-South) has had a significant impact on diplomatic practices. Could you please explain why and how this is visible?

There is an increasing focus among states of origin on their citizens living abroad, with the aim of identifying them, bringing them together, and mobilising them as channels of influence. The models and motivations underlying these relationships vary from one state to another. In some cases, the primary objective is electoral: to secure votes when members of the diaspora hold the right to participate in elections in their country of origin, as is the case for Turkey, Romania, and France. In other cases, the motivation is economic, as states aim to attract investments from their diaspora, as illustrated by India or Mexico.

More generally, diasporas have become instruments of soft power, comparable in significance to culture. The economic dimension is often crucial, as states seek to benefit from the success of entrepreneurs who have prospered abroad, in the hope that they will maintain ties with their homeland. This is not always the case, however: for instance, French entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley tend to have limited engagement with the French economy. It is therefore the responsibility of diplomats to monitor these nationals, as requested by the state. This also explains, for example, why the Indian diplomatic service has expanded its network of consulates in the United States.

In certain circumstances, diplomats may be required to provide assistance to their nationals who are detained abroad, or to facilitate the repatriation of individuals affected by wars or natural disasters. Recently, the two French prisoners released by the Iranian government after several years of detention sought refuge at the French embassy. Such releases, and the negotiations to secure travel documents, are the result of a long and often discreet diplomatic process.

What are the consequences of the export of national electoral politics to the diaspora through the right to vote?

This growing engagement has resulted in the diaspora becoming a political constituency that must be cultivated in order to win elections. President Erdoğan, for instance, holds large campaign rallies in countries such as Germany and Austria ahead of elections in Turkey, in an effort to maximise support for his party, the AKP. He appeals to the pride of Turks living abroad, fostering a form of long-distance nationalist allegiance. In a similar manner, Prime Minister Modi seeks to mobilise the Indian diaspora by maintaining BJP representatives and affiliated organisations in countries with significant Indian communities, such as the United Kingdom.

In some cases, the diaspora vote can be decisive in determining an electoral outcome. In Romania’s presidential elections, the liberal candidate, Klaus Iohannis, was elected on two occasions, largely due to the support of diaspora voters, who typically favoured him over the Romanian Socialist Party (PSD), the heir to the former communist regime. This also means that candidates must campaign internationally, targeting major expatriate communities who are likely to support them. For instance, Emmanuel Macron visited London in both 2017 and 2022 to secure the support of liberal French citizens abroad, who often possess significant economic capital. Marine Le Pen, on the other hand, consistently visits Franco-Lebanese Maronites who view her as a bulwark against political Islam. Similarly, French-Israeli voters demonstrated a higher level of support for Éric Zemmour, with a greater number casting their vote for him in the first round of the 2022 presidential election compared to voters in France as a whole.

Consequently, the diaspora has emerged as a political clientele in its own right. In some cases, national parties have been reluctant to grant voting rights to their expatriate citizens, perceiving them as less susceptible to domestic forms of clientelism. This was long the case in Albania, where it was not until 2025 that the country’s significant diaspora was finally permitted to participate in legislative elections.

Could you explain how the French vision of the welfare state influences its “home diplomacy”? What are the reasons why French diplomatic practices favour consular protection of citizens living abroad?

France is distinctive in that it provides financial assistance to its diaspora. This support primarily takes the form of social allowances (amounting to approximately €15 million per year) and scholarships for French children enrolled in French secondary schools abroad (€115 million). This is unique, and there is no similar offering elsewhere in the world, including in Europe. This practice can be explained by France’s strong welfare-state tradition, which the country projects abroad, decoupled moreover from the national tax payment. It is not necessary to pay taxes in France to receive these benefits; it is sufficient to be a French citizen.

In a sense, this policy prevents French nationals living abroad from falling into precarious situations, which are more common than generally assumed. A genuine consular administration is thus committed to the distribution of these supports, operating under the supervision of elected officials—both parliamentary and consular—whose primary goal is to preserve this redistributive system. This results in a distinctive relationship between diplomats and elected representatives at the local level.

Such dynamics show the importance of examining the internal characteristics of each state in order to understand how they interact with their diasporas. In the French case, it is evident that specific forms of projection take place, whereby domestic policy logics are extended into the realm of foreign and consular actions. The nature of the state does matter!

Interview by Miriam Périer, CERI.

References:

Illustration:
- French Consulate in Pondicherry, by Yogesh Raut for Shutterstock. 

Back to top