POL 1000 – Lecture 17: Citizenship & Political Community Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University Doctoral Fellow, CFPS Fall Session, 2011 Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University Doctoral Fellow, CFPS Fall Session, 2011

Lecture Arc  1. Citizenship.  Origins.  Modern Conceptions.  2. Political Leadership  [time permitting].  1. Citizenship.  Origins.  Modern Conceptions.  2. Political Leadership  [time permitting].

Citizenship  What are the rights & obligations that go alongside membership in a political community? What should they be?

Origins of Citizenship  Dates back to Greek polis of antiquity, i.e. Plato, Aristotle.  Free, adult males seen as equal members of the community.  Thus w voting rights, i.e. Athens, in return for participation in politics & defence of the polity in times of war.  Far different than the subject relationship in neighbouring Persian empire.  Aristsotle’s Politics part of effort to regenerate fallen Athens, but returning citizenship as central to the good and rational life of man.  Important even to Roman Empire.  Citizenship meant equality under the law & protection by the state.  Feudalism downplayed idea of citizenship (i.e. serfdom), but re- emerged in 16 th & 17thCs.  New middle class wanted to protect that which they had earned.  French Revolution: links idea of citizenship w political equality & social fraternity.  ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man’ = first push towards universality (‘we are all born free’).  Dates back to Greek polis of antiquity, i.e. Plato, Aristotle.  Free, adult males seen as equal members of the community.  Thus w voting rights, i.e. Athens, in return for participation in politics & defence of the polity in times of war.  Far different than the subject relationship in neighbouring Persian empire.  Aristsotle’s Politics part of effort to regenerate fallen Athens, but returning citizenship as central to the good and rational life of man.  Important even to Roman Empire.  Citizenship meant equality under the law & protection by the state.  Feudalism downplayed idea of citizenship (i.e. serfdom), but re- emerged in 16 th & 17thCs.  New middle class wanted to protect that which they had earned.  French Revolution: links idea of citizenship w political equality & social fraternity.  ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man’ = first push towards universality (‘we are all born free’).

Modern Citizenship  Enjoyment of rights is a common expectation of citizens, now taken for granted.  18thC UK: civil rights (i.e. religion & speech).  Late 19thC & early 20thC: political rights (i.e. franchise to more than just property owners).  20thC: social rights (i.e. welfare state).  Yet what of obligations? What owe in return?  What of the ‘underclass’? What of their status?  Poverty &/or minority status can = effective disenfranchisement.  Citizenship rights can be difficult to access, & even sometimes taken away (i.e. US movt to remove 14 th Amendment, re birth & citizenship).  Also, what of non-Western traditions.  Family or tribe often play >er role than state citizenship (i.e. Ankole & Baganda in Uganda).  Finally, what is potential for ‘post-national’ citizenship?  How be a member of community broader than state, i.e. EU?  Enjoyment of rights is a common expectation of citizens, now taken for granted.  18thC UK: civil rights (i.e. religion & speech).  Late 19thC & early 20thC: political rights (i.e. franchise to more than just property owners).  20thC: social rights (i.e. welfare state).  Yet what of obligations? What owe in return?  What of the ‘underclass’? What of their status?  Poverty &/or minority status can = effective disenfranchisement.  Citizenship rights can be difficult to access, & even sometimes taken away (i.e. US movt to remove 14 th Amendment, re birth & citizenship).  Also, what of non-Western traditions.  Family or tribe often play >er role than state citizenship (i.e. Ankole & Baganda in Uganda).  Finally, what is potential for ‘post-national’ citizenship?  How be a member of community broader than state, i.e. EU?

 "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both." "A people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."  James Madison  "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both." "A people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."  James Madison

At bottom, the question of Thomas Mulcair’s dual citizenship has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with us. The NDP leadership candidate was within his rights to take out French citizenship some years ago. He did nothing shameful or immoral, and if he insists on remaining a citizen of both countries at the same time, it is his privilege. No one can force him to put Canada first. Still, it is an odd sort of nation that would permit such an ambivalent status, not only with respect to private citizens, but in its highest public office: a prime minister who made laws for one country even as he was sworn to uphold the laws of another, who had the power to demand all sorts of sacrifices of his fellow citizens but who was not himself prepared to make the most elemental sacrifice in return — that he forswear all other allegiances, and cast his lot with them. This is not unknown, but neither is it universal. To become the citizen of another country is automatically to lose one’s citizenship in Denmark, or Japan, or Norway. You may not acquire another country’s citizenship as a citizen of Germany, though you can be born with it. The United States does not formally bar dual citizenship, but it does require new citizens, on oath, to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.” Related John Ivison: Mulcair in pole position heading into NDP debates Stephen Harper needles Thomas Mulcair over his French citizenship Lorne Gunter: Of course Thomas Mulcair’s dual citizenship matters To be a member of the Australian Parliament, you may not be under any “allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or … a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.” A New Zealand MP who “takes an oath or makes a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign State, foreign Head of State, or foreign Power” or “concurs in or adopts any act whereby he or she may become a subject or citizen of any foreign State or Power” is similarly disqualified. So those who might have assumed that dual citizenship is the hallmark of a civilized country, a synonym for pluralism, might wish to reconsider. It is the glory of Canada that it accepts people from all parts of the world to come and live here, and if it were up to me there would be rather more of them. It is equally to our credit, and our benefit, that we do not expect them to discard their customs and traditions or adopt an officially defined cultural identity. Indeed, we expect they will take their part in shaping that identity: whatever Canada’s culture may be, it is not fixed in time, but is the cumulative achievement of wave upon wave of newcomers. But we do expect a certain minimum commitment, not only from them but from all of our citizens, foreign- or native-born: that they obey the laws, that they pay their taxes, and so on. And these in turn depend upon an expectation that we are, in some more fundamental sense, committed to each other: that we are pledged, not merely to live with each other, but to be bound by and to each other, and to that enterprise in which we are all engaged, the construction of a society based on justice. We don’t just live here, and “here” isn’t just some place on a map. It is a moral project, and like all moral projects it does not merely offer us rewards, but demands important sacrifices of us as well. Indeed, as often as not the sacrifices are the rewards: it is what we put into a volunteer agency, or an army unit, or a church group that cements our loyalty, not what we take out. So it is with a nation. To watch people take the oath of citizenship is one of the more moving spectacles any of us will witness, because of the commitment the oath implies. It would be rather less moving if citizenship meant nothing more to them than a convenient mail drop, or a way of getting through customs. So it is all very well to ask, airily, “what does it matter” if people hold dual citizenship. But I think we are obliged to acknowledge that what we are really asking is, what does Canada matter? What can we legitimately ask of each other in its name? If Canada does not matter all that much to us, then fine, we need not ask much of each other. But if we think it matters, that what we are trying to achieve together is important, we might be more willing to ask that we put aside other, competing commitments — that we put each other first. When JFK called upon Americans to “ask what you can do for your country,” he did not mean them to ask “which one?” Perhaps you will think that is too much to ask of each other. Fine: but is it at least something we could ask of those who seek to lead us? To lead, after all, they must be able to inspire us to follow. To gather consensus, to rally us to difficult tasks, to lift our spirits in times of crisis: all these require a special bond between the leader and the led. A candidate for party leader is expected to give up previous party affiliations. Should it be different for a candidate for prime minister? He asks us to choose him. Is it too much to ask that he choose us? National Post