WHAT IS A RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN ? INTRODUCTION.
A responsible citizen is one who works honestly to earn a living, pays
taxes, is a good neighbour, protects and is a good role model for his or
her family, pays their bills on time, contributes to a said charity and
is patriotic to his o
CITIZENSHIP.
Citizenship is the status of a person recognised under the custom or law of a state that bestows on that person (called a citizen)
the rights and privileges of citizenship. Such rights and privileges
include the right to vote, work and live in the country and the right to
return to the country, besides other rights. A citizen may also be
subject to certain duties, such as a duty to serve in the military. A person may have multiple citizenships and a person who does not have citizenship of any state is said to be stateless.
Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English[1] – notably in international law – although the term is sometimes understood as denoting a person's membership of a nation.[2] In some countries, e.g. the United States, Israel, Philippines and the United Kingdom, "nationality" and "citizenship" have different meanings.[citation needed]
Factors determining citizenship
A person can be a citizen for several reasons. Usually citizenship of
the place of birth is automatic; in other cases an application may be
required.
- Parents are citizens (jus sanguinis).
If one or both of a person's parents are citizens of a given state,
then the person may have the right to be a citizen of that state as
well. [a] Formerly this might only have applied through the paternal line, but sex equality became common since the late twentieth century. Citizenship is granted based on ancestry or ethnicity, and is related to the concept of a nation state common in Europe. Where jus sanguinis
holds, a person born outside a country, one or both of whose parents
are citizens of the country, is also a citizen. States normally[citation needed] limit the right to citizenship by descent to a certain number of generations born outside the state.[clarification needed] This form of citizenship is common in civil law countries.
- Born within a country (jus soli). Most people are automatically citizens of the state in which they are born. This form of citizenship originated in England where those who were born within the realm were subjects of the monarch (a concept pre-dating citizenship), and is common in common law countries.
- In many cases both jus solis and jus sanguinis hold; citizenship either by place or parentage (or of course both).
- Marriage to a citizen (jure matrimonii).
Many countries fast-track naturalization based on the marriage of a
person to a citizen. Countries which are destinations for such
immigration often have regulations to try to detect sham marriages, where a citizen marries a non-citizen typically for payment, without them having the intention of living as man and wife.[5]
- Naturalization.
States normally grant citizenship to people who have entered the
country legally and been granted leave to stay, or been granted political asylum,
and also lived there for a specified period. In some countries
naturalization is subject to conditions which may include passing a test
demonstrating reasonable knowledge of the language or way of life of
the host country, good conduct (no serious criminal record), swearing
allegiance to their new state or its ruler, and renouncing their prior
citizenship. Some states allow dual citizenship and do not require naturalized citizens to renounce any other citizenship.
- Excluded categories. In the past there have been exclusions
on entitlement to citizenship on grounds such as skin color, ethnicity,
sex, and free status (not being a slave). Most of these exclusions no longer apply in most places.
History
Polis 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 mankind, 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 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.[8]
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.[9]
Historian Geoffrey Hosking in his 2005 Modern Scholar lecture course suggested that citizenship in ancient Greece arose from an appreciation for the importance of freedom.[10] Hosking explained:
It can be argued that this growth of slavery was what made Greeks
particularly conscious of the value of freedom. After all, any Greek
farmer might fall into debt and therefore might become a slave, at
almost any time ... When the Greeks fought together, they fought in
order to avoid being enslaved by warfare, to avoid being defeated by
those who might take them into slavery. And they also arranged their
political institutions so as to remain free men.
—Geoffrey Hosking, 2005[10]
Geoffrey Hosking suggests that fear of being enslaved was a central
motivating force for the development of the Greek sense of citizenship.
Sculpture: a Greek woman being served by a slave-child.
Slavery permitted slaveowners to have substantial free time, and enabled participation in public life.[10]
Polis citizenship was marked by exclusivity. Inequality of status was
widespread; citizens had a higher status than non-citizens, such as
women, slaves or barbarians.[11] 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 honour 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 of citizenship
In the Roman Empire,
citizenship expanded from small scale communities to the entire 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; it had been reduced to a
judicial safeguard and the expression of rule and law.[13] 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",[14] but Rome offered relatively generous terms to its captives, including chances for lesser forms of citizenship.[14] If Greek citizenship was an "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. One historian
explained:
The person was defined and represented through his actions upon
things; in the course of time, the term property came to mean, first,
the defining characteristic of a human or other being; second, the
relation which a person had with a thing; and third, the thing defined
as the possession of some person.
Roman citizenship reflected a struggle between the upper-class patrician interests against the lower-order working groups known as the plebeian class.[14]
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". And 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 European Middle Ages, citizenship was usually associated with cities and towns, see burgher, Grand Burgher (German Großbürger) and Bourgeoisie. Nobility used to have privileges above commoners (see aristocracy), but the French Revolution and other revolutions revoked these privileges and made citizens.
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.[19]:p.161 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 who 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,[9]
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 rights and duties.[9]
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.[8]
Modern citizenship is much more passive; action is delegated to others;
citizenship is often a constraint on acting, not an impetus to act.[8]
Nevertheless, citizens are usually aware of their obligations to
authorities, and are aware that these bonds often limit what they can
do.[8]
Different senses of citizenship
Many theorists suggest that there are two opposing conceptions of
citizenship: an economic one, and a political one. For further
information, see History of citizenship.
Citizenship status, under social contract
theory, carries with it both rights and responsibilities. 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."[24]
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.[8]
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.[19]
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.[25]
Modern citizenship has often been looked at as two competing underlying ideas:[26]
- The liberal-individualist or sometimes liberal conception of citizenship suggests that citizens should have entitlements necessary for human dignity.[27] 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,[27] but are essentially passive politically,[26]
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.[9]
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.[9] It was later that so-called social rights became part of the obligation for the state.[9]
- 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.[26] 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.[27]
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.[26] An ideal citizen is one who exhibits "good civic behavior".[9] Free citizens and a republic government are "mutually interrelated."[9] Citizenship suggested a commitment to "duty and civic virtue".[9]
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.[9] Some unresolved issues regarding citizenship include questions about what is the proper balance between duties and rights.[9] Some see these two aspects of citizenship as incompatible, such that social rights have gone too far with not enough emphasis on duties citizens owe to the state.[9] Another is a question about what is the proper balance between political citizenship versus social citizenship.[9]
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.[9]
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.[9] According to political scientist
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.[19]:p.150 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 his or her consent––or is citizenship a matter of where a person was born––that is, by his or her descent.[11]
International citizenship
In recent years, some intergovernmental organizations have extended the concept and terminology associated with citizenship to the international level,[28]
where it is applied to the totality of the citizens of their
constituent countries combined. Citizenship at this level is a secondary
concept, with rights deriving from national citizenship.
Commonwealth citizenship
The concept of "Commonwealth Citizenship" has been in place ever since the establishment of the Commonwealth of Nations.
As with the EU, one holds Commonwealth citizenship only by being a
citizen of a Commonwealth member state. This form of citizenship offers
certain privileges within some Commonwealth countries:
- Some such countries do not require tourist visas of citizens of other Commonwealth countries.
- In some Commonwealth countries resident citizens of other Commonwealth countries are entitled to political rights, e.g., the right to vote in local and national elections and in some cases even the right to stand for election.
- In some instances the right to work in any position (including the civil service) is granted, except for certain specific positions, such as in the defense departments, Governor-General or President or Prime Minister.
Although Ireland
left the Commonwealth in 1949, it is often treated as if it were a
member, with references being made in legal documents to 'the
Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland', and its citizens are not
classified as foreign nationals, particularly in the United Kingdom.
Canada departed from the principle of nationality being defined in terms of allegiance in 1921. In 1935 the Irish Free State was the first to introduce its own citizenship. However, Irish citizens were still treated as subjects of the Crown, and they are still not regarded as foreign, even though Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth.[29] The Canadian Citizenship Act
of 1947 provided for a distinct Canadian Citizenship, automatically
conferred upon most individuals born in Canada, with some exceptions,
and defined the conditions under which one could become a naturalized
citizen. The concept of Commonwealth citizenship was introduced in 1948
in the British Nationality Act 1948. Other dominions adopted this principle such as New Zealand, by way of the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act of 1948.
European Union citizenship
The Maastricht Treaty introduced the concept of citizenship of the European Union. Article 17 (1) of the Treaty on European Union[30] stated that:
Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding
the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.
Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national
citizenship.[31]
An agreement known as the amended EC Treaty[31]
established certain minimal rights for European Union citizens. Article
12 of the amended EC Treaty guaranteed a general right of
non-discrimination within the scope of the Treaty. Article 18 provided a
limited right to free movement and residence in Member States other
than that of which the European Union citizen is a national. Articles
18-21 and 225 provide certain political rights.
Union citizens have also extensive rights to move in order to exercise economic activity in any of the Member States[32] which predate the introduction of Union citizenship.[33]
Subnational citizenship
Citizenship most usually relates to membership of the nation state, but the term can also apply at the subnational level. Subnational entities may impose requirements, of residency
or otherwise, which permit citizens to participate in the political
life of that entity, or to enjoy benefits provided by the government of
that entity. But in such cases, those eligible are also sometimes seen
as "citizens" of the relevant state, province, or region. An example of
this is how the fundamental basis of Swiss citizenship is citizenship of an individual commune, from which follows citizenship of a canton and of the Confederation. Another example is Åland where the residents enjoy a special provincial citizenship within Finland, hembygdsrätt.
The United States has a federal system in which a person is a citizen of their specific state of residence, such as New Jersey or California, as well as a citizen of the United States. State constitutions may grant certain rights above and beyond what are granted under the United States Constitution
and may impose their own obligations including the sovereign right of
taxation and military service; each state maintains at least one
military force subject to national militia transfer service, the state's
national guard, and some states maintain a second military force not
subject to nationalization.
Diagram of relationship between; Citizens, Politicians + Laws
Citizenship education
"Active citizenship"
is the philosophy that citizens should work towards the betterment of
their community through economic participation, public, volunteer work,
and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens. In this vein, schools in some countries provide citizenship education (subject).
United Kingdom
Citizenship is offered as a General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) course in many schools in the United Kingdom. As well as teaching knowledge about democracy, parliament, government, the justice system, human rights
and the UK's relations with the wider world, students participate in
active citizenship, often involving a social action or social enterprise
in their local community.
- Citizenship is a compulsory subject of the National Curriculum in state schools in England for all pupils aged 11–16. Some schools offer a qualification in this subject at GCSE and A level.
All state schools have a statutory requirement to teach the subject,
assess pupil attainment and report student's progress in citizenship to
parents.[34]
- In Wales the model used is Personal and Social Education.[35][36]
- Citizenship is not taught as a discrete subject in Scottish
schools, but is a cross-curricular strand of the Curriculum for
Excellence. However they do teach a subject called "Modern Studies"
which covers the social, political and economic study of local, national
and international issues.[37]
Ireland
It is taught in Ireland
as an exam subject for the Junior Certificate. It is known as Civic,
Social and Political Education (CSPE). A new Leaving Certificate exam
subject with the working title 'Politics & Society' is being
developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA)
and is expected to be introduced to the curriculum sometime after 2012.[38]
See also
