Only a state, that is, an internationally recognized entity, can grant a person citizenship. One cannot be a citizen of an ethnic group or of a nationality which is not organized as a state. Nor is citizenship confined to democratic states. The distinction between citizens (who belong to a republic) and subjects (who belong to a monarchy) became obsolete when democracy matured in states that retained a monarchical façade. Non-democratic states would not now tolerate the international stigmatization of their population by a refusal to term them ‘citizens’.
Citizenship is a legal status defined by each state. Rights and obligations are nowadays ascribed equally to all citizens, since it has become inexpedient to acknowledge the existence of second-class citizens, whether on the basis of place of birth or residence, gender, beliefs, behaviour, race or caste. ‘Civil’ rights protect their safety and their ability to act. Raymond Aron (1974) affirms that ‘modern citizenship is defined by the Rights of Man’, but ancient polities (e.g. the Roman Empire) emphasized liberties and procedural guarantees on behalf of their recognized members. In addition to these civil rights, other rights, again supposedly modern, are termed social rights or entitlements. These entitle the citizen to some level of well-being and of social (i.e. socially guaranteed and organized) security. It should not be forgotten, however, that ancient states had their own forms of entitlements, the panem et circenses of Rome being inconsiderable when compared to the state socialism of some ancient empires in America or Asia. Moreover, civil rights, true prerequisites of democracy, have for centuries been viewed as ‘natural’ possessions of individuals, which had only to be protected from the state (hence their often negative description: ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press’). Social rights, in contrast, are popular aspirations which are not always enforceable, even where they are endorsed by the state, because of socioeconomic or ideological constraints. Westbrook (1993:341) therefore suggests that ‘a civil right is thus defined in spite of ordinary politics; a social right is defined by the grace of ordinary polities’.
The duty of the citizens is to obey the laws of the state: ‘subjection to the sovereign is the defining characteristic of citizenship’ (Camilleri and Falk 1992:18). Serving the state, from paying taxes up to risking one’s life in its defence, is part of civic duty. However, most political philosophers have stressed that the state exists to serve the citizens: hence it is necessary for the citizens to assert political control over the state in order to ensure that their civic responsibilities do not become too heavy in proportion to their rights.
It is therefore easy to understand why citizenship, originally merely a classification of membership, has become enmeshed with the three most formidable ideological currents of modern times: nationalism and democracy, which advocate an active, dedicated citizenship, and tend to reject on the one hand the non-patriots and on the other hand the non-democrats; and third, but not least, the ideology of the welfare state, which emphasizes a passive, consumer-like citizenship and which merges easily with the Hobbesian view of a profitable authority. These three conflicting ideologies are themselves internally divided on such issues as the relevance of ethnicity for the nation, and of majority rule for democracy. In consequence of these ideological conflicts being grafted upon it, the juridical notion of citizenship is sure to remain a matter of urgent public debate for many years to come.
Jean Tournon
University of Grenoble
References
Aron, R. (1974) ‘Is multi-national citizenship possible?’, Social Research 16(4).
Camilleri, J. and Falk, J. (1992) The End of Sovereignty?, Aldershot.
Westbrook, D.A. (1993) ‘One among millions: an American perspective on citizenship in large polities’, Annales de Droit de Louvain 2.
Further reading
Faculté de Droit de Nantes (1993) De la citoyenneté, notions et définitions, Paris.
Habermas, J. (1992) ‘Citizenship and national identity’, Praxis International 12(1).
Roche, M. (1992) Rethinking Citizenship: Welfare, Ideology and Change in Modern Society, Cambridge, UK.
