MODEL ANSWERS

Q. What is Citizenship? Analyze the Greek View of Citizenship with special reference to Plato and
Aristotle.

Introduction

Today, a citizen is simply described as “a legally recognized subject or national of a state or

commonwealth, either native or naturalized”, or “an inhabitant of a particular town or city”.
Merriam-Webster adds that he is “one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman”. Being
a citizen then is a condition that involves having specific rights, privileges and duties. Thus,
citizenship is often associated with the rights to work, trade and live in a country and to
participate in its political life. It follows then that an individual who does not possess these rights
is disenfranchised, and so he may be regarded as a stateless citizen. So, citizenship has been
understood as a “right to have rights” because it is the basis for a bunch of other rights

The whole idea of citizenship began in antiquity with the Greeks for whom politics was both an
art and a science. It was an idea that arose in the city-states during the teething period of
colonisation and the stirring times of the Persian wars out of the Greeks’ desire and appreciation
for liberty and cultural freedom. The socio-political atmosphere of the city-states, especially
Athens, allowed the citizens to participate in public life (Ibid.). The institution of slavery enabled
free citizens to have all the time to share in the judicial and deliberative administration of the
state. Greek citizenship was remarkably exclusive. The poleis were sharply stratified along
aristocratic lines and different categories of people inhabited them. They had varying statuses.
Some were citizens and others were not. Both however, had different obligations and functions.

GREEK

There was no distinction between a Greek’s public and personal life because both were
intertwined. The citizen’s obligations were connected to his everyday life in the polis and this
seems alien to the modern western notion where everyone minds his business (Hosking, 2005).
Generally, the Greeks believed that for a man to be truly human, he had to be a proactive citizen
in and to the state. He must be a good man, who possessed the knowledge, temperance,
capacity and justice to rule and be ruled, the total of which embraced the performance of his
civic duties. Aristotle impressed that, “to take no part in the running of the community’s affairs
is to be either a beast or a god”

The Greeks therefore, believed that citizenship should be based on obligations to the state
rather than on the rights given to the individual as we have it today. Indeed, for the 5th century
Greeks, and particularly in poleis such as Athens and Sparta, where the evidences are strong,
loyalty of the citizens lay first with their respective states. The destiny of the state was indeed
seen as their very destiny and truly, when a state is made up of ideal patriotic citizens, they feel
greater commitment to the community. Contrary to the Greeks’ experience, civic participation is
no longer required for citizenship in many countries of the world today. For instance, in the US,
there is no requirement to attend town meetings, belong to any party, vote in or run for
elections. Civic participation is purely voluntary.

BODY
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates, asserts that an ideal state would consist of three classes of citizens:
the guardians, the soldiers and the common people. The guardians are to rule the state, the
soldiers are to defend its sovereignty and the common people, such as farmers, merchants and
artisans, are to provide the material needs of the state. The guardians, who are the rulers of the
state, are seen by philosophers as kings. They are to undergo long and rigorous educational
programme until they are thirty-five years old before taking up any official assignment. They are
to own no private property but to live in communities together like monks and practice common
possession of things with nobody claiming anything as his own, at least while they lasted in
office. All their children belong to the state which would be responsible for their education. In
other words, Plato proposes, not only the elimination of private properties, but also of family.
This would enable the guardians to be completely dedicated to the service of the state. Since
the guardians’ double as rulers and decision makers of the state, it becomes imperative for
them to acquire or possess sophia, the quality or virtue of wisdom for only the wise, indeed the
philosopher-kings, have the reasoning capacity to grasp reality, draw conclusions and administer
justice

Similarly, the ruled, especially the soldiers, should not have private properties. They should live
communal lives and undergo educational, physical and military training to enable them to be
completely dedicated to the state. Because the primary duty of the soldiers is to defend the
state and protect its citizens from any internal and external aggression, they require the basic
virtue of courage (andreia), so as to willingly take orders from their rulers and face dangers.
Courage recognises and maintains the truth as a natural order and the commonest way to
exhibit fortitude is by reasonable endurance of ordinary difficulties of life. The rest of the
citizens should also undergo some certain level of educational, physical and military training to
enable them meet up with the both material and economic needs of the state. As the ruled in
the state, they must follow their leaders instead of pursuing private interests and exhibit the
virtue of moderation (sophrosyne), the subordination of personal desire to a higher purpose.

Between the Medieval and Renaissance period, the concept of citizen or citizenship shifted
slightly from socio-political considerations to other socio-cultural European traditions, pointing
to deeper historical pedigrees in the ties between the language of citizenship and the struggle
for communal independence. For instance, after the Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli, most
renowned and controversial as an advocate of citizen liberties, was stirred by the model of civic
virtue practiced by the Romans. Machiavelli, since his conception of the citizen-body remains
definitely patriarchal, called for a new ethos of devotion to the political community sealed by a
practice of collective self-rule and self-defence.

T.H. Marshall’s classic, Citizenship and Social Class which offers an explanation for the
successive growth of citizenship rights in the context of the development, course and
consequence of the capitalist mode of production. It is known that Marshall’s scholarship was a
ground-breaking exposition which embraced social and economic rights and questioned the
concept of citizenship with an explanation different from the solely narrow theory of formal
individual liberties. Moreover, Marshall identifies social rights as the “consumer rights of the
modern welfare”. In all, these categories of rights are paradigms of citizenship and they
belonged to, or rather, are given to the citizen through what Marshall termed the “status of
citizenship”
THE ARISTOTELIAN PERSPECTIVE

According to Aristotle, citizen must be someone who partakes in the active deliberations of the
state often through its assemblies and in the juries. The state (polis) comprises different
categories of citizens, sufficient enough to ensure and assure a sovereign and self-sufficient
polity. To ensure the self-sufficiency and assure sovereignty, participation of all citizens in
conduct of the polis is incontestable. And when Aristotle speaks of about participation, he infers
that the ideal citizen should participate and deliberate directly in the assembly; for him, voting
for representatives was simply not just enough. He must be available and willing to serve on
juries to sustain justice and help uphold the law. This is in contrast with the contemporary
realities in many states where there are very few opportunities to participate directly in politics.
Nigeria, for instance, operates an indirect system of citizen participation in government.

For Aristotle, participation in deliberation and decision-making means that the citizen is a part of
a group that discusses both the advantages and disadvantages, the good and bad, and the just
and unjust in the state and then passes law as well as reaches judicial decisions, all resulting
from robust deliberations earlier made. This procedure, as was practiced in the Athens of
Aristotle, warrants that all citizens should examine the various possible courses of actions and
weigh alternatives, primarily on their merits and demerits. By doing so, the citizen participates in
reason and speech, thereby fulfilling his purpose and developing his human potentials.
Participation, in this process, enables him to attain the virtuous and happy life.

Moreover, Aristotle says in a state where citizens are akin and equal by nature, all citizens
should be allowed to participate in politics, though not all at once. They must take turns, ruling
and being ruled in turn as it was in Athens. He asserts that citizenship is not just a bunch of right
and privileges but also a bundle of duties. The citizen has, not only certain freedom that the
non-citizen does not have, but also important obligations which include political participation
and military service. For him, political requirement of citizenship is entirely in accordance with
nature because citizenship is nothing less than the fullest attainment of human potentials in
terms of the “good life”, that is, the summum bonum.

The essence of citizenship therefore, lies in active participation. The citizen is also not merely a
free inhabitant of the state or a member of a political group; he is the essence of the state with
the ability to achieve the greatest measure of happiness and virtue as an integral part of the
community. For this reason, the citizen must have the leisure to devote himself to the political
and socio-cultural pursuits which facilitate the understanding of virtue.

It is against this background that Aristotle affirms that the citizen must not live a mechanical or
commercial life which is ignoble and militates against the attainment of virtue. Thus, Aristotle
recognizes the fact that the picture of citizenship changes as constitution or demography
changes. All in all, Aristotle holds that a citizen should participate actively in his state affairs and
constitution.

CONCLUSION

Plato and Aristotle, both of whom defined the content of ancient political philosophy, were
sceptical of the inherent goodness of democracy. It is difficult to explain how, when ancient
Greece was experimenting with novel democratic practices, including citizenship, of course with
all their limitations, the pinnacle of ancient Greek philosophy epitomized in the works of Plato
and Aristotle achieved its greatness outside the realm of the democratic imagination. Perhaps
one answer lies in how both theory and practice, despite their differences and separation from
each other, took all too seriously the collective pursuit of the good life in different directions.

At the heart of all these different conceptions is a desire to reclaim for democratic life the
imperative of active citizenship. Novel practices of accountability (such as social audits or
democratic audits), the sine qua non of any true democracy, need to be encouraged outside the
realm of formal political structures and institutions. Last but not the least, more realistic
assessment of the classical conception of citizenship may be called for. But the idea of the
bounded polis with an active citizenship body will keep alive the democratic imagination for a
long time.
Q. Will Kymlicka’s views on citizenship in context of diversity.
INTRO

Diversity is the extent of various noticeable and non-noticeable differences of people. These can include
visible elements such a skin, colour hair, physical disabilities and gender as well as non-visible elements
such as sexuality, religious beliefs and mental disabilities. People of different ethnic groups as well as
different religions, genders and sexual beliefs exist in different parts of the world and often can be
different based on the place. It is very important that all citizens of the world accept those of different
diversity features and do not discriminate them in any way. It is absolutely crucial that diversity
acceptance is present in the public services as they often act as role models towards society.

BODY

MULTICULTURAL CITIZENSHIP

Whenever a state has a majority community and number of small cultural minorities, clashes between
majority and minority communities over issues such as language rights, regional autonomy, political
representation, education curriculum, land claims, immigration and naturalization policy, even national
symbols, such as the choice of national anthem or public holidays.

Both parts of the world i.e., one comprising of western Europe and America and other comprising of
Eastern Europe and third world countries are dealing these diversity problems differently. The former
faces volatile disputes over the rights of immigrants, indigenous people and other cultural minorities
and the latter suffers from violent nationalistic conflicts. Some of these conflicts are intractable because
of lack of sense of fairness, lack of tolerance, unique historical and circumstantial background of every
dispute.

Kymlicka thus focuses on key concepts and principles to be considered while building a framework for a
liberal approach to minority rights. Western political tradition has always operated in an idealized model
of polity in which fellow citizens share a common descent, language and culture.

According to the historical accounts, governments in order to achieve homogenous polity have pursued
various policies such,

1. Ethnic cleansing or physical elimination of a particular community example (Jews in Nazi

Germany)
2. Coercive assimilation- to be forced to adopt the language, religion and customs of minority.
3. Resident alienization - treatment of minorities as aliens characterized by physical segregation,
economic discrimination and denial of political rights.

4. Likewise, similar attempts have been made in the history to protect cultural minorities and to
regulate the potential conflicts between majority and minority cultures for example –

1. Bilateral treaties – Germany agreed to accord certain rights and privileges to Polish people
residing within its borders, so long as Poland similar rights to ethnic Germans in Poland. This
treaty was extended a more multilateral basis under League of Nations.
 2. Such treaties had limitation since the only protection which was provided to the minorities
was from discrimination and oppression. Treaty provisions were often used as grounds for
invasion by ‘kin state’ who took interests in protection of minorities in their land.
For example, Nazi Germany justified its invasion of Poland and Czechoslovakia on the
grounds that these countries were violating the treaty rights for ethnic Germans on their
soil.

POST SECOND WORLD WAR

Most of the liberals thought that minority conflicts can be addressed under the new scheme of human
rights instead of direct protection to the vulnerable groups through special rights. Cultural minorities
would be indirectly protected by guaranteeing civil and political rights to all individuals regardless of
group membership. They believed that if these rights were firmly protected liberals assumed that no
further were needed to be attributed to members of specific ethnic or national minorities.

Liberals compared the idea of universal human rights to the 16th century episode of religious conflict
between protestants and Catholics and the disintegration of European states which was finally resolved
by separating the Church and the state and entrenching each individual’s freedom of religion. Liberals
suggest the same model of ethno-cultural differences as well

Left liberals suggest affirmative action for disadvantageous racial communities intended to move
towards a society which could have existed had there been a separation of state and ethnicities right
from beginning i.e., colour blind society.

For other liberals, affirmative action is counter-productive. It exacerbates the problem rather than
solving it by making these people more conscious of group differences and more resentful of other
groups. All liberals commonly reject the idea of permanent differentiation in the rights or status of the
members of certain groups.

But TRADITIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS standards have failed to address certain issues pertaining to cultural
minorities such as

- Which languages to be recognized in parliament, bureaucracies and courts?

- Should each ethnic or national group have publicly funded education in its mother tongue?
- Should internal boundaries be drawn (legislative, districts, province, states) so that cultural
minorities form a majority within a local region?
- Should governmental powers be devolved from central level to more local or regional levels
controlled by particular minorities particularly on culturally sensitive issues of immigration,
communication and immigration?
- Should political offices be distributed in accordance with the problem of national or ethnic
proportionality?
- Should the traditional homelands of indigenous peoples be reserved for their benefit and so
protected from encroachment by settlers and resource developers?
- What are the responsibilities of minorities to integrate?
- What degree of cultural integration can be required of immigrants and refugees before they
acquire citizenship?
PROBLEM WITH LIBERAL UNIVERSAL RIGHTS

Consider the following examples –

1. Right to free speech – does not tell what an appropriate language policy is.

2. Right to vote – how political boundaries should be drawn or how powers should be distributed
between levels of government.

3. Right to mobility – does not tell what an appropriate immigration policy is.

So normally questions like these are decided by majoritarian decision making of state. Kymlicka suggests
supplementing traditional human rights with the theory of minority rights.

POSSIBLE DANGERS OF RECOGNIZING MINORITY

- Abuse of language of minority rights for example, for racial segregation and apartheid.
- By belligerent nationalist and fundamentalist groups.
-
FORMS OF MULTICULTURALISM- The term multiculturalism covers many different forms of
‘cultural pluralism’ each of which raises its own challenges. Generalizations about the goals or
consequences of multiculturalism can therefore be very misleading.

A. National minorities form of cultural diversity arising from the incorporation of previously
self- governing, territorially concentrated cultures into a larger state. These communities
wish to maintain themselves as distinct societies alongside the majority culture and demand
various forms of autonomy or self-government to ensure their survival as distinct societies.
(Through federalism)

Such states with multiple nationalities are also called as ‘multination states’ Here nation refers
to a historical community more or less institutionally complete, occupying a given territory or
homeland, sharing, a distinct language, culture. The incorporation of multination in one state
can be involuntary when cultural community is invaded and conquered by another, or is ceded
from one imperial power to another, or when its homeland is overrun by colonizing settlers.
FINLAND, NEW ZEALAND. It can be voluntary when different cultures agree to form federation
for their mutual benefit. Example is U.S.A.

B. Ethnic groups- cultural diversity arising from individual and familial immigration. Such
immigrants often coalesce into loose associations. They typically wish to integrate into
larger society, and to accept as full members of it. while they often seek greater recognition
of their ethnic identity, their aim is not to become a separate and self – governing nation
alongside larger society, but to modify the institutions and laws of the main stream society
to make them more accommodating of cultural differences. Such states are called poly
ethnic states. Example U.S.A, Canada, Australia.

Kymlicka suggests that the category collective rights is large and heterogeneous and must not be
confused with idea of group differentiated rights.
THREE FORMS OF GROUP DIFFERENTIATED RIGHTS

- Self-Government rights – these are rights of political autonomy or territorial jurisdiction

demand by nations within a state, so as to ensure the free and full development of their cultures
and the best interest of their people. At the extreme, nations may wish to secede, if they think
their self-determination is not possible within the larger state. UN charter has included the right
to self-determination. One of the ways is federalism and federal subunits.

- Poly-ethnic rights – these are rights intended to help ethnic groups of a religious minority
express their cultural particularity and pride without it hampering their success in the economic
and political institutions of the dominant society. These are not temporary because the cultural
differences they protect are not something that are sought to be eliminated

- Special representation rights – aimed at representation of larger population in political sphere

of ethnic and non-ethnic social groups. Women, poor, disabled, scheduled castes (india). It is
some form of affirmative action and are goal oriented and can be for specific time period
(though mostly undefined)

CONCLUSION

It is very beneficial for public services organisations to have employees from a diverse range of
backgrounds. This brings greater understanding of different cultures and religions as well as different
languages in order to communicate better with society. Composition of the local and national
community - places with emerging economies such and new environments such as Hong Kong must be
aware of different cultures and religious beliefs in order to deal with situations which involves people
with such different beliefs. This allows governments and citizens to be able to treat different people
fairly and equally. This is extremely important in public services organisations especially in the work
place. Different ethnic groups should be accepted in the workplace in public service environments as
they have a huge benefit towards these organisations. Having a diverse workforce positively impacts
society as it allows public services to be able to attend to more diverse groups correctly and fairly to
avoid discrimination of any kind maintaining trust in such services.
Q. Multiculturalism and its Response to pluralistic society. Elaborate.
INTRO: MULTICULTURAL IDEA OF CITIZENSHIP

Introduction

Multicultural idea of citizenship emphasizes the need to supplement the focus on common
rights with greater attention to cultural pluralism and group differentiated rights. This idea is a
challenge to the liberal or universal idea of citizenship discussed under the heads like ‘politics of
difference’; ‘identity politics’; ‘politics of recognition’ etc.
Trends before the onset of multicultural challenge-
a. Diversity was ignored and the model of ‘normal citizen’ prevailed mostly representing
the white males.
b. Deviation from this model meant exclusion, marginalization and silencing.
c. Non-white groups were often denied entry to the Western democracies or if admitted,
were expected to assimilate to become citizens.
d. Indigenous people were either shunted into isolation or were expected/forced to
abandon their traditional lifestyle.
e. Homosexuality was criminalized and if not, criminalized gays were expected to hide
their sexuality in public sphere.
f. Trend today is such that these multi-cultural identities demand inclusive conception of
citizenship which recognizes their identities and which accommodates their differences.
g. Multicultural movement is different from previous forms of movement because they
were class-based movements focused on economic interests and multicultural
movement is identity based. But in reality, identity and interest cannot be separated.
The traditional model of citizenship /liberal model of citizenship i.e., ‘citizenship as rights’
sort to promote certain sort of common national identity among the citizens. It is evident
from T.H Marshall’s definition of citizenship not merely a legal status defined by a set of
rights and responsibilities but also an identity or expression of one’s membership in a
political community. As a matter of fact, his argument for extending the citizenship rights to
include basic social rights like health and education was oriented towards creation of a
common national identity.
Social rights had both humanitarian purpose and also that it would help integrate previously
excluded groups into a common national culture and thereby provided a source of national
unity and loyalty.
Fear behind cultural inclusion through provision of social rights for example in case of
Britain was the English working class might get tempted to support foreign ideas particularly
communism. It is easier for a state to govern a society when its citizens share a common
national language, culture and identity. All institutions function in a better and smooth way.
Various categories of multicultural minorities are homosexuals, religious minorities.
Marshall’s strategy of including all minorities is a failure: -
Criticism levelled against religious minorities who ask for differentiated citizenship along
with common citizenship is that the leaders of such religious groups encourage feelings of
resentment and inequality amongst group members to maintain their control over them
and to justify receiving grants for their organizations.
POLITICS OF RECOGNITION- NANCY FRAZER (identity-based hierarchy) (status hierarchy)
It focuses on cultural injustices, rooted in social patterns of representation, interpretation
and communication, including cultural domination, non-recognition, and disrespect.
- The remedy is cultural or symbolic change to upwardly revalue disrespected
communities.
- Affirming group differences.
- Targeting groups defined by relations of recognition and who enjoy lesser esteem,
privilege, honor and prestige than other groups.

POLITICS OF REDISTRIBUTION –NANCY FRAZER – (CLASS BASED HIERARCHY)

In a class-based hierarchy, one’s ranking in the society is determined by his relation with the
market mechanism. Higher the market value, higher the rank in the society. Lower the
market value, lower the rank in the society. Such inegalitarianism requires Politics of
redistribution.
- It focuses on the socio-economic injustices rooted in the economic structuring of the
society including

- Exploitation- one’s labour is being appropriated by other

- Economic Marginalization- being stuck to an undesirable job being continuously exclude

from the labour market

- Economic Deprivation- lacking the adequate material standards of living.

REMEDY:
- Economic restructuring such as income redistribution, reorganization of division of
labour or regulating investment decisions.

- The target of public policies are classes defined economically by distinct relations to the
market or the means of production.

- Reduction in group differences / class differences

But, in reality says Kymlicka, politics of redistribution and politics of recognition are combined
because some groups find themselves at or near the bottom of both the hierarchies and so
need to mobilize for both redistribution and recognition.
Marxist analysis – politics of redistribution is more important as class hierarchy determines
one’s status hierarchy. If an individual is at an economically disadvantageous position, he/she is
bound to get culturally stigmatized.
Categories belying Marxist analysis –
1. Women, blacks and indigenous peoples are both proportionately concentrated in
vulnerable economic positions, and also subject to demeaning or silencing cultural
representations.

2. Gays- they are economically well off but culturally stigmatized. In western democracies,
they suffer from extreme homophobia.

3. Well established immigrant communities like Arabs, and Japanese – Americans who
enjoy higher than average levels of income and education but suffer from cultural
marginalization.

4. Catalans and Quebecois are cultural minorities enjoy same living standards as majority
and in some cases actually higher than average income and education yet their cultural
is seen as inferior to that of the majority.

5. There are lower income groups who are economically at lower rung in the society but
enjoy higher status because they think that their being heterosexual, white skinned and
protestant status is the accepted norm of the society.

LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC STATES AS ''NATION BUILDING STATES”

1. They have encouraged and sometimes forced the citizens on the territory of the
state to integrate into common public institutions operating in a common language.
2. Various strategies used for this linguistic and institutional integration were
citizenship and naturalization laws, education laws, language laws.

Policies regarding public service employment, military service, national media, and so on: tools
of nation building. They target ethno-cultural minorities to integrate into common public or
they can try to build their own institutions or else they can opt simply to be left alone and live-
in state of voluntary isolation.
Three of these alternatives require certain accommodations from the state in form of
multicultural policies or self-government and language rights, trade rights land right.
Minorities often feel threatened by state nation building and fear that it will create various
burdens, barriers or disadvantages for them. Minority rights are understood as mechanisms for
protecting minorities from these possible injustices. Since different kind of minorities face distinct
threats from state nation building their corresponding minority rights claim will also differ.

These injustices faced by indigenous people are different from immigrants and are reflected in minority
rights claimed by them. Multi-cultural rights are a defensive response to the state nation building.

There exists a dialectic between state nation -building. Kymlicka raises a concern here that in
everyday public analysis and debate minority rights are often described as 'forms of special
status of privileges' and minorities are often considered a pushy and aggressive for demanding
concession and advantages.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, we see that both liberal and radical attempts to define multicultural
citizenship have several problems. Even though Kymlicka provides an exact elaboration of who
the minorities are, in most cases national minorities get precedence over ethnic immigrants. It
is significant to note that in practice, multicultural citizenship has been exceedingly rare. Today,
only Australia and Canada explicitly declare the use of the doctrine. However, their
multicultural citizenship differs significantly from what we find in theory. Multiculturalism
therefore needs to explore the ways through which the sense of alienation and disadvantage
that accompanies minority status is visibly diminished.

Q. What do Globalisation? Impacts/Dimensions

INTRO
Over the past decade two of the most powerful organising processes have been those of
‘citizenship' and globalisation'. They have swept much else before them, reconstituting social
and political life. In the case of citizenship, movements to demand rights of national
citizenship have been enormously powerful in one continent after another. This demand for
the rights of the citizen, and for the institutions of civil society, occurred most strikingly
within former Eastern Europe – 1989. During the 1980s, across many diverse societies,
people: 'wanted to be citizens, individual men and women with dignity and responsibility,
with rights but also with duties, freely associating in civil society.
And yet 1989 is also when the discourse of globalisation' really took off, when exponential
growth in the analyses of the global began to suggest that there was a putative global
reconstitution of economic, political and cultural relationships. One central feature of that
was the sense that people had that they were living in a global village, as the struggles for
citizenship themselves were brought instantaneously and 'live into their homes wherever
they were located.
BODY
The concept of citizenship has been based upon the notion of the bounded society.
Societies are typically presumed to be sovereign social entities, with a state at their centre
that organises the rights and duties of each member. Most major sets of social
relationships are seen as flowing within the territorial boundaries of each society. The
state possesses a monopoly of jurisdiction over the territory of the society. It is
presumed that especially economies and social class, but also politics, culture, gender and
so on, are societally structured. In combination such relations constitute the social structure
in terms of which the life-chances of each member of that society are organised and
regulated. And through their interdependence with each other, all such societies are
constituted as self-regulating entities significantly defined by their differences from each
other.
The articulation of the doctrine of national sovereignty and of the link between
citizenship and nationhood; the substitution of immediate, direct relations between the
citizen and the state for the mediated, indirect relations characteristic of the ancient
regime. This pattern of societal governance of the nation reached its apogee within
what is known as organized capitalism. Such risks were taken to be principally located
within the borders of each society, and solutions were also envisaged as devised and
implemented within such national borders. Societies involved the concept of the citizen
who owed duties to and received rights from their society, particularly as organised
through the core institutions of the nation-state. Citizenship has been conceived of within
the west in terms of national risks that may face anyone living within a given territory,
national rights that those possessing full membership should receive, and national duties
that are appropriate for all such citizens of a society.
T.H Marshall articulates the relationship between society and citizenship: 'the claim of all to
enjoy these conditions of civilised life is a claim to be admitted to a share in the social
heritage, which in turn means a claim to be accepted as full members of the society, that
is, as citizens'. But, the hybridisation of cultures, the global refugee problem, the
importance of travelling cultures, some growth of a global dwellingness, diasporas and other
notions of the 'unhomely', all problematise the notion of a society which is somehow in and
of itself able to mobilise for action. These configurations weaken the power of the society
to draw together its citizens as one, to govern in its unique name, to endow all with
national identity and to speak with a single voice.
Thus globalisation seems to involve some weakening of the power of the social and a
corresponding development of post-national' citizenship. This post-national citizenship is
especially connected with the growth of guest-working across many societies, greater
global interdependence, increasingly overlapping memberships of different kinds of
citizenship, and the emergence of universalistic rules and conceptions regarding human
rights formalised by international codes and laws (such as the UN, UNESCO, ILO, EU, Council
of Europe, Geneva Conventions, European Human Rights Convention and so on) Global
Governance
Contemporary citizenship can thus be described as loosely 'post-mod-em'. In some places
there is no modern rational-legal state, with a clear monopoly of power, able to deliver
unambiguous rights and duties to its citizens who comprise a nation of strangers. And
elsewhere, global processes restructure social inequalities and transform many states
into 'regulators' of such flows. Corporations, brands, NGOs and multi-national 'states' also
have emerged as in some respects more powerful than nation-states.
This growth of post-national citizenship, and more globally reinforced notions of human
rights, stem from a wide array of new processes and institutional arrangements stretching
within and across different societies such as,
(Flowchart)
- Cultural Citizenship involving the right of all social groups ( ethnic, gender, sexual,
age) to full cultural participation within their society minority citizenship involving the
rights to enter another society and then to remain within that society and to
receive appropriate rights and duties.
- Ecological Citizenship concerned with the rights and responsibilities of the citizen of
the earth
- Cosmopolitan Citizenship concerned with how people may develop an orientation
to other citizens, societies and cultures across the globe.
- Consumer Citizenship concerned with the rights of people to be provided with
appropriate goods, services and information by both the private and public
sectors. Etc.
As globalisation connects people, it also raises associated responsibilities between them. Until
recently, the interests in justice among political philosophers and social ethicists was mainly
focused on the nation state. However, this is no longer feasible. Since economic globalisation
affects how wealth and power are distributed globally – and the gaps between the global rich
and the global poor widens - it has become indispensable to discuss social ethics in a global
context and to develop principles of global justice. Global justice, therefore, entails an
assessment of the benefits and burdens of the structural relations and institutional
arrangements that constitute and govern globalisation.
Communitarians (Michael Walzer and James Tully) have given much importance to boundaries
as they are essential aspects of human existence and community standards cannot be privileged
over and above humanitarian concerns to justify genocide, torture or human sacrifice.
Nationalists (David Miller and Yael Tamir) believe in stronger commitments and obligations to
the members of their own nations, and argue that demands for mutual obligations are created
by a particular kind of valuable association, the nation. According to them, distributive justice is
an issue within nations, but not necessarily between them. And a world system of nation states
is the appropriate organizer of justice for all, through their distinct associational groups.
Cosmopolitans are critical of state sovereignty, which they believe has been used to shield gross
human rights violations by the emphasis placed on non-intervention in the internal affairs of
the state. Thus, they feel that individual is the focus of universal moral standards.
CONCLUSION
The present global economic and political order is characterised by inequality: poverty in some
parts and affluence in other parts, and unequal power relations visible not least in the
structures of global institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. This order is to a
large extent the result of colonialism, and most of the former colonies are still, many decades
after their independence, suppliers of raw materials or of basic industrial products for markets
dominated by the global elite. Injustices in the past have reverberations in the present. As an
example of claims for reificatory justice, the governments of the Caribbean Community issued in
2013 a declaration demanding reparations for the genocide of indigenous populations at
colonisation and for the slavery and slave trade in its aftermath.
Persistent global poverty and increasing inequalities will certainly imply that the discussion on
global justice endures. Thus, a set of basic human entitlements, similar to human rights, as a
minimum of what justice requires for all, and does seem to offer a prospect of thinking about
the goals of development in this increasingly interdependent and interconnected world.

Q. Critically examine T.H. Marshall’s concept of citizenship.

Introduction
The concept of citizenship has a long history and its meaning has changed
overtime as it has been applied to new and different circumstances. However, the
contemporary discussion of citizenship theory begins with studying the path-
breaking account given by British sociologist T.H. Marshall in his book Citizenship
and Social Class. This was the first major attempt to outline the historical
development of citizenship rights from the feudal period to the rise of the
modern welfare state.
Marshall’s Theory of Citizenship
Marshall starts from the fact that citizenship is ‘a status attached to full
membership of a community and that those who possess this status are equal in
respect of rights and duties associated with it’. However, since there is no
universal principle which determines necessary rights and duties of citizenship,
different societies attach different rights and duties to the status of citizen.
Talking in the context of England he wrote that the development of the
institutions of modern citizenship coincided with the rise of capitalism. As a
doctrine, citizenship was the quest of the bourgeois class for great representation
in society in opposition to aristocratic privileges. In its initial phase citizenship
entailed legal and civil equality.
The civil element of citizenship essentially laid in the rights necessary for
individual freedom and the institutions most directly associated with it were the
rule of law and a system of courts, protection of individual liberty such as
freedom of speech, belief and religion, the right to own property and to enter into
enforceable contract .Marshall provides an account of the emergence of
citizenship in the modern nation- state in terms of historical development of
industrialization, market economy and capitalist society. But contrary to Marxist
conclusion, Marshall argues that as capitalism evolved into a social system and as
the class structure developed, the concept of citizenship also underwent
transformation. From being a system of rights, which supported the market
system and the propertied class, citizenship changed into the system of rights
which were opposed to market and a particular class i.e. rights of the non-
propertied class.

This development of citizenship rights helped in the necessary integration of the

working class into the capitalist society and the decline of class conflict. During
19th century, a number of political rights to franchise were granted to the urban
working class through the institution of bourgeois democracy.
Political rights refer to those facilities that guarantee activities necessary to
participate in the political process and to share in sovereignty, such as the right to
vote, form political parties and hold public offices. This cluster of rights, according
to Marshall, posed a threat to the capitalist system. Full danger to the capitalist
class could be avoided because the newly enfranchised working class was too
inexperienced to wield political power effectively. But the working class was able
to create trade unionism and through collective bargaining was able to wrest a
number of concessions from the capitalist class to raise their economic and social
status. Thus the collective exercise of rights by members of this working class in
creating and using trade unionism established the claim that they as citizens were
entitled to certain social rights. The addition of social rights in the 20 th century
made the situation more complex as well as interesting. It brought ‘citizenship
and capitalist class’ at war because citizenship is based on the principle of
equality, whereas capitalism is based on inequality.
Social citizenship attempted to reform capitalism through legislature. The
gradual development of universal provisions for basic education, health and social
security changed the nature of cash nexus between capital and labor. Legislation
on minimum wages, hours of work, employment of children, working conditions,
occupational safety and compensation of occupational accidents made the
employees less vulnerable to the capitalist class.
Thus the conflict between the two seemed inevitable but the problem according
to Marshall was more complex. Between the rival demands of capitalist class for
profit and the working class for welfare, the state through positive intervention
and by reformulating its taxation and expenditure policies has been able to
resolve the conflict between the two.
Though the creation of social citizenship has not removed the inequalities, neither
has it been able to fundamentally transform the economic basis of capitalism in
terms of private appropriation of wealth- rather it has given rise to new forms of
inequalities. Nevertheless, it has been able to reduce certain social in equalities
and especially those associated with the operation of the market
Conclusion
The modern citizenship is a legacy of 2500 years of political pressures and
educational preparations. During this long period there were many theorists who
gave their theories concerning citizenship, but among these T.H. Marshall’s theory
of citizenship are considered as most prominent one. Marshall’s theory of
citizenship profoundly influenced the nature of liberalism. It seems that
Marshall’s chief concern was to moderate, reform and civilize the liberal-capitalist
society, and he believed that social citizenship could do the job.

Q. Will Kymlicka’s views on Multicultural Citizenship (Group Rights)

Prof. Will Kymlicka has analyzed the issue of citizenship and diversity in his book
‘Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights’. In this book he
examines the ethnic and racial diversity of societies and the increasing connection
among these societies with modern forms of transportation and communication.
These increased connections have raised the issues of identity and rights. Here he
considers the nature of the individual and culture; the meaning of freedom,
liberty, the good life and the nature of society as a whole. According to Kymlicka,
cultural diversity has become a central feature, of contemporary society and
seems likely to become more so in the immediate future. Increasing contact
among societies as a result of improved communication and transportation has
made for population movement and population change. Increased diversity in
countries like Canada, USA and UK is the result of changing pattern of
immigration. Ethno- cultural conflicts have become the main type of political
violence around the world Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Eastern Europe, Sri Lanka,
Indonesia, Central Asia and Middle East are the burning examples. In this regard
Kymlicka, talks about three types of rights:
(i) Self- government rights-
These rights are available in Australia, New Zealand, North America and Europe
where elements of self- government rights to indigenous people exist. Where
such rights have been allowed, it has led to the development of policies which
have contributed to the retention of traditional law and the resilience of
community language, provided a basis for cultural resistance to the dominance of
majority values and practices.
ii) Poly- ethnic rights-
 In the age of globalization and international migration, immigrants tend to argue
for their rights. Poly- ethnic rights imply group- specific rights given to a particular
community. They are intended to help ethnic groups and religious minorities
express their cultural particularity. However, unlike self- government rights,
polyethnic rights are usually intended to promote integration into the larger
society.

(iii) Special representation rights-

There is a widespread belief that democracy fails to reflect the cultural diversity
of society. That is why there is a demand for special representation rights in order
to rectify the present democratic process. However, this should be seen as a
temporary measure till we achieve a state where the need for special
representation no longer exists. Kymlicka distinguishes between two types of
ethno- cultural groups (i) national minorities in multinational states, (ii) ethnic
groups in poly- ethnic states.
A particular state may have both of these. Most states have aspects of each,
although countries like Canada, UK are clearer example of countries with at least
two national minorities and many ethnic groups.
National minorities are groups that have some or all of history, community,
territory, language or culture. Examples of these are Switzerland, indigenous
people of Canada and America, French Canadians, Wales, Scots, etc. Kymlicka
defines national minorities in terms of culture and argues that if these minorities
wish to return to their culture, they should be recognized as distinct. The group
rights that may be associated with national minorities are self- government rights
or special representation rights. These are not temporary rights but are rights that
should be recognized on a permanent basis because these are inherent rights of
the national minority.
Conclusion
In contrast to the rights of national minorities, according to Kymlicka, immigrants
groups are general ethnic groups and can be accorded what he calls ‘poly ethnic
rights in a multinational state. It is because immigration is voluntary and the
immigrants generally wish to integrate into the society and culture they enter. At
the same time they may wish to retain some aspects of their culture and
retention these is especially important to them. Among the rights that Kymlicka
argues could be given to these ethnic groups are policies related to ending racism
and spreading education, some types of affirmative action, exception from some
rules that violate religious practices and public funding of cultural practices. In the
context of citizenship, Kymlicka believes that the national minorities and ethnic
groups must be given these rights because of the importance of culture to the
individual and groups.