Theoretical perspectives on citizenship
Introduction
Human beings depend and pursue a dignified life. We all aspire to attain complements and recognition. Our longing for social accreditation depends on relational behaviour in the process creating hierarchical social structure and classification. This paper argues that the concept of citizenship belongs to this manmade classification.
There exists no precise definition of the concept of citizenship. However in the scholarly literature we find numerous conceptualizations. Depending on the philosophical background, scholars for instance discuss dual, multiple, multicultural, transnational, cosmopolitan, post-national, global, and universal and in recent years gendered and environmental citizenship forms (KivistoFaist, 2007: 172). It is nonetheless possible to categorize the diverse citizenship conceptualizations into two main components. The first citizenship conceptualizations focus on structural macro level where presumed neutral institutions provide and safeguard citizenship status i.e. a kind of passive citizenship. The second approaches emphasize citizenship at meso and micro levels where citizens claim, form and pursue citizenship through advocacy, mobilization and resistance. Such approaches assume civil society influence on the formulation and the structuring of citizenship. Despite the obvious disagreement scholars agree on basic understanding of the term. Firstly citizenship refers to a membership of a polity in a dialectical process of inclusion and exclusion in which some people belong to the polity while others do not (KivistoFaist, 2007: 1). Citizenship is a formal recognition by a state or a society of an individual’s membership of the concerned state or society. It also entails access to equal rights in the governance of the country. In most countries the constitution of the country states the rules of citizenship entitlement. For instance, the American constitution endows citizenship and naturalization to all persons born in the country (Saye, 1979). In the past, people also got US citizenship following annexation (Colegrove, 1921: 5).
From political and legal perspectives, citizenship includes rights and obligations for members of a sovereign country. This was not always the case, as in pre-modern Greece any person who lives in the city qualified to obtain citizenship with a right to participate in the political debate. Some cities demanded citizenship applicants to demonstrate descent relationship to the city (Dellolio, 2005: 19). This citizenship privilege did not include women and slaves. With the emergence of democratic and more inclusive systems in Europe, the concept of citizenship expanded to include earlier excluded groups such as women, ethnic and other socio-economically marginal groups. In current welfare societies, citizenship signifies the right to access the services provided by various organizations and institutions (Kremer, 2007: 26).
Bottomore (1993) differentiates formal citizenship from a substantive citizenship. The first refers to a person’s membership of a nation state, while the latter implies “the possession of a body of civil, political and especially social rights”. In many countries, particularly developing countries, the standard citizenship is the formal citizenship allowing people’s participation in the political system and the right to obtain national documents such as passports, etc.
Historically citizenship began with a structural macro approach dividing people as outsiders and insiders. Formally the Greeks started at city state level, where originally residents in the city, minus slaves and women, qualified as citizens. This was an urban citizenship. Later Europeans introduced the Westphalian national state oriented citizenship where nations and territories were connected. Europeans experienced devastating long religious ethnic wars and the nation state form at the time suited the secularization process. Following the end of the WWII the concept of social welfare citizenship emerged emphasizing on the development needs of the citizen. Since the end of the cold war globalization, migration and increased mobility challenged the social welfare state model. Currently we hear, particularly in the west, calls to return to structure oriented ethnic based citizenship. Consequently the exclusion of those considered as outsiders is on the rise.
Empirically this paper concentrates on Somali citizenship, particularly the perceptions of the Somali people. Somalis, like many colonized peoples, never had a proper opportunity to consider and formulate their citizenship. We know colonialism gave way to dictatorship. Despite the devastating civil war Somalis have now a unique opportunity to both find the state and citizenship forms they prefer. In this regard we collected an empirical data through focus group sessions both in Mogadishu and Nairobi and a subsequent validation workshop with expert and NGO representative participation. The focus group sessions in Mogadishu and in Nairobi inquired participant perceptions on Somali citizenship: who should get it? What rights and obligations should citizens have? And whether it is possible to lose Somali citizenship?
The main findings could be summarized as following. Firstly Somalis basically perceive citizenship as macro structural oriented as they link to ethnicity (Somali) territory (Somalia) and language. They are nonetheless open to provide citizenship for the descendants of Somali Diaspora and tolerate people who stayed Somalia longer to obtain naturalization. Secondly Islam is both unites and divides Somalis. Some participants suggest all Muslims should acquire Somalis citizenship, while others remain sceptical about extremism. Thirdly there exists slight difference on the perceptions of Somalis in Mogadishu and in Nairobi. Somalis in Mogadishu consider getting security and promoting peace as the first step towards obtaining citizenship. In Diaspora Somalis seek respect and cultural preservation. Moreover the research finds contradictions on the way in which Somalis perceive citizenship. While Somali insist on Somali ethnicity, they also show their wish to pursue Islamic citizenship. In addition Somalis promote citizenship based on clan ethnicity, nationalism and territory, while allowing the global Somali Diaspora to obtain Somali citizenship. Finally Somalis are still in civil war. Currently those who directly experience violence, citizenship means stopping the conflict, promoting reconciliation, demobilizing, disarming, de-radicalizing and educating the youth and the armed militia. When Somalis manage to overcome such security obstacles is possible to relate to other forms of citizenship. In addition as the focus group sessions as well the final validation workshop stated Islam seems to play a central role in any citizenship consideration Somalis eventually engage.
Differences in citizenship rights can influence the type of Diaspora organization and mobilization. The first section of this paper will introduce the various ways citizenship has been conceptualized. The second will expound on how this citizenship perception changed as a result of global wars and decolonization processes in the developing world. The third section looks at the different kinds of citizenship options with which African states including Somalia have experimented. The fourth section discusses how Diaspora, transnationalism and religious movements across national boundaries challenge the national and territorial based citizenship formalization and status. From a Diaspora perspective, there is a need for citizenship clarification, as an estimated two million Diaspora with Somali origin, many of them the most resourceful with dual and multiple citizenships, currently reside outside the Somali Republic. The final section presents the analysis of focus group meetings participated by selected Somalis in Mogadishu and in Nairobi.