This chapter explores the fundamental concepts of state, government, and citizenship. It begins by defining these terms and proceeds to examine various dimensions and theories related to state formation, governance structures, and the nature of citizenship.
While numerous theories exist in these areas, this chapter focuses on major schools of thought and dominant perspectives, providing a foundation for understanding these core political concepts.
Upon successful completion of this chapter, students will be able to:
Brainstorming:
How would you define the 'state'? What features do you consider essential for something to be called a state?
The term 'state' is complex and has been used diversely, referring to institutions, territory, philosophical concepts, instruments of coercion, and more. This complexity arises partly because the state has been conceptualized in at least four distinct ways: idealist, functionalist, organizational, and international perspectives.
The idealist approach, notably articulated by G.W.F. Hegel, views the state distinctively.
Hegel distinguished three phases ('moments') of social existence:
A drawback of this idealist view is its tendency towards uncritical reverence for the state and its failure to clearly delineate state institutions from non-state entities.
Functionalist Approaches:
These approaches define the state based on its functions or role, primarily the maintenance of social order. The state is seen as the set of institutions responsible for upholding order and delivering stability (a view sometimes adopted by neo-Marxists). A weakness is that this definition might encompass *any* institution contributing to order (like families or churches), blurring the lines of what constitutes the state itself.
The Organizational View:
This perspective defines the state as the apparatus of government in its broadest sense: the collection of institutions that are recognizably 'public'. These institutions handle collective organization, are funded publicly, and are responsible for enforcing collective decisions. This view clearly distinguishes the state (bureaucracy, military, police, courts, social security system, etc. – the 'body politic') from 'civil society' (private institutions like businesses, families, clubs). This allows for meaningful discussion of expanding or contracting the state's role ('rolling the state forward/back').
The International Approach:
This perspective views the state mainly as an actor on the global stage, the basic unit of international relations. It highlights the state's dual nature: facing inwards towards its own society and outwards towards other states.
A widely accepted definition outlining the features of a state in international law comes from the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933). Article 1 stipulates that a state should possess the following four qualifications:
1. Permanent Population: A state must have people residing within it. There's no minimum or maximum population requirement; states range from over a billion (China, India) to a few thousand (Vatican City).
Homogeneity (sharing common religion, language, culture, ethnicity) is not essential for statehood, though it can aid integration. Most modern states are diverse ('heterogeneous'). Nation-building often involves managing diversity, striving for 'unity in diversity.' As common sense dictates, an uninhabited territory cannot form a state.
2. Defined Territory: A state must occupy a specific geographical area with reasonably well-defined boundaries. This includes land, internal waters, territorial waters (typically extending 12 nautical miles), and the airspace above. State authority also extends to ships flying its flag on the high seas and its embassies abroad.
Territory size is not a defining factor; states can be vast (Russia) or tiny (Monaco). Territories can also be non-contiguous (e.g., island nations like Indonesia).
Boundaries can be natural (rivers, mountains) or artificial (marked by posts, fences, treaties).
3. Effective Government: Often considered the 'soul' or operating agency of the state. Government implements the state's will, maintains law and order, and protects citizens from internal and external threats. It's the mechanism that prevents anarchy and makes civilized life possible.
Every state requires some organized machinery to manage collective affairs and maintain peace and security. Without a government capable of exercising control, anarchy prevails, and the state effectively ceases to exist.
The *form* of government can vary widely (monarchy, democracy, dictatorship, etc.), but the *existence* of a functioning government exercising control over the territory and population is essential for statehood.
4. Sovereignty: This is the supreme and absolute power within a territory, distinguishing the state from all other associations.
Sovereignty has two dimensions:
In essence, a sovereign state is legally autonomous and holds the highest power within its defined borders.
Beyond the four Montevideo criteria, contemporary international relations often consider recognition by other states and international bodies as a crucial, if not strictly essential, attribute for effective statehood.
For a political entity to function fully as a state with an 'international personality,' it typically needs acknowledgment from a significant portion of the international community. Recognition signals acceptance of the state's factual existence and a willingness to engage in legal and political relations with it. Similarly, a government's legitimacy on the international stage often depends on recognition by other governments.
Brainstorming Questions:
What is the fundamental nature of state power? Whose interests does the state primarily represent?
Political theory offers various competing explanations for the state's origins, development, and societal impact. Debates about the nature of state power are central to ideological and theoretical disagreements.
Key questions include: Is the state autonomous or merely a reflection of society? Does it serve a common good or favor privileged groups? Is the state a positive force for order and justice, or a negative instrument of coercion and control?
Andrew Heywood (2013) identifies four major theoretical perspectives on the state: pluralist, capitalist, leviathan, and patriarchal.
The pluralist view, rooted in liberal thought, portrays the state as a neutral 'umpire' or 'referee' within society. This perspective has dominated mainstream political science, particularly in Anglo-American contexts. It assumes the state apparatus (courts, civil service, military) acts impartially.
This view often draws on social contract theories (Hobbes, Locke), which argue the state arises from a voluntary agreement among individuals seeking security from the 'state of nature'. The state's legitimacy stems from its ability to protect citizens and uphold order.
As Locke suggested, law is necessary for freedom ("where there is no law there is no freedom"). The state provides the framework for orderly coexistence.
Liberal theory views the state as a neutral arbiter mediating between competing interests of individuals and groups. Because it acts impartially in the interests of all citizens, it represents the common good or public interest.
While Hobbes advocated an absolute state for order, Locke argued for a *limited* state, restricted primarily to defending natural rights (life, liberty, property). This established a distinction between the state's public responsibilities and the private sphere of civil society. Locke believed constitutional and representative government could protect citizens *from* potential state overreach.
Twentieth-century pluralism elaborated on this, asserting that power in society is widely dispersed among various groups. The state itself is seen as neutral, not biased towards any particular interest, and lacking interests of its own. It acts as the 'servant of society,' responding to the balance of group pressures (Schwarzmantel, 1994).
Classical pluralism rests on two key assumptions:
More recent neo-pluralist theories (e.g., Robert Dahl, Charles Lindblom) offer a more critical view. They acknowledge that modern states are complex and less perfectly responsive than classical pluralism suggests. Neo-pluralists recognize, for example, that business interests often hold a 'privileged position' influencing government policy due to their economic importance (Lindblom, 1980).
Neo-pluralists also accept that the state itself *can* develop and pursue its own interests (e.g., bureaucratic expansion, favoring client groups), acting as a powerful interest group in its own right. This led scholars like Eric Nordlinger (1981) to emphasize 'the autonomy of the democratic state'.
Marxist theory offers a stark contrast to the pluralist view of a neutral state. Marxists argue the state is inseparable from society's economic structure, emerging from and reflecting the class system inherent in capitalism.
The classic formulation sees the state primarily as an instrument of class oppression, serving the interests of the economically dominant class (the bourgeoisie).
However, nuances exist within Marx's writings, leading to different interpretations:
Both Marxist interpretations differ significantly from liberal/pluralist models by linking the state intrinsically to unequal class power within capitalism. The state is seen either as a direct tool of the dominant class or as a mechanism that ultimately upholds the capitalist system, even if it appears to mediate conflicts.
Marx's view wasn't entirely negative, however. He envisioned a constructive role for a *temporary* proletarian state during the transition from capitalism to communism. This 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' would be an instrument used by the newly dominant working class to suppress counter-revolution by the bourgeoisie.
From this perspective, *all* states are class dictatorships. The proletarian state, however, was seen as transitional. Marx predicted that as class antagonisms faded under communism, the state, having lost its purpose (managing class conflict), would eventually 'wither away,' resulting in a stateless communist society.
Marx's somewhat ambivalent legacy allowed for diverse neo-Marxist interpretations. Influenced by Antonio Gramsci, later Marxists emphasized hegemony—the idea that ruling class domination is maintained not just by force, but also through ideological leadership and cultural control, with the state playing a key role in perpetuating this hegemony.
Since the 1960s, Marxist state theory has seen debates between instrumentalist and structuralist views:
More recent neo-Marxist views often see the state less as a monolithic instrument and more as a complex terrain where class struggles and competing interests play out.
Associated primarily with the New Right (particularly its neoliberal wing), this perspective views the state as a 'leviathan'—a self-serving monster inherently driven towards expansion and aggrandizement. Rooted in classical liberal individualism and antipathy towards state intervention, it sees the state not as a neutral umpire but as a parasitic growth threatening individual liberty and economic efficiency.
Central to this view is the belief that the state pursues its *own* interests, distinct from those of society (unlike Marxist views). This inherent interest drives the state towards relentless expansion of its power and responsibilities.
New Right thinkers attribute the 20th-century growth of state intervention to both demand-side and supply-side pressures:
Feminist theory offers another critical perspective on the state, though encompassing diverse traditions and views. While not always the central focus (compared to deeper structures of male power like the family), feminist analyses have enriched the debate.
Some feminists challenge conventional definitions, arguing the state's claim to a monopoly on legitimate violence is undermined by the prevalence of violence within the 'private' sphere of the family.
Liberal feminists generally adopt a pluralist view, believing gender equality can be achieved through reform. They see the state as potentially neutral, capable of being used to rectify biases against women (e.g., through equal pay laws, abortion rights, childcare provision). They view state intervention positively as a means to redress inequality.
In contrast, radical feminists offer a more critical perspective, arguing state power reflects and reinforces patriarchy—the deeper societal structure of male domination. Similar to Marxist analysis (which links the state to economic structures), radical feminism links the state to gender inequality, viewing it as an institution inherently biased towards male interests.
Analogous to Marxist debates, feminist theories include instrumentalist and structuralist views:
Brainstorming Questions:
What *should* states do? What are the appropriate functions and limits of state power versus individual/private responsibility?
Differing theories of the state lead to contrasting views on its desirable role and responsibilities. Most political philosophies (excluding anarchism) see the state as having some value. Even revolutionary socialists acknowledge a temporary need for a proletarian state.
However, profound disagreement exists about the *proper extent* of state activity and the appropriate balance between state and civil society. This leads to different models or ideal types of states:
The ideal of classical liberals and later the New Right, the minimal state aims to maximize individual liberty. Based on social contract theory and a 'negative' view of the state as a necessary evil, its value lies solely in its capacity to prevent individuals from harming each other.
The state acts as a 'night watchman' (Locke), intervening only when order is threatened. Its core functions are strictly limited to:
The New Right revived the minimal state ideal. Thinkers like Robert Nozick emphasized individual rights (especially property rights) as limits on state action. Free-market economists like Hayek and Friedman argued state intervention stifles competition, efficiency, and productivity. They restricted the state's economic role to maintaining stable currency and preventing monopolies.
While early industrializers like the UK/USA approximated minimal states, countries industrializing later often adopted a more active developmental state model. This type of state intervenes in economic life specifically to promote industrial growth and economic development.
It doesn't equate to full central planning but involves a partnership between the state and key economic actors (e.g., major industries, banks), often driven by nationalist priorities. Examples include Meiji Japan (state-Zaibatsu cooperation), post-WWII Japan (MITI's role), France (indicative planning), and Germany/Austria ('partnership state' involving business and labor).
Economic globalization has spurred the emergence of 'competition states' (prominent in East Asia), which prioritize strengthening education and training to enhance national competitiveness in the global market.
While developmental states focus on economic growth, social-democratic states intervene primarily to achieve broader social restructuring based on principles like fairness, equality, and social justice. This ideal is shared by modern liberals and democratic socialists.
The social-democratic state moves beyond the 'negative' view of the state (necessary evil) to a 'positive' view (means to enhance liberty and promote justice). It actively participates in rectifying market economy imbalances, focusing more on equitable distribution than just wealth generation, aiming to eradicate poverty and reduce inequality.
Key features typically include Keynesian economics (using fiscal policy for demand management, growth, and full employment) and extensive social welfare programs (healthcare, education, social security). The state becomes an 'enabling state,' focused on empowering individuals and ensuring social well-being.
Unlike developmental or social-democratic states that guide private economies, collectivized states bring the entire economy under direct state control. Orthodox communist regimes (e.g., former USSR, Eastern Bloc) exemplified this model. They abolished private enterprise, establishing centrally planned 'command economies' administered by state bureaucracies.
The justification stemmed from socialist preference for common ownership. However, this reliance on the state contrasts with classical Marxism's prediction of the state 'withering away'. While Marx and Engels acknowledged nationalization as a possibility and envisioned a temporary 'dictatorship of the proletariat', the collectivized states in practice became permanent, powerful, and bureaucratic entities, equating state control with socialism itself (Statism).
The most extreme form of state intervention occurs in totalitarian states. These regimes seek to create an all-encompassing state that penetrates every aspect of human life, bringing not only the economy but also education, culture, religion, and family life under direct control. Classic examples include Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR; modern parallels might include Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Key features are comprehensive surveillance, terroristic policing, and pervasive ideological manipulation. Totalitarianism effectively extinguishes civil society and the private sphere, aiming to dissolve individual identity into the collective social whole—a goal openly endorsed mainly by fascist ideologies. Some trace the idea back to distorted interpretations of Hegel's 'ethical state'.
A religious state seems contradictory, as the modern state often emerged alongside secularization and the separation of church and state. In many Western nations, secular principles like the US First Amendment or French *laïcité* ensure state neutrality regarding religion. Even where 'established' state religions exist (e.g., UK, Scandinavia), their political influence is typically limited by secular norms.
