22/5/55

Citizenship


 (Redirected from Citizen)
"Citizen" redirects here. For other uses, see Citizen (disambiguation).
"Civic duty" redirects here. For the film, see Civic Duty (film).
This article is about the civic duty of citizens. For information about the nationality laws of particular countries, see Nationality law.
Legal status ofpersons
Concepts
Designations
Social politics
Citizenship is the state of being a citizen of a particular social, political, national, or human resource community. The term describing all citizens as a whole is citizenry.
In law, citizenship denotes a link between an individual and a state. Under international law, citizenship is synonymous to nationality, although the two may have different meanings under national law. A person who does not have citizenship in any state is stateless.

Contents

  [hide] 

[edit]National citizenship


Many theorists suggest that there are two opposing conceptions of citizenship: an economic one, and a political one. For further information, seeHistory of citizenship.
Generally citizenship is seen as the relation between an individual and a particular nation. For example, a person can be described as being a citizen of Australia or Egypt or Ireland. While in ancient Greece the main political entity was the city-state, during the past five hundred years with the rise of the nation-state, citizenship is most closely identified with being a member of a particular nation. To some extent, certain entities cross national boundaries such as trade organizations, non-governmental organizations as well as multi-national corporations, and sometimes the term "citizen of the world" has been applied in the sense of people having less ties to a particular nation and more of a sense of belonging to the world in general, but generally citizenship is seen as a marker denoting membership in a nation.

[edit]Factors determining citizenship

The modern sense of citizenship is usually based on one or more of these factors:
  • Parents are citizens. If a person has one or both parents who are citizens of a given nation, then the person is generally presumed to be a citizen as well, and this is often called by the Latin legal term jus sanguinismeaning "right of blood". A jus sanguinis policy means that citizenship is granted based on ancestry orethnicity, and is related to the concept of a nation state common in Europe. A person could be born outside of the physical territory of a nation, but if his or her parents are citizens, then the child is presumed to be a citizen as well.
  • Born within the nation. Many people are presumed to be citizens of a nation if they were born within the physical geographic territory of the nation. This policy is called by the Latin legal term jus soli meaning "right of soil". This policy is typical of many countries in the Americas. Many countries have a hybrid birthright requirement of local nativity and citizenship of at least one parent. These first two factors are usually lumped together under the term birthright citizenship.
  • Marriage to a citizen. Citizenship can also be obtained by marrying a citizen, which is termed jure matrimonii.
  • Naturalization. Citizenship can be obtained by immigrating to a nation, and fulfilling its requirements for citizenship, such as passing a test, and this form of citizenship is termednaturalization.
Further information: Nationality law

[edit]Different senses of citizenship

Citizenship status, under social contract theory, carries with it both rights and responsibilities. In this sense, citizenship was described as "a bundle of rights -- primarily, political participation in the life of the community, the right to vote, and the right to receive certain protection from the community, as well as obligations."[1] Citizenship is seen by most scholars as culture-specific, in the sense that the meaning of the term varies considerably from culture to culture, and over time.[2] How citizenship is understood depends on the person making the determination. The relation of citizenship has never been fixed or static, but constantly changes within each society. While citizenship has varied considerably throughout history, and within societies over time, there are some common elements but they vary considerably as well. As a bond, citizenship extends beyond basic kinship ties to unite people of different genetic backgrounds. It usually signifies membership in a political body. It is often based on, or was a result of, some form of military service or expectation of future service. It usually involves some form of political participation, but this can vary from token acts to active service in government. Citizenship is a status in society. It is an ideal state as well. It generally describes a person with legal rights within a given political order. It almost always has an element of exclusion, meaning that some people are not citizens, and that this distinction can sometimes be very important, or not important, depending on a particular society. Citizenship as a concept is generally hard to isolate intellectually and compare with related political notions, since it relates to many other aspects of society such as the family, military service, the individual, freedom, religion, