Citizenship is “membership in a political community” usually a country and right to political participation is attached. A citizen is a person who has such membership. There is a difference between nationality and citizenship: citizens have right to participate in political matters of country they are citizen of, such as voting while nationals do not necessary have the rights but may acquire them with time. A person born in particular nation is a subject to that nation and is entitled to protection from the state even if he does not posses political participation rights.
One is regarded as a citizen of a society if he/ she has political rights: one who can participate in running the affairs of a country and can make decision on matters of national developments. It is possible that an individual can be a citizen of one country and be a national in another country. This occurs in a case whereby one is a national by birth and could also become a citizen of another country by registration. Therefore we can say nationality is due to birth while citizenship streams from legal relationship with the state.
Prior to creation of Australian citizenship act in 1948 Australians were British subjects and both Britain and Australia, shared a common nationality code. Even after enactment of the 1948 act Australian citizens remained subjects of the United Kingdom. “Non-Australians who were under Britain in Australia had different status in law from those who were not British subjects”[2; but with time this differences faded. A group of Australians called Aborigines did not become Australian citizen immediately after the 1948 act but, acquired their citizenship later after 1967 referendum.
Australians acquired citizenship in 1949 though under Britain rule. Between the years 1949 to 1989 any nationality born in Australia acquired Australian citizenship automatically by birth. During the same period, those whom were Britain subjects were allowed to acquire Australian citizenship after two years of stay as immigrants. The 1973 Australian citizenship act removed any preference given to Britain subjects such that all migrants had to meet equal criterion for nationalization as Australian citizens.
The history of citizenship dates back as far as the ancient Greece based on how people lived in that time. “People were organized in small-scale organic communities of the polis”. There was no difference between public citizen and ones private life. Individual member of Polis was supposed to actively participate in community’s obligation for him/her to be considered human. Citizenship was mainly based on obligation of citizen towards community, rather than rights given to the citizens of the community.
A citizen, being a member of society is entitled to duties and responsibilities to perform. Every citizen is expected to actively to participate in activities that improve the welfare of other citizens within the society. Such programs include economic participation, public service, volunteer work and other obligations that intent to improve welfare of the community.
An active citizen is one who exercises and balances in his/her rights, and his responsibilities to the society. Since rights are defined in written law, responsibilities are not, a problem arise among the citizens on what the responsibilities are. It is the duty of a citizen to contribute to running and maintenance of the state through paying taxes or service to the state. As well the state should give back to the citizens by; providing security, health service, decent education to all and improved service delivery.
There are varies kinds of citizenship. “Global citizenship is moral and ethical disposition which might guide an individual to understanding of the global and local contexts”. This implies that global citizenship entitles one to having responsibilities within different societies and across many nations. Global citizenship is said to be motivated by desire to improve the local community and sense of having global equality through service to humanity in entire world. It entails championing for both local and global equality while protecting the interests of individuals and the plane as well. A state as well, is supposed to work “recognizing world as a global community”. In that it must recognize and realize global obligation as well as the rights of global citizens. The actions f any state should be such that they do not harm other states or the global environment.
Signing of international treaties and protocol among states is a way of expressing global citizenship. These organizations are mainly formed to foster great cooperation in matters of health, trade, security and the movement of citizens within the member countries. The unions establish citizenship such that every person with nationality of the member states is treated as the citizen of the union. This kind of citizenship is referred supranational citizenship. Global citizenship dates back to the stoic of ancient Greece and Rome.
Ancient philosophers have contributed much towards understanding and on notion of contemporary citizenship. Some held the view that people could agree with one another to form nations and maintain social order. In that people are ready to give up rights to authority that will secure the social order. Kant a German philosopher, described citizenship as the desire to community’s duty rather than one’s emotional feeling. She believed that duty is carried out under laid principles and one action worth were judged in respect to these principles. She also believed that human beings were rational and their decisions were made rationally. “Kant ethics focus then only on the maxim that underlines actions and judges these to be good or bad solely on how they conform to reason”.
One thing Kant didn’t agree with is the point that the worthy of an act was directly related to the consequences of the outcome of the action: what follows after an action does not measure the worthy of the action. She believe that the physical world was beyond people’s control thus, one could not be held control of the consequences of his actions.
John Rawl’s contribution revolved around the; principle of justice, political liberalism and laws of people. John major concern was how to balance between liberty and equity for him to build on his notion on justice. He held justice as fairness and believed that justice would reconcile equity and liberty. John embraced the need for; political equality-equal rights of liberty of thought and conscience, fairness in equal opportunities and government regulations. John believes that people will only be led by the notion of reasoning to come to an agreement rather than rationality.
He questions on what ground people divided by reasonable religious and moral values would maintain liberal system where people are free and equal. He points out that; its through reasoning rather than human rationality that any dreams of people might be realized. He believes that people are “reasonable if they could agree on principles that would guide them in co-operation and other groups would adhere to willingly”.
He asserts that people should not be forced into certain religion or in adopting moral or philosophical doctrine against their will. A just society can not be established by force but rather reasonable policies and where people are free to discuss matters concerning essentials of the system.
John corrects Kant’s stand on autonomy as regulator of all of life. He affirms that autonomy is incompatible with political liberalism of justices and fairness. John sees people as: free and independent, and their freedom and independence are to be respected by other people, people are equal and have agreement that bind them, have right to self defense, honor human rights and have duty to help others under unfavorable conditions that bar justice and political regime. For john any regime that interferes with law of people should no be declared illegal.
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worthy of any action is determined by its contribution to overall utility. Utility is defined by different philosophers as happiness or pleasure. Several philosophers apart from Kant believed that the worthy of moral act is determined by the consequences of the action.
Therefore, in people’s quest for full satisfaction they should follow the moral standards of the society. According to Jeremy Bentham, pain and pleasures are intrinsic values in the word and nature had placed mankind under governance of pain and pleasures. As result of this, the rule of utility comes up. He believed that good is whatever brings happiness to many people; such that as one seeks to fulfill his pleasures he should also contribute to the wellbeing of others.
John Stuart mill build on the Jeremy’s stand and concluded that there was two levels of pleasures; higher and lower levels of pleasures. Under utilitarianism, when faced with choice we must consider the likely effects of the action and opt to follow what we believe will bring much happiness (act utilitarianism).
Utilitarianism is also based on rules followed in quest to attain great happiness. If rules are followed, and more happiness is realized than if there were not there, then rules should always be followed (rule utilitarianism). But rule utilitarianism has been “criticized since general rules sometime lead to decline in happiness”. But proponents of rule utilitarianism advocate for exception of rules that go against other rules only if such rules increases happiness.
Many past “utilitarians” hoped that happiness could be measured and compared between persons. But, it has been proved that happiness among different people can not be compared or even measured. In maximizing happiness utilitarians just make their best estimates of the consequences because they do not have the “knowledge of consequences since consequences are in future”.
Its because of this that rule is useful when maximizing happiness: since if one does not have any knowledge of consequences of action, he or she might follow most ethical rules that have past helped in attainment of happiness. Antony Kenny is against utilitarianism on basis that determinism is either true or false. “if is true, we have no choice over our actions; if false then the consequences of our actions are unpredictable, because they depend upon the actions of others whom we cannot predict”.
John Mills contributed to utilitarianism by arguing that there was qualitative separation of pleasures rather than Bentham who treated happiness to be equal. Mills argues that “intellectual and moral pleasures are superior to physical forms of pleasures”. Mills supports his argument on the levels of pleasure with principle that those who have witnessed both levels tend to have choice between the two levels. What mills implied was that those people without experience on higher pleasures would tend to concentrate on low levels pleasures. Mills used his stand to support the appointment of university graduates to lead societies on basis that graduates were better placed to judge what would be best for the society.
Its mills stand that each citizen would value own pleasures over that of others: society should not interfere with ones quest for happiness though; it can control his or her actions. It was from his ideas on qualitative pleasures that he developed on liberty where he addresses on the limits of powers that society can exercise over individual. Mills advocates that each person has right to pursue whatever he or she wishes to so long as he or she does not harm others.
The society should not intervene on actions of individuals especially if the acts only affects that person no matter the action harms that person. Power could only be used on the member of the civilized community only to prevent harm to others. If danger of harming others is sensed the force could be used against the will of that person to compel him or her from harming others. Individualism is state of being independent, self-reliance and having autonomy in a society.
Individual should quest for his or her goals and desires while opposing pressure groups that might come to his way. Individualism does not believe in collective groups or pluralists. In mill’s view individuals put their goal first than the society’s goals. Individuals are above the society’s common belief and only the law limits individual’s choice of actions. So, in mill’s social liberty the rulers should not use powers on their own wishes to make decision that could harm the society.
John Locke advocated for need to have a state or government. Locke believed that human beings under their natural setting are free, equal and independent and have natural rights to life, liberty and property. Under this setting human beings are controlled by law of nature. Human beings have the right to exercise their liberty to maximum as long as they do not interfere with liberty of others. One could do whatever he wishes and hopes to achieve as long as his actions do not harm others.
From political point of view if human beings under natural setting were all responsible for their actions then there would be no need to have a government. But in the society, there are social deviants and detractors that violate the rights of others. They willing and intentionally inflict others with harm, interfere with their liberty and takes away or destroys their properties. Again people may not exercise impartial and fair judgment on matters that directly affects them. Therefore, due to this reasons the need for a government arise to instill fair judgment and punish the deviants. Then the question which arises is how that government should be established.
According to Locke, the government should be put up through an agreement between people and authority. People should be willing to give up some of their rights for protection from the states. Locke wrote it is that “men give up all their natural powers to the society they enter into, and the community put legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws”. The established state should respect the rights of its subjects and encase it violets the rights of its citizens then, citizens have the right to topple it down and democratically elect another one.