However, recent decades have seen the rise of states heavily influenced by religious fundamentalism. These movements often reject the public/private divide, viewing religion as the proper basis for politics and aiming to use state power for moral and spiritual regeneration. Examples include attempts at 'Islamization' in Pakistan under Zia-ul-Haq and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
While some religious states have explicitly theocratic elements (like Iran), others feature religiously-oriented governments operating within formally secular constitutional frameworks.
Brainstorming Questions:
What is government? What are its primary functions? What different systems of government exist?
In its broadest sense, government means the act or process of ruling or controlling others. It encompasses any mechanism maintaining ordered rule, characterized by the ability to make and enforce collective decisions. Forms of governance exist in various institutions (families, schools, businesses). However, in political science, 'government' typically refers to the formal institutions and processes operating at the national (or sub-national) level to maintain public order, administer the state, and facilitate collective action. It's the body or organization running the country's affairs.
Government comprises the individuals and institutions authorized to formulate public policies and conduct state affairs. It establishes and regulates relationships among people within a territory and between that community and other political entities. For stability and effectiveness, any government must possess two essential attributes: authority and legitimacy.
Authority:
In politics, authority signifies the *right* to command obedience, often defined as 'legitimate power.' While power is the *ability* to influence behavior (through coercion, persuasion, etc.), authority is the *acknowledged right* to do so. Authority rests on a perceived duty to obey, rather than mere force or manipulation.
Legitimacy:
Legitimacy (from Latin *legitimare*, 'to declare lawful') refers to the 'rightfulness' of a government or regime. It's the quality that prompts the governed to willingly accept its authority and comply with its commands. Legitimacy transforms raw power into recognized authority, making commands binding. It signifies popular acceptance of the governing system as authoritative.
Legitimacy is crucial for governmental stability; without a minimal level, regimes risk collapse. While widespread legitimacy is ideal, some regimes survive with legitimacy concentrated within key elites. Legitimacy is typically gained when power is acquired and exercised according to recognized standards or principles, suggesting the government is 'doing the right thing' and deserves obedience. Note that legitimacy differs from mere *legality* (conforming to existing laws); an action can be legal but still widely perceived as illegitimate.
A central question in political philosophy concerns the purpose of government. Philosophers offer various answers, often centering on establishing order, protecting rights, or promoting justice. Debates involve the appropriate scope of government jurisdiction and intervention. Constitutions often outline governmental purposes vaguely, leaving specifics to laws, courts, and political action.
In practice, governments serve diverse functions depending on societal character and needs. Contemporary governments often play active roles in development. Major purposes and functions commonly include:
Brainstorming Question:
What does the term 'citizenship' mean to you?
A citizen is typically defined as a legal member of a particular state, owing allegiance to that state and entitled to its protection. Citizenship formally denotes the legal status and relationship between an individual and a sovereign state, including rules regarding acquisition and loss of state membership (nationality).
Beyond this formal legal definition, citizenship also carries political and social dimensions. It often implies a set of rights and duties. While generally agreed upon as a status conferring certain prerogatives and responsibilities, the precise meaning of citizenship varies across historical periods, political systems, ideologies, and socio-cultural contexts. Some languages emphasize the legal relationship, while others highlight social roles and participation. Common elements across definitions include rights, duties, belonging, identity, and participation.
Being a citizen confers a status associated with a set of rights. Political discourse often equates citizenship primarily with these rights. Sociologist T.H. Marshall famously distinguished three types of citizenship rights, developed historically:
Citizenship as status implies rights and obligations. Rights are essential for agency. W.N. Hohfeld analyzed rights into four components ('incidents'): liberty, claim, power, and immunity.
Hohfeld's Four Incidents:
Liberties and claims are often seen as primary rules (governing actions), while powers and immunities are secondary rules (governing how primary rules are changed).
Discussion Question:
Consider owning a smartphone. What liberties, claims, powers, and immunities might you have regarding it?
ii) Membership and Identity:
Citizenship signifies membership in a specific political community, implying integration and often a shared identity (based on territory, culture, history, etc.). Beyond legal status, "citizenship" can imply adherence to certain standards of conduct. Those contributing positively are sometimes seen as 'true' citizens, while passive members might not fully embody the ideal. This normative sense is invoked in 'citizenship awards'.
iii) Participation:
Active participation is key to many conceptions of citizenship. Individuals vary in their engagement levels. Minimalist views emphasize passive compliance with rules, while maximalist views stress active, broad participation in civic and political life as essential to meaningful citizenship.
Not everyone residing within a state is necessarily a citizen. Foreigners or aliens visiting, working, or living in a country (e.g., Ethiopia) have certain rights (like right to life, legal protection) and responsibilities (obeying laws) but lack the full set of privileges and duties reserved for citizens. Citizenship defines a distinct legal relationship. Key rights often reserved for citizens include access to certain resources (like land in Ethiopia), voting and holding office, and carrying the national passport. Conversely, duties like mandatory military service (where applicable) or defending the constitution typically fall solely on citizens.
The concept extends beyond individuals. "Corporate citizenship" refers to the social responsibilities of corporations beyond legal compliance and profit-making, including ethical conduct, environmental protection, and contributing to community well-being (Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR).
Furthermore, globalization has fostered concepts like 'global citizen' or 'cosmopolitan citizen', suggesting a sense of membership and responsibility extending beyond the nation-state to a shared humanity or global community.
Citizenship is not a fixed concept but a cultural and political artifact that evolves over time, shaped by historical legacies, state organization, ideologies, and socio-cultural contexts. Policies regarding rights allocation, state intervention, and citizenship obligations (like military service) vary significantly and change historically. For example, post-1991 Ethiopian citizenship differs from earlier periods.
Understanding citizenship requires engaging with its theoretical explanations. While diverse approaches exist, contemporary scholarship often focuses on four main theoretical frameworks: liberal, communitarian, republican, and multicultural citizenship.
Class Discussion:
What comes to mind when you hear the term 'liberalism' in a political context?
Liberal citizenship theory prioritizes the individual. The autonomous individual, conceived as a rational calculator of preferences and holder of rights, is the fundamental political unit. Liberalism emphasizes individual liberty, arguing individuals should be free to determine their own conception of the good life, liberated from ascribed or inherited statuses.
While individuals act rationally to advance their interests, early liberal thinkers like John Locke believed reason also guides individuals to recognize natural law, respect others' interests, and enter into civil society for mutual benefit. However, the community's value is instrumental—it matters because it serves individual well-being. Individuals retain the right to modify or reject communal practices if they no longer serve their interests. Identity is primarily individual, not derived from the community.
Thinkers like J.S. Mill saw individual liberty and self-interest as drivers of social progress. The state's role is primarily instrumental: to protect individual rights and create an environment where individuals can pursue their freely chosen ends. Liberalism often views state action and individual liberty as inversely related; increasing state power potentially reduces liberty. It emphasizes limiting state coercion and allowing individuals wide latitude in private life.
Individuals have the right to choose their level of civic participation, including retreating entirely into private life. Citizenship is primarily a legal status conferring equal rights, binding individuals into a community of free agents, rather than being defined by shared cultural identity.
Liberal governance aims to protect:
Liberalism encompasses diverse strands, from 'negative liberty' perspectives (emphasizing freedom *from* state interference) to 'positive liberty' views (arguing the state should affirmatively secure substantive entitlements like healthcare or education necessary for meaningful freedom). However, all share a commitment to protecting individual freedoms within a framework of predictable, non-arbitrary law, ideally based on consent.
In essence, liberal citizens are largely left to define their own good and level of civic engagement, protected by constitutional rights but receiving minimal guidance from a state striving for normative neutrality among competing visions of the good life.
Group Discussion:
Does the liberal theory of citizenship accurately describe or ideally suit the Ethiopian context? Why or why not?
Liberal citizenship faces several criticisms:
These criticisms motivate alternative citizenship theories like communitarianism, republicanism, and multiculturalism.
Class Discussion:
Discuss the main criticisms leveled against the liberal approach to citizenship.
Emerging prominently in the 1980s, communitarianism (associated with thinkers like Charles Taylor, Michael Sandel, Michael Walzer, Alasdair MacIntyre) critiques liberalism's focus on the individual. It emphasizes the importance of the community in shaping identity and articulating the common good.
Communitarians argue that individuals are not isolated atoms but are fundamentally shaped by the communities (cultural, ethnic, national) they belong to. Identity, values, and even the capacity for choice are seen as products of social context and shared traditions. The political subject primarily *belongs* to a community, owing it allegiance.
Unlike liberalism's view of practices arising from individual choices, communitarianism sees individuals as products of social practices. Community interests are not reducible to the sum of individual interests; the community itself has value. Protecting the communal way of life is considered crucial, potentially limiting individual autonomy where it threatens shared values. The state's role is to promote the common good as defined by the community's shared way of life.
The core difference lies in whether citizenship rests on the prior individual (liberalism) or the prior community (communitarianism). Communitarians assert the self is socially embedded and culturally constructed; individual identity derives from the community. Freedom and equality are realized *through* prioritizing the shared common good.
Key communitarian features:
Criticisms of Communitarianism:
Critics argue communitarianism can be hostile to individual rights and autonomy, potentially leading to authoritarianism by subsuming the individual into the group. It might pressure conformity and suppress difference. Furthermore, communities are often internally diverse and hierarchical; dominant groups might impose their values on others under the guise of the 'common good'. Communitarianism sometimes overlooks power dynamics within the processes that construct shared values and identities.
Group Discussion:
Discuss the potential strengths and weaknesses of the communitarian approach to citizenship.
Republican citizenship theory seeks a middle ground, emphasizing both individual rights and civic duties within a community framework. It aims to integrate the liberal focus on individual interest with a communitarian sense of belonging and shared purpose.
Like communitarians, republicans see citizens as members of a particular community, bound by a common civic identity shaped through public culture. However, unlike some communitarian views, republicanism doesn't necessarily demand surrendering particular identities. Instead, it emphasizes a common obligation for all citizens to participate actively in public affairs for the common good. It seeks a balance between tolerating differences and fulfilling civic duties.
While valuing self-government (like liberalism), republicanism challenges the liberal notion that all restraints hinder freedom. It argues individuals must sometimes set aside private interests for the public good. It values public life for developing citizens' capacities and fostering community connection.
Two essential elements of republican citizenship are publicity and civic virtue. Publicity implies that public life is a sphere of common concerns transcending private interests, and that public affairs must be conducted openly, based on public reasons. This necessitates the rule of law—established, predictable procedures governing both citizens and government, preventing arbitrary action.
However, the rule of law alone cannot sustain a republic without civic virtue: a commitment among citizens to the common good and active participation in self-government. Republics require "formative politics" that cultivate the character qualities necessary for self-governance (Sandel, 1996). Constitutional safeguards are insufficient without virtuous citizens.
Criticisms of Republicanism:
Critics argue republicanism is unrealistic in a globalized age, nostalgic for small, homogenous communities. Others contend its emphasis on common ground historically led to enforced homogeneity and exclusion of 'different' groups (Young, 1990), masking dominance by particular groups. Some challenge its ideal of impartiality, though republicans might respond that striving for public-mindedness doesn't preclude considering particular needs within the polity.
Increasing cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity within modern states challenges traditional citizenship models, especially liberal ones emphasizing uniform individual rights. Factors like ethnic revitalization movements, structural exclusion of minority groups, and immigration have spurred demands for citizenship frameworks that recognize and accommodate group difference alongside individual rights.
Multicultural citizenship theory argues that modern citizenship should be expanded to include specific cultural or group rights within a democratic framework. It acknowledges that formal equality doesn't always translate to substantive equality or respect for diverse identities.
Key tenets often include:
Criticisms of Multicultural/Differentiated Citizenship:
Critics worry that emphasizing group difference and granting group-specific rights might fragment society, undermine a shared sense of community, and hinder the development of a common civic purpose. They fear it could lead groups to focus inward on their differences, fostering mistrust and conflict. Others express concern it might create a "politics of grievance," incentivizing groups to emphasize disadvantage to secure special rights rather than working towards integration or overcoming disadvantage.
Group Discussion:
Which citizenship theory (Liberal, Communitarian, Republican, Multicultural) seems most appropriate or applicable to the Ethiopian context? Why?
Citizenship (nationality) is recognized as a fundamental right (UDHR Article 15). The specific ways citizenship is acquired or lost are determined by each state's laws.
Primary ways citizenship is acquired:
i) Citizenship by Birth (Origin):
Most people acquire citizenship automatically at birth based on two main principles:
ii) Citizenship by Naturalization (Law):
The legal process by which a foreigner acquires citizenship after birth. Common methods include:
Ethiopia's primary citizenship law is the Ethiopian Nationality Proclamation No. 378/2003, based on Article 6 and 33 of the 1995 FDRE Constitution. It recognizes acquisition primarily by descent and through naturalization (law).
i) Acquisition by Descent (*Jus Sanguinis*):
Article 3 of the 2003 proclamation states:
Foreigners (aliens) can acquire Ethiopian citizenship through various provisions under law (Proclamation 378/2003, Articles 5-12):
a) Grant on Application (Registration):
Requires fulfilling specific conditions (Article 5):
b) Cases of Marriage:
A foreigner married to an Ethiopian citizen may apply (Article 6), provided:
c) Cases of Adoption:
A minor child adopted by an Ethiopian citizen can acquire nationality (Article 7) if:
d) Special Cases:
An alien who has made an outstanding contribution to Ethiopia may be granted nationality without meeting certain residency or language requirements (Article 8).
e) Re-Admission (Reintegration):
A former Ethiopian citizen who lost nationality can apply for re-admission (Article 22) if they:
Application Process:
Applications for naturalization are submitted with relevant documents to the Security, Immigration and Refugee Affairs Authority (SIRAA) (Article 10). A Nationality Affairs Committee (comprising representatives from SIRAA, Foreign Affairs, Justice, Federal Police) examines the application and makes recommendations (Article 11 & 23). If approved by SIRAA, the applicant takes an oath of allegiance (Article 12) and receives a certificate of naturalization.
Class Discussion:
Can a person hold citizenship in more than one country simultaneously? Discuss the concept and implications of dual/multiple citizenship.
Dual citizenship means being a citizen of two countries simultaneously (multiple citizenship involves more than two). It often arises from conflicting birthright principles (*jus soli* vs. *jus sanguinis*) or naturalization laws that don't require renunciation of prior citizenship.
Ethiopia generally prohibits dual citizenship. Article 20(1) of the 2003 proclamation states that voluntary acquisition of another nationality results in automatic loss of Ethiopian nationality. However, release from Ethiopian citizenship might be denied if outstanding national obligations exist or criminal proceedings are pending (Article 19(4)), potentially leading to a situation of *de facto* dual nationality under the principle of indelible allegiance (Article 20(4)).
Citizenship can be lost through state action (deprivation under specific conditions) or individual action (voluntary renunciation). The rationale often involves a perceived absence of a genuine link to the state, fraudulent acquisition, or acts demonstrating disloyalty.
Grounds for denationalization can include:
Common modes of loss:
Deprivation:
This involves involuntary loss initiated by state authorities. While common grounds globally include disloyalty, fraud, or loss of genuine link, the 1995 FDRE Constitution (Article 33) states, "no Ethiopian national shall be deprived of his or her Ethiopian nationality against his or her will." Proclamation 378/2003 (Article 17) reinforces this, effectively prohibiting involuntary deprivation of citizenship for Ethiopians by birth. (Note: Citizenship acquired by law *might* potentially be revoked under specific circumstances like fraud, though not explicitly termed 'deprivation' in the same manner).
Lapse/Expiration:
This mode, involving automatic loss due to extended residence abroad, is *not* applicable under Ethiopian law.
Renunciation:
This is the primary way Ethiopians can *voluntarily* lose citizenship (FDRE Constitution Art. 33(3); Proc. 378/2003 Art. 19). An individual must formally declare their intention to renounce. However, release might be delayed or denied if outstanding national obligations (like taxes or military service, if applicable) exist or if the individual faces criminal charges (indelible allegiance principle - Art. 19(4)).
Substitution (Implicit Loss):
As mentioned under dual citizenship, voluntarily acquiring another country's nationality is deemed a voluntary renunciation of Ethiopian nationality (Proc. 378/2003 Art. 20). This functions as a loss through substitution.
Statelessness is the condition of not being recognized as a citizen by *any* state under its laws. Stateless persons lack a government obligated to protect them and often face severe difficulties accessing basic rights and services.
Statelessness can arise from various situations, including state failure leading to displacement (civil war, invasion, famine), conflicts in nationality laws (e.g., gaps between *jus soli* and *jus sanguinis*), changes in state territory, administrative errors, or deliberate deprivation of citizenship by a state (though international conventions aim to prevent this). International conventions exist to protect stateless persons and reduce statelessness.
This chapter presented the core concepts of state, government, and citizenship, highlighting their interrelationships. The state comprises institutions governing a territory and population. Various theories (pluralist, capitalist, leviathan, patriarchal) offer differing perspectives on the state's nature, purpose, and relationship to society. Government serves as the administrative arm of the state, empowered to manage its affairs. Citizenship defines the formal legal relationship between the individual and the state regarding membership, rights, and duties.
Beyond legal status, citizenship encompasses dimensions of identity, participation, and inclusion/exclusion. Theories of citizenship (liberal, communitarian, republican, multicultural) offer distinct frameworks for understanding the balance between individual rights and community belonging/obligations. Modes of acquiring citizenship (birth, naturalization) and losing it (renunciation, deprivation, substitution) vary by state law, with Ethiopia primarily following *jus sanguinis* and generally prohibiting dual citizenship and involuntary deprivation.
Essay Questions:
Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age. *Educational Researcher*, *37*(3), 129–139.
Bauböck, R., & Paskalev, V. (2015). Cutting Genuine Links: A Normative Analysis of Citizenship Deprivation. *Georgetown Immigration Law Journal*, *30*, 47-118.
Bellamy, R. (2008). *Citizenship: A Very Short Introduction*. Oxford University Press.
Berlin, I. (1969). Two Concepts of Liberty. In *Four Essays on Liberty*. Oxford University Press.
Castles, S. (1999a). *Globalization, Multicultural Citizenship and Transnational Democracy*. Research Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sydney.
Castles, S. (1999b). Multicultural Citizenship. *Research Paper No. 16 1995-96*. Department of the Parliamentary Library, Australia.
Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). *Politics, Economics, and Welfare*. Harper & Row.
Delanty, G. (2002). Communitarianism and Citizenship. In E. F. Isin & B. S. Turner (Eds.), *Handbook of Citizenship Studies* (pp. 159-174). SAGE Publications.
Etzioni, A. (2014). Communitarianism revisited. *Journal of Political Ideologies*, *19*(3), 241–260.
Ferguson, J. (1999). *Expectations of Modernity: Myths and Meanings of Urban Life on the Zambian Copperbelt*. University of California Press.
Frazer, E. (1999). *The Problems of Communitarian Politics: Unity and Conflict*. Oxford University Press.
Held, D. (2006). *Models of Democracy* (3rd ed.). Stanford University Press.
Heywood, A. (2013). *Politics* (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Hohfeld, W. N. (1919). *Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning*. Yale University Press.
Isin, E. F., & Turner, B. S. (Eds.). (2002). *Handbook of Citizenship Studies*. SAGE Publications.
Jones, E., & Gaventa, J. (2002). *Concepts of Citizenship: A Review*. Institute of Development Studies.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). *Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights*. Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (2001). *Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship*. Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory. *Ethics*, *104*(2), 352-381.
Lell, H. M. (2014). The Concept of Citizenship: Multicultural Challenges and Latin American Constitutional Democracy. *Birkbeck Law Review*, *2*, 87-116.
Lindblom, C. E. (1980). *The Policy-Making Process* (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Lister, R. (1997). *Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives*. Macmillan.
Lister, R. (1998). Citizen in action: Citizenship and community development in Northern Ireland context. *Community Development Journal*, *33*(3), 226-235.
Locke, J. (1960). *Two Treatises of Government* (P. Laslett, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1690).
MacIntyre, A. (1981). *After Virtue*. University of Notre Dame Press.
Manby, B. (2010). *Citizenship Law in Africa: A Comparative Study*. Open Society Foundations.
Marquand, D. (1988). *The Unprincipled Society: New Demands and Old Politics*. Jonathan Cape.
Marshall, T. H. (1964). *Class, Citizenship, and Social Development*. Doubleday. (Original work 1950).
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). *Manifesto of the Communist Party*. Various publishers.
Marx, K. (1852). *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*. Various publishers.
Merrifield, J. (2001). *Learning Citizenship*. Learning from Experience Trust. [Discussion Paper].
Miliband, R. (1969). *The State in Capitalist Society*. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can Corporations be Citizens? Corporate Citizenship as a Metaphor for Business Participation in Society. *Business Ethics Quarterly*, *15*(3), 429-453.
Mouffe, C. (Ed.). (1992). *Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community*. Verso.
Nordlinger, E. A. (1981). *On the Autonomy of the Democratic State*. Harvard University Press.
Nozick, R. (1974). *Anarchy, State, and Utopia*. Basic Books.
Oldfield, A. (1990). *Citizenship and Community: Civic Republicanism and the Modern World*. Routledge.
Poulantzas, N. (1973). *Political Power and Social Classes*. New Left Books. (Original work 1968).
Sandel, M. J. (1982). *Liberalism and the Limits of Justice*. Cambridge University Press.
Sandel, M. J. (1996). *Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy*. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Schuck, P. H. (2002). Liberal Citizenship. In E. F. Isin & B. S. Turner (Eds.), *Handbook of Citizenship Studies* (pp. 131-144). SAGE Publications.
Schwarzmantel, J. (1994). *The State in Contemporary Society: An Introduction*. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Smith, R. M. (2002). Modern Citizenship. In E. F. Isin & B. S. Turner (Eds.), *Handbook of Citizenship Studies* (pp. 105-115). SAGE Publications.
Taylor, C. (1989). *Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity*. Harvard University Press.
Walzer, M. (1983). *Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality*. Basic Books.
Young, I. M. (1989). Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. *Ethics*, *99*(2), 250-274.
Young, I. M. (1990). *Justice and the Politics of Difference*. Princeton University Press.