{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01824817518248175, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.341040462427745, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Exiles as Stakeholders

This chapter examines how much influence exiles are entitled to wield in the homeland. I situate this question in the broader boundary problem in democratic theory: how to determine who is entitled to participate in collective decision-making. I examine two leading principles of inclusion, and then elaborate on and apply the stakeholder principle: insofar as exiles have particular interests at stake, they are entitled to a correspondingly weighty say. The stakeholder principle admits of a hierarchy of stake and say, which protects against the moral hazards of ‘long-distance nationalism’ while reaffirming that identification alone entitles exiles to some say. I outline three types of interests exiles can have at stake and illustrate the competing interests within a stakeholder community, and the problem of some exiles having disproportionate influence. The stakeholder principle correctly diagnoses worries about ‘armchair revolutionaries’: the problem with exile influence is not when exiles have a say, but when they have too much of a say relative to others.