In order to answer the question, “What is a State?” Aristotle
begins by asking, “Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?”
This he does because the state is a composite whole made up of many parts—the
citizens who compose it. The citizen whom Aristotle is seeking to define is the
citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no exception can be made, so that
“a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place; nor is he a
citizen who has no legal right except that of suing and being sued; for this
right may be enjoyed under the provisions of a treaty.”1 This latter class are
citizens only in a qualified sense, in the same way that children and old men
are said to be citizens imperfectly, and not simply. In practice a citizen is
defined as one who is born of parents who are citizens, but this is not a satisfactory
definition because it cannot apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a
state, nor to those who have had the franchise conferred on them by the state.
A citizen in the proper sense of the term, then, is one who shares in the
administration of justice, and in offices. The most comprehensive definition is
one who shares in an “indefinite” office. This term includes the office of
“discast” (juryman and judge in one) and the office of “ecclesiast” (member of
the ecclesia or assembly of citizens). But since the citizen of necessity
differs under each form of government, this definition is best adapted to the
citizen of a democracy. In other states, such as Sparta and Carthage, it is the
holder of a definite, and not of an indefinite, office who legislates and
judges. Here the citizen would be one who shares in a definite office.
1 Pol. 1275a 7-11.
Now
question comes about the present situation of former Thai Primer Thak Sin
Sinabatra, who is the Citizen of Thailand and former Prime Minister , became
Citizen of Thailand, but after he was kicked out by Thai Army and with Kings
consent with the Corruption charge, he
fly to Europe and now he is a Citizen of Monte Negro (one of the small Nation
State separated from Yugoslavia).
Two Nepalese Parliament and
CA members were in question Marks due to their Dual Citizenship Nepal –Tibet China one and another Nepal-
India ,who is now CA member of Nepal and he was one of the Looser , Local
Election in Indian Local Panchayati Election ?This time he became Member of CA
and Parliament of Nepal .
Loyalty
and duty fullness is related with the sense of Citizenship issues from the long
historical practices. But big question comes when Globalization, global market,
Global Governances process is in practices .US Invites EDV for some nationality
to incorporate more mixture in American Society .There is big question for such
people , Single Citizenship ?How long one country can allows for Double loyalty
and double citizenship ?Biggest problem and question arise after September
Eleven 2002 when Twine Tower and Pentagon were targeted by Extremist and
successfully hits as terrorist , that
stapes make several Liberal Democraticcountries in question marks ? Not only
that US Stopped EDV for Muslim Majority countries.
“Aristotle’s conception
of a citizen is widely different from the modern conception because it is not
representative but primary government that he has in view. His citizen is not
content to have a say in the choosing of his rulers; every citizen is actually
to rule in turn, and not merely in the sense of being a member of the
executive, but in the sense, a more important one for Aristotle, of helping to
make the laws of his state; for to the executive is assigned the 2
Comparatively
small function supplementing the laws when they are inadequate owing to their
generality. It is owing to this lofty conception of a citizen’s duties that he
so closely narrows the citizen body.”2 This is one of the reasons why Aristotle
excludes the mechanic class from citizenship. He says they have not the leisure
time to sit in the assembly and so share in the ruling of the government. The
best forms of government also exclude this class because no man (according to
Aristotle) can practice virtue who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer.
No Christian would agree with Aristotle on this last point, though it is
undeniable that excessive manual labor does tend to deliberalize the soul.
After all, if a man has to spend practically all of his waking hours working so
as to eke out a bare existence for himself and family, he certainly cannot
develop himself fully as a man by the cultivation of his mind, which demands
leisure and relaxation
2 Ross, Aristotle, p. 247.
3 Pol. 1275b 20-21.
4 Zeller, Aristotle and the earlier Peripatetics, Vol. II, pp.
227-6
5 Pol. 1276b 6-14.
Aristotle’s conception of the citizen would not be
valid today. He failed to see the possibilities of representative government.
Today we would say that the minimum requirement for citizenship is the power of
voting for the representatives of the people who do the actual ruling in a
democracy. In this sense Aristotle's
Definitation of Citizenship and Modern nation State concept with the Mega State
like China , India in Population ,Russia , Canada , USA ,Australia in Size were
not in Plato's thinking of City-State ,or Aristotle's Concept of citizenship
who cal participate fully in the Governing process like legislature , Executive
,and Judiciary is not possible .
The state is defined by
Aristotle as “a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life.”3 In order
to determine what is and what is not the act of a state, Aristotle first
enquires into the question of what determines the identity of the state.
Clearly it does not consist in the identity of place and inhabitants. “It is
true that as the essence of a thing consists in general not in its matter but
in its form, the essence of the state must be sought for in its form or
constitution.”4 “We speak of every union or composition of elements as
different when the form of their composition alters; for example, a scale
containing the same sounds is said to be different, according as the Dorian or
Phrygian mode is employed. And if this is true it is evident that the sameness
of the state consists chiefly in the sameness of the constitution, and it may
be called or not called by the same name, whether the inhabitants are the same
or entirely different.”5 I think it is safe to say that this analysis of the
identity of the state is a good one and about as accurate a one as it is 3
possible
to get. Certainly, a sudden change of constitution in a state does change its
identity; e.g., France before and after the Revolution. Nepal before and after
Sugauli treaty with British East India Company in
A constitution is defined by
Aristotle as “the arrangement of magistracies in a state, especially the
highest of all.”6 He identifies the constitution with the government: “The
government is everywhere sovereign in the state, and the constitution is in
fact the government. For example, in democracies the people are supreme, but in
oligarchies, the few; and therefore, we say that these two forms of government
also are different: and so in other cases.”7 What Aristotle means by his
definition of a constitution is that the arrangement of offices, and especially
of the highest offices, determines the form of the constitution governing the
state, and also determines the form of government. For example, in a state
where the offices (and especially the highest) are in the hands of a few, there
we find an oligarchic form of constitution and government.
6 Pol. 1278b 10-11.
7 Pol. 1278b 11-14.
8 Zeller, Op. cit., pp. 233-4.
“We are accustomed to
understand by the term ‘constitution’ only the general form of government of a
particular State—the sum of the arrangements which regulate the distribution
within it of political functions. Aristotle meant far more by it. He
comprehends under the corresponding word ‘Polity,’ not only all this, but also
the substantial character of the community in question, as that expresses
itself in the accepted theory of the state and in the spirit of its government.
He has thus the advantage of exhibiting more clearly than is commonly done by
modern writers the connection of the political institutions of a people with
its life as a whole, and is less exposed to the danger of treating these as
something independent and equally applicable to all communities. Here as
elsewhere in the ‘Politics’ the leading characteristic of his method is the
care he takes to scientifically trace everything back to its real source, and
to find the principle of its explanation in its own peculiar nature.”8 4
Citizenship and development
For women and other marginalized groups inequality and exclusion
have, on the whole, increased over the past decade. There is a growing realization
amongst those working in development those strategies based on economic models
have, for many people, failed to bring about genuine, positive change. This has
led to the search for new ways of constructing programmers and approaches that
look beyond economics, and into the political, social and cultural world.
Looking at citizenship means looking at the people who make up a group,
community or nation, and how they work within the group to guide the way it
functions. Taking people’s activities, roles and responsibilities as a starting
point opens up new possibilities for addressing, and indeed redressing, the marginalization
of groups such as women. Citizenship is about membership of a group or
community that confers rights and responsibilities as a result of such
membership. It is both a status – or an identity − and a practice or process of
relating to the
social world through the exercise of rights/protections
and the fulfillment of obligations. Citizenship theory has its roots in western
political thought and is based on the “universal citizen” – an individual, with
rights, who engages with governance institutions or the state in the public
arena of political debate. However, the forms of citizenship change according
to historical and cultural context. People define their citizenship in many
different ways − in relation to the local, national or a global community.
Rights and responsibilities, construed in western thought as referring to the
individual can, in other societies, be based on family or community needs. One
important way in which citizenship has been re-framed has been the introduction
of a gender perspective by feminists and gender equality activists. This has
led to distinct shifts in many interpretations of both the status and the
practice of citizenship.
Gender-based critiques of citizenship
Ideas of universal citizenship – equal rights for all
members − are a feature of many understandings of citizenship. Feminists,
amongst others, have pointed out that this hides the reality of unequal power
on the basis of race, class, ethnicity and gender that can render women subject
to double discrimination. These inequalities lead in reality to some people
being excluded from the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship on the
basis of their difference. Gendered exclusion from citizenship is linked to the
public/private divide that identifies men’s role as being in the public world
of politics and paid employment, and women’s in caring and child-rearing in the
home. The public/private divide also operates to exclude men who do not conform
to traditional gender norms.
Re-framing citizenship from a gender equality
perspective
Citizenship is bound up with relationships and expressions
of power. Like power relations, citizenship rights are not fixed, but are
objects of struggle to be defended, reinterpreted and extended.
3
Challenging the
public/private divide challenging the public/private divide means
asserting that private matters such as sexuality, reproduction and the family
are matters for public attention. This applies both to addressing “private
wrongs” such as domestic violence and to including issues like welfare and
support for childcare as citizenship rights. This report describes a case study
where sex workers in India fought to have a “private” matter − sexuality − placed
on the political agenda. Efforts to include so-called private gender needs such
as welfare and childcare in policy are demonstrated in initiatives to better
include women’s perspectives in countries’ Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
(PRSPs) – as in the case of Rwanda. Accepting women’s multiple roles as mothers
and as workers who should be entitled to workers’ rights is illustrated in a
case study on Brazil.
Challenging
exclusion from rights on the basis of gender One way to redress existing
disadvantage is through policies of affirmative action that target the
interests of those excluded from rights. The case of Sister Namibia describes a
campaign for political parties to increase the numbers of women on their lists
of election candidates. A second way of addressing disadvantage is by basing
rights on the actual needs of women and men of minority groups and not on abstract
ideas of the need of a universal citizen. This can be achieved through
gender-sensitive needs assessments and consultations. A project to reform
customary marriage law in South Africa shows how tactics used to address
polygamy (the practice where a man is allowed to take more than one wife), were
modified when better understanding was achieved of the particular legal needs
of women living in polygamous marriages.
Promoting women
as agents and political actors Collective struggles can allow women to
influence institutions such as the household, market and state.
Many of the examples in this report demonstrate advocacy,
lobbying, campaigning and awareness raising in civil society organisations as
citizenship “in practice”. These struggles are evident in women’s organizing in
both formal and informal arenas. The campaign by Sister Namibia combined
lobbying political parties with raising awareness amongst women of their
political exclusion.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are intended to support
policy-makers and practitioners in expanding citizenship rights according to a
gender perspective. The recommendations can also indicate potential directions
for future campaigning by civil society groups and women’s organisations:
Issues that are “left out” of citizenship rights – such
as the safety of women in their own homes,
childcare and sexuality − need to be addressed and given
public, and/or institutional solutions.
In order for women’s citizenship to be acknowledged,
institutions including the state, civil society and families, need to
incorporate their perspective into all areas of activity. This can be achieved
through gender mainstreaming in all policy areas, even
those that are supposedly “gender
neutral”.
4
Affirmative action needs to be initiated to increase
numbers of women in formal political
structures and other decision-making bodies as an
effective way to kick-start processes of
change towards gender equality.
Needs assessments are crucial to enable development
initiatives to be based on the experiences of real people. Participatory
assessments and consultations have the potential to put genderdifferentiated
needs on the policy agenda.
Good quality gender analysis is also essential.
Policy-makers must be trained in the technical
skills of gender analysis and planning.
Policy-makers and project implementers should support
social movements, including human
rights and gender equality NGOs, through resources,
capacity-building and provision of training
in advocacy and lobbying skills.
Spaces must be created and utilised for dialogue between
civil society organisations and
government.
The creation of networks amongst those working on
similar issues must be supported in order to foster dialogue, gain information
and develop effective strategies.
Specific
recommendations for women’s civil society organisations.
Civil society groups need to create a role for
themselves as providers of valuable information
to policy-makers on women’s needs, gender discrimination
and potential strategies.
Groups need to be aware of entry points into
decision-making and policy dialogues – such as
processes of law reform, new governments and
administrations, or important local, national
and international events.
Groups need to invest time and resources in skills
training, particularly in advocacy and
lobbying.
2.1 What is
citizenship? Traditional definitions and origins
Bayam rastra
jaagrayaama purohita : bhagawan Beda said ,we must be loyal to the Nation ,
which is highest saying in baidik period about the Citizenship . This saying
oldest then any western Political thinker Like Aristotle or Cicero or even
Roman Civilization who confined about Citizenship issues in Europe. Now Europe
is in the condition to introduce single identity with EU and Senzen Visa for
about 28 countries. Citizenship is about belonging to a group or community and
about the rights and responsibilities, associated with such membership. In
addition to being about a status, that confers rights and obligations, citizenship
is also a practice whereby people are able to participate in shaping their
societies. It implies not only rights and responsibilities, but also
interaction and influence within the community.
The concept originated in western political thought on
liberalism and democracy and is based on the notion of the individual as member
of a democratic nation state. It described the relationship between the individual
and the state in which the individual was able to secure protections and participate
in the public life and decision-making of the nation. The “true citizen” was
originally conceived as one who was able to fight and die for his country. In
changing historical contexts this warrior citizen became the democratic voter
in the context of struggles for universal suffrage and, in the past century,
into the individual who could exchange contracts in the market place – now the
citizen-consumer. All these “citizens” have been at different times the “true”
and “full” members of the community or group – those whose roles indicated membership
and who are most highly valued or recognised.
Citizenship rights in western thought were traditionally
conceived as civil and political rights that enabled people to engage in
political debate and decision-making in the public arena. Citizenship bestowed
a legal status on such rights, thus giving the individual the means of claiming
them and also an avenue by which to seek redress should they be violated
(Lister 2003b).
Citizenship, as conferred equally on all people who
succeed to “membership” of the nation, is based on a neutral, abstract person,
without a gender, race, class, ethnicity or any other social relation that
marks real, living people. Equality therefore implies that all citizens are the
same with the same needs. The law, which guarantees the rights of citizens, is
itself seen as neutral and applying to all citizens equally. Such concepts are
referred to as “universal” citizenship.
2.2 Different
understandings of citizenship
However, different meanings of citizenship have been
expressed by groups all over the world whose experiences of membership;
belonging and participation do not fit this model. The particular and differing
forms of states and societies mean that people experience these concepts in
different ways. The growing dominance of western forms of statehood and
democracy does not obscure other forms of being in the world expressed by women
and by people from diverse regions, races and ethnicities. In addition to 10 membership
of a nation state, citizenship has also been applied to membership of social
groups or communities within a nation state, and to rights, responsibilities,
resources and recognition that arise from such membership. Many understandings
of citizenship are about community roles and obligations where citizenship is
seen not only in relation to the state, but also as a relationship between
fellow human beings.
2.3
Citizenship in a changing global context
Traditional notions of citizenship are also being mediated
by three important global political shifts:
1. National agendas, the “traditional” location of
citizenship, are increasingly framed by the policies of international
institutions such as the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
which national citizens have no way of holding to account.
2. The acceptance of neoliberal economics as the only
approach sees a limited role for the nation
state in addressing the needs of the poor. Restrictions on
the ability of citizens to claim
entitlements from this powerful policy-making arena can
increase the likelihood of poverty and
inequality.
3. Increased international migrations and tensions around
ethnic and cultural differences within countries have fractured relationships
among citizens as well as between citizens and states.
However, globalisation, at the same time as it constrains,
provides new opportunities to claim rights on the basis of membership of a
regional or global community (Sen 2003) and increasing possibilities for addressing
and redressing poverty. More recently a sense of “global citizenship” has
emerged in which people from all over the world come together as members of the
global community in international movements such as peace protests and in
international conferences such as the World Conference on Women in Beijing in
1995.
Shifting notions of citizenship have been reflected in
policy and practice. In many cases citizens’ rights have been expanded to
include social, cultural and reproductive rights – rights that cover a wider
range of life experiences and needs. In Section 4 we shall look in more detail
at how struggles for gender equality have re-cast citizenship in ways that
better reflect the experiences of women and other marginalized groups. However,
firstly it is necessary to outline in greater detail why and how notions of citizenship
can be important in the development context.
Nepal became
quite liberal regarding to citizenship act after 2003/3 Political movement .Now
any child found in Nepalese territory will get Nepalese Citizens until his
parents Identified. If two Nepalese citizens recommend somebody as Citizen than
that persons will also get Nepalese Citizenship
According Interim Constitution and Citizenship act after
commencements of this constitution .Open border between India and Nepal some
time became problem of Citizenship Issues.
Future of
Citizenship .
Thak Sin Sinabatra
was former Premier to Thailand now he is New Citizen of Monte Negro (one of
Small) European state. There are Meany People in the world having multiple identities
(Citizenship) for sense of security and Development. Few Nepali Citizens are
now new Citizen of Russia, USA, Australia, Canada or even UK.
Actually citizenship provision is dividing world
population in to wealthy, Poor, strong and week. Privilege under privileged,
easy entry in country border for selected Citizen and not easy access to weak
or poor countries Citizens. According to International Human Right all Citizens
are equal but in fact it is not the same for all. Global government UN System must
be more effective for good Global Citizens Recognition and practice in the
world far making Real meaning of inclusive value for citizenship in 2i century.
Dhan Prasad Pandit .
Associate professor
Political Science , Padma Kanya Campus TU ,Nepal .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Copleston , F., S.J, A History
of Philosophy , Vol. I, Maryland, The Newman Bookshop, 1946.
Ross, W. D., Aristotle, London,
Methuen, 1937.
Zeller, E., Aristotle and the Ear
Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal (2047 ) BS .Nepal Law
Book, publication , Putali Sadak ,Kathmandu ,Nepal .
Nepal Interim Constitution (2063) Ministry of Law, Nepal
Government of Federal Democratic
Republic Nepal ,Singh Darabar Kathmandu , Nepal .
0 comments: