What is Citizenship?
The
first thing that comes to mind is ‘who is a citizen’? A citizen or citizenship broadly is conceived as
social contract valid for all in a political system based on the set of rights and obligations which a
citizen is entitled to within a given state. In effect, citizenship could be
regarded as the most privileged form of nationality, a broad term said to
denote various relations between an individual and a state.
However,
this relation does not necessarily confer political rights but do imply other
privileges, especially protection abroad. In effect, a citizen is supposed to
identify with the interests of the political community to which they belong
even at the expense of their membership in families, professional or regional
communities. This notion of citizenship creates a problem for federalism
especially in a country like Nigeria. This is in the sense that the central
object of federalism is “the extension and expansion of political space,
autonomy and institutions to the benefit of geo-political units in a context in
which the political community accepts that ethnic, religious and cultural
differences exist and that their management would benefit from differential
levels of governance (Ibrahim, 2003).
In
this context, each participant enjoys a constitutionally protected membership
in two polities, one regional and one central (Vernon, 1988). The implication
of this is that citizens of a federal state will enjoy protection from two
levels of government. This aspect of federalism has been pushed too far by
political elites so much so that it has served to undermine the values of
loyalty or served in engendering double loyalty.
On
the other hand, citizenship as defined by international law denotes all persons
whom a state is entitled to protect. This feature should, however, not be
conceived as if a state may not protect aliens. The important thing to note,
however, is that citizenship unexpectedly should confer equal access to a range
of resources (like Civil Resources, Social Resources, Political Resources, and
Economic Resources) so as to engender concomitant duties from the citizenry to
the state.
However,
collective identifications based on ethnicity, religion and sex which all play
an important role in determining the collective shape of citizenry have
continued to ensure many a citizen are left out or are only partially included
in the institutionalization of notions of citizenship that is equal access to a range of resources.
This
brings to bear the fact that the actualization of the content of citizenship
though different for various segments of society go beyond the establishment of
formal democratic institutions.
In
effect, it has been agreed by scholars that citizenship is not absolute i.e.
something that you either have or not, rather what you may have more or less
of, in terms of the various attributes of access and recognition.
Thus,
for modern concept of citizenship, a significant divergence has been on the
question of whether citizenship rights should be understood as individual
entitlements only, or group and community rights. This shift in the content of
citizenship over time not only border on changes occurring in society but
rather on the fact that the attributes of citizenship have, however, neither
been static nor uniform, or even limited in application exclusively to
individuals as opposed to communities. This is in relation to central issues
like the engendering of citizenship which include struggles for the expansion
of the rights of women; the promotion of male-female equality that is the
reconstitution of the public sphere to enhance the presence and participation
of women which border on patriarchy or on notions of discrimination, the reform
of family law; and the re-definition of the legal requirements for citizenship.
Acquisition of Citizenship (Ways to Acquired Citizenship)
Citizenship
or membership is channeled through one authoritative agent, the state.
Membership in state/ society and its social organizations occur in different
modes and influence a person in diverse ways.
However,
conditions for acquiring citizenship in any country so as to be granted the
privileges of natural-born citizens are through registration and
naturalization.
Specifically,
in the Nigerian Constitution of 1979 and 1999(stated in Chapter 11) citizenship
can be acquired through three basic processes:
(1)
By Birth: This means
(a)
Every person born in Nigeria before
the date of independence, either of whose parents or any of whose grand-parents belongs or belonged to
a community indigenous to
Nigeria.
(b)
Every person born in Nigeria after the
date of independence, either of whose parents or any of whose grand -parents is a citizen of
Nigeria.
(c)
Every person born outside Nigeria either of whose parents is a citizen of
Nigeria.
(2)
By Registration: This second
category includes those to be registered by the president through relevant
public agencies.
(3)
By Naturalization: This category
involves those who naturalize.
Here,
the membership of a state is determined by the legal classification of
inhabitants within states as citizens and noncitizens. For the non-citizens that
is immigrants the state institutes certain citizenship policies or membership
policies which regulate admission to citizenship in a state which have absolute
authority to include or exclude persons as members of state. This differentiates
inhabitants which are regarded by the governing regime as the state’s subjects,
and those that are not so much so that although inhabitants of a given state
are residents, an only citizen, that is residents that have citizenship are able to participate politically
in voicing legitimate demands, forming rules and enforcing these upon all
members within society, including non citizens.
Entitlements of Citizenship
It
is expected that the consolidation of nation-states within fixed territorial
boundaries and the institutionalization of participatory mass democracy would
confer equal access to a range of resources. The ranges of resources at the
state’s disposal according to (Marshall, 1965, Brubaker, 1992, Davis, 1994) are:
1. Civil
Resources: These are entitlements such as legal protection and access to the
courts of law
2. Social
Resources: Here, the state is expected to provide welfare, education and health
services
3.
Political Resources: These include voting and political representation to
ensure equality of all citizenry.
4.
Economic Resources: These include the use of land and water as well as the
right of permanent abode.
Specifically,
in a concrete political system like Nigeria, the convention for the protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Nigerian 1999 constitution
chapter iv stipulates the
guarantee of human rights especially political and civil liberties.
Duties and Responsibilities of Citizenship
Citizenship
to Aristotle implies the capacity to assume responsibility (such as
participation in holding office) in the polis (State). This responsibility
effectively distinguishes the citizen from non-citizens. Some duties and
responsibilities expected from citizenship are:
(a)
Allegiance: Citizenship
is a form of relationship between an individual and a state in which an
individual owes loyalty, commitment to the state and in turn is entitled to
protection by the state. It is pertinent to state, however, that though this protection
is extended to the aliens, most at times the accompanying responsibility is
denied or at times extended partially to aliens and other non-citizens residing
in any given country.
(b)
Tax Obligation: Citizens
(as well as aliens) of a state are under obligation/duty to pay taxes,
royalties because the revenue generated will be ploughed in the provision of
social infrastructure and basic amenities.
(c)
Military Service: One of the obligatory
responsibilities of the citizens to the state (for example Israel) is that of
offering to serve and protect the integrity of the state through the uniformed institutions
and organizations such as the police and the military/armed forces. However, in
Nigeria it is not compulsory to serve the military or police. It is important
to mention that even aliens enter military and police in some countries.
History of Citizenship
Many thinkers point to the concept of citizenship beginning
in the early city states of ancient Greece, although others see it as
primarily a modern phenomenon dating back only a few hundred years and, for humanity
that the concept of citizenship arose with the first laws. Polis meant both the political
assembly of the city-state as well as the entire society.
Citizenship concept has generally been identified as a
western phenomenon. There is a general view that citizenship in
ancient times was a simpler relation than modern forms of citizenship, although
this view has come under scrutiny. The relation of citizenship has not
been a fixed or static relation, but constantly changed within each society,
and that according to one view, citizenship might "really have
worked" only at select periods during certain times, such as when the
Athenian politician solon made reforms in the early Athenian state.
Slavery permitted slave-owners to have substantial free time,
and enabled participation in public life. Polis citizenship was marked by
exclusivity. Inequality of status was widespread; citizens had a higher status
than non-citizens, such as women, slaves, and resident foreigners.
The first form of citizenship was based on the way people lived
in the ancient Greek times, in small-scale organic communities of the
polis. Citizenship was not seen as a separate activity from the private life of
the individual person, in the sense that there was not a distinction
between public and private life.
The obligations of citizenship were deeply connected into
one's everyday life in the polis. These small-scale organic communities were
generally seen as a new development in world history, in contrast to the
established ancient civilizations of Egypt or Persia, or the
hunter-gatherer bands elsewhere. From the viewpoint of the ancient Greeks, a
person's public life was not separated from their private life, and Greeks did
not distinguish between the two worlds according to the modern western
conception.
The obligations of citizenship were deeply connected with
everyday life. To be truly human, one had to be an active citizen to the
community, which Aristotle famously expressed: To take no part in the
running of the community's affairs is to be either a beast or a god. This form
of citizenship was based on obligations of citizens towards the community,
rather than rights given to the citizens of the community. This was not a
problem because they all had a strong affinity with the polis; their own
destiny and the destiny of the community were strongly linked. Also, citizens
of the polis saw obligations to the community as an opportunity to be virtuous;
it was a source of honor and respect. In Athens, citizens were both ruler and
ruled, important political and judicial offices were rotated and all citizens
had the right to speak and vote in the political assembly.
Roman ideas
In the Roman Empire, citizenship expanded from
small-scale communities to the entirety of the empire. Romans realized that
granting citizenship to people from all over the empire legitimized Roman rule
over conquered areas. Roman citizenship was no longer a status of political
agency, as it had been reduced to a judicial safeguard and the expression of
rule and law. Rome carried forth Greek ideas of citizenship such as
the principles of equality under the law, civic participation in government,
and notions that no one citizen should have too much power for too long, but
Rome offered relatively generous terms to its captives, including chances for
lesser forms of citizenship. If Greek citizenship was emancipation from
the world of things, the Roman sense increasingly reflected the fact that
citizens could act upon material things as well as other citizens, in the sense
of buying or selling property, possessions, titles, goods.
Roman
citizenship reflected a struggle between the upper-class aristocratic interests
against the lower-order working groups known as the working-class class. A
citizen came to be understood as a person free to act by law, free to ask and
expect the law's protection, a citizen of such and such a legal community, of
such and such a legal standing in that community. Citizenship meant having
rights to have possessions, immunities, expectations, which were available in
many kinds and degrees, available or unavailable to many kinds of person for
many kinds of reason. The law itself was a kind of bond uniting
people. Roman citizenship was more impersonal, universal, multiform,
having different degrees and applications.
Middle Ages
During
the European Middle Ages, citizenship was usually associated with cities
and towns and applied mainly to middle class folk. Titles such as burgher, grand
burgher and middle-class denoted
political affiliation and identity in relation to a particular locality, as
well as membership in a mercantile or trading class; thus, individuals of
respectable means and socioeconomic status were interchangeable with citizens.
During
this era, members of the dignity had a range of privileges above commoners, though political
upheavals and reforms, beginning most prominently with the French Revolution,
abolished privileges and created an egalitarian concept of citizenship.
Renaissance
During
the renaissance, people transitioned from being subjects of a king or
queen to being citizens of a city and later to a nation. Each city had its
own law, courts, and independent administration.
And
being a citizen often meant being subject to the city's law in addition to
having power in some instances to help choose officials. City dwellers that
had fought alongside nobles in battles to defend their cities were no longer
content with having a subordinate social status, but demanded a greater role in
the form of citizenship. Membership in guilds was
an indirect form of citizenship in that it helped their members succeed
financially. The rise of
citizenship was linked to the rise of republicanism, according to one
account, since independent citizens meant that kings had less power.
Citizenship
became an idealized, almost abstract, concept,
and
did not signify a submissive relation with a lord or count, but rather
indicated the bond between a person and the state in the rather abstract sense
of having right and duties.
Modern times
The
modern idea of citizenship still respects the idea of political participation, but
it is usually done through elaborate systems of political representation at a
distance such as representative democracy. Modern citizenship is much more
passive; action is delegated to others; citizenship is often a constraint on
acting, not an impetus to act. Nevertheless,
citizens are usually aware of their obligations to authorities, and are aware
that these bonds often limit what they can do.
United States
From
1790 until the mid-twentieth century, United States Law used racial
criteria to establish citizenship rights and regulate who was eligible to
become a naturalized citizen. The naturalization Act of 1790, the first law
in U.S. history to establish rules for citizenship and naturalization, barred
citizenship to all people who were not of European descent, stating that any
alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and
under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two
years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof.
Under
early U.S. laws, African Americans were not eligible for citizenship. In 1857,
these laws were upheld in the US Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford,
which ruled that a free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought
to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of
the Constitution of the United States, and that the special rights and
immunities guaranteed to citizens do not apply to them.
It
was not until the abolition of slavery following the American Civil War that
African Americans were granted citizenship rights. The 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified on July 9, 1868, stated that
"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. Two years later, the Naturalization Act of 1870 would
extend the right to become a naturalized citizen to include aliens of African
nativity and to persons of African descent.
Despite
the gains made by African Americans after the Civil War, Native Americans,
Asians, and others not considered "free white persons" were still
denied the ability to become citizens. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act explicitly
denied naturalization rights to all people of Chinese origin, while subsequent
acts passed by the US Congress, such as laws in 1906, 1917, and 1924,
would include clauses that denied immigration and naturalization rights to
people based on broadly defined racial categories.
Supreme
Court cases such as Ozawa v. United States (1922) and U.S. v.
Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), would
later clarify the meaning of the phrase free white persons, ruling that
ethnically Japanese, Indian, and other non-European people were not "white
persons", and were therefore ineligible for naturalization under U.S. law.
Native
Americans were not granted full US citizenship until the passage of the Indian Citizenship
Act in 1924. However, even well into the 1960s some state laws prevented
Native Americans from exercising their full rights as citizens, such as the
right to vote. In 1962, New Mexico became the last state to
enfranchise Native Americans.
It
was not until the passage of the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952 that the racial and gender restrictions for
naturalization were explicitly abolished. However, the act still contained
restrictions regarding who was eligible for US citizenship, and retained a
national quota system which limited the number of visas given to immigrants
based on their national origin, to be fixed at a rate of one-sixth of one
percent of each nationality's population in the United States in 1920.
It
was not until the passage of the Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1965 that these immigration quota systems
were drastically altered in favor of a less discriminatory system.
Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics
The
1918 constitution of revolutionary Russia granted citizenship to any
foreigners who were living within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist
Republic, so long as they were engaged in work and [belonged] to the working class.
It recognized the equal rights of all citizens, irrespective of their racial or
national connections and declared oppression of any minority group or race to
be contrary to the fundamental laws of the Republic. The 1918 constitution also
established the right to vote and be elected to soviets for both men
and women irrespective of religion, nationality, domicile, etc. Who shall have
completed their eighteenth year by the day of election?
The
later constitutions of the USSR would grant universal Soviet citizenship
to the citizens of all member republics in concord with the principles of
non-discrimination laid out in the original 1918 constitution of Russia.
Nazi Germany
The
German variant of twentieth century fascism, classified inhabitants of the
country into three main hierarchical categories, each of which would have
different rights in relation to the state: citizens, subjects, and aliens. The
first category, citizens, was to possess full civic rights and
responsibilities. Citizenship was conferred only on males of German or
so-called "Aryan” heritage who had completed military service, and could
be revoked at any time by the state. The Reich Citizenship Law of 1935
established racial criteria for citizenship in the German Reich, and because of
this law Jews and others who could not prove German racial heritage" were
stripped of their citizenship.
The
second category, subjects, referred to all others who were born within the
nation's boundaries who did not fit the racial criteria for citizenship.
Subjects would have no voting rights, could not hold any position within the
state, and possessed none of the other rights and civic responsibilities
conferred on citizens. All women were to be conferred subject status upon
birth, and could only obtain "citizen" status if they worked
independently or if they married a German citizen
Theories of Citizenship
Many theorists suggest that there
are two opposing conceptions of citizenship: an economic one, and a political
information, Citizenship status, under social contract theory,
carries with it both rights and duties. In this sense, citizenship was described
as a bundle of rights - primarily, political participation in the life of the
community, the right to vote, and the right to receive certain protection from
the community, as well as obligations. Citizenship is seen by most scholars as
culture specific, in the sense that the meaning of the term varies considerably
from culture to culture, and over time. For example, there is a cultural politics of
citizenship which could be called "people ship".
How citizenship is understood
depends on the person making the determination. The relation of citizenship has
never been fixed or static, but constantly changes within each society. While
citizenship has varied considerably throughout history and within societies
over time, there are some common elements but they vary considerably as well.
As a bond, citizenship extends beyond basic kinship ties to unite people of
different genetic backgrounds. It usually signifies membership in a political
body. It is often based on, or was a result of, some form of military service or
expectation of future service. It usually involves some form of political
participation, but this can vary from token acts to active service in
government.
Citizenship is a status in society.
It is an ideal state as well. It generally describes a person with legal rights
within a given political order. It almost always has an element of exclusion,
meaning that some people are not citizens, and that this distinction can
sometimes be very important, or not important, depending on a particular
society.
Citizenship as a concept is
generally hard to isolate intellectually and compare with related political
notions, since it relates to many other aspects of society such as the family,
military service, the individual, freedom, religion, ideas of right
and wrong, ethnicity,
and patterns for how a person should behave in society. When there are
many different groups within a nation, citizenship may be the only real bond
which unites everybody as equals without discrimination. It is a "broad
bond" linking "a person with the state" and gives people a
universal identity as a legal member of a specific nation.
Modern citizenship has often been
looked at as two competing underlying ideas:
1. The liberal-individualist or sometimes liberal conception
of citizenship suggests that citizens should have entitlements necessary for human
dignity. It assumes people act for the
purpose of enlightened self-interest. According to this viewpoint,
citizens are sovereign, morally autonomous beings with duties to pay taxes,
obey the law, engage in business transactions, and defend the nation if it
comes under attack, but are essentially passive politically, and
their primary focus is on economic betterment. This idea began to appear around
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and became stronger over time,
according to one view. According to this formulation, the state exists for
the benefit of citizens and has an obligation to respect and protect the rights
of citizens, including civil rights and political rights. It was later
that so-called social rights became part of the obligation for the state.
2. The civic-republican or sometimes classical or civic
humanist conception of citizenship emphasizes man's political nature, and sees
citizenship as an active process, not a passive state or legal marker. It is
relatively more concerned that government will interfere with popular places to
practice citizenship in the public sphere. Citizenship means being active
in government affairs.
According to one view, most people today live as citizens
according to the liberal-individualist conception but wished they lived more
according to the civic-republican ideal. An ideal citizen is one who exhibits good
civic behavior. Free citizens and a republic government are mutually
interrelated. Citizenship suggested a commitment to duty and civic virtue.
Scholars suggest that the concept of
citizenship contains many unresolved issues, sometimes called tensions,
existing within the relation, that continue to reflect uncertainty about what
citizenship is supposed to mean. Some unresolved issues regarding citizenship
include questions about what is the proper balance between duties and right. Another is a question about
what is the proper balance between political citizenship versus social
citizenship. Some thinkers see benefits with people being absent from public
affairs, since too much participation such as revolution can be destructive,
yet too little participation such as total apathy can be problematic as well.
Citizenship can be seen as a special
elite status, and it can also be seen as a democratizing force and something
that everybody has the concept can include both senses. According to
sociologist
Arthur Stinchcombe,
citizenship is based on the extent that a person can control one's own destiny
within the group in the sense of being able to influence the government of the
group. One last distinction within citizenship is the so-called consent descent
distinction, and this issue addresses whether citizenship is a fundamental
matter determined by a person choosing to belong to a particular nation by
their consent or is citizenship a matter of where a person was born that is, by
their descent.
0 Comments