People have the right to own and possess properties and Locke asserts that property is created by application of labor. He believed that material wealth is God given but its creation and ownership depends on efforts of individuals. Guaranteeing the freedom to create and acquire property, and to enjoy the comfort thereof, is the core basis for establishment of government according to Locke. Locke advocated for markets regulated by forces of demand and supply rather than government intervention. He stresses that the fall and rise in prices of goods is due to actions of buyers and sellers and therefore government should not interfere with business.
Rousseau advocated for the social contract where he maintained that each “individual is in contract to submit his or her own will to the general will”. Rousseau believes that people could agree to jointly for a society of common goodwill. Individuals enter into society to attain their own interest ignoring the interest of the society they are in.
The social contract suggested by Rousseau formed basis on his advocacy for legitimate political order. He stated that the state of nature was primitive and hence the need to have laws and morality necessary for human cooperation. As society grows competition among individuals and ownership of property expands. As a result of this the freedom and survival of individuals is threatened hence, according to Rousseau if humans could abandon their natural rights and form a civil society they would be in better position to be free; their rights and properties will be more secure. With this people will be protected from violations of their right by others by the political system. He argues that the powers of the civil society should be in hands of people; they should be allowed to make laws. People should participate in establishing the political regime that govern them: the regime should be out of peoples choice.
T.H Marshall advocates that development of citizenship is through development in civil, political and social rights. He believed that a complete citizen is the one who possess the “three kinds of rights and possession of full rights is linked to social class”[14]. Marshall observed society as a system with interconnected activities, a distinct identity and where people are free to make choices. He believes that people should be given opportunity to participate in political matters of the nation and be free to own wealth and enjoy its pleasures. The society should provide social services to its members.
Ruth Lister explores the idea of citizenship from a feminist perspective. She was mostly concerned with ways in which “women are excluded from the public and private perspectives of life”. The social citizenship credited to Marshall only recognized the power of men especially in England. Lister wanted to change this notion on the role of woman in the society; she wanted it be accepted that women and men are all human beings and are equal.
Many philosophers have contributed much towards the notion of citizenship. Many had different, and yet contradicting views on society, individual and government. The questions is how should the citizens and the state relate to each other and how should an individual present oneself in the society.
In modern world every state must have a regime that rules. As Locke, Rousseau advocated for democracy, such regimes should be established by the will of the majority of the citizens. As Marshall condemned the law of nature is true that without a political regime citizens will not be free and equal as stated under law of nature.
The government has obligation to control the business environment, control international trade to protect her domestic industries. As Mills pointed out there levels of pleasure and people seek to attain the highest level. Then the government should be there to protect and regulate the actions of the people as they seek to fulfill their desires and protect the properties created by her subjects.
Political regimes are there to ensure equality and fairness in all aspects of life; be either gender or quest for wealth. The rights and freedom of people are guaranteed and protected by the state. It is the role of state to ensure fair judgment and punish those who violets the rights of others. Education and health services to citizens are provided by the state. On other end citizens should realize their existence depends on others. Therefore one should act bearing in mind that there are other people around them.
In modern society citizenship is not much different from the philosophical notions on citizenship. Citizens are supposed to contribute in financing state while the state provides services to its subjects. Some countries allow for dual citizenship while others don’t. People change their citizenship and move to other countries. A conflict among nations has caused people to leave their home nations into others countries in fear of safety. Some of those who move changes their citizenship and permanently becomes citizens of countries of destinations.
Bibliography
- Allacademic. Is Social Citizenship Really Outdated? T. H. Marshall Revisited. Retrieved on November 6 2008, from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/7/5/7/p97572_index.html
- David O. Brink, “Mill’s Deliberative Utilitarianism,” in Philosophy and Public Affairs 21 (1992), pp 67-103.
- Garrard, Graeme. Rousseau’s Counter-Enlightenment: A Republican Critique of the Philosophers. Albany: State University of New York Press 2003
- Gary Banham, “Teleology, Transcendental Reflection and Artificial Life” Tekhnehma: Journal of Philosophy and Technology vol Number 6 2000
- Harwood, Sterling, “Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism,” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Martin, Michael, “A Utilitarian Kantian Principle,” Philosophical Studies, vol 21, 1970, pp 90–91.
- Ian Duffield . “Skilled Workers or Marginalized Poor? The African Population of the United Kingdom, 1812-1852”. Immigrants And Minorities Frank Cass, Vol. 12, No. 3; 1993
- James Jupp and Maria Kabala . The Politics of Australian Immigration. Australian Government Publishing Service, 1993
- Mary, Gregor. Laws of Freedom: A Study of Kant’s Method of Applying the Categorical Imperative in the Metaphysic Der Sitten. Basil Blackwell,1963
- Rosemary Deem , feminist perspectives. Retrieved on November 6 2008. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/2/deem.html
- Silverstein, Harry S. A Defense of Cornman’s Utilitarian Kantian Principle, Philosophical Studies, 23, 1972, pp 212–215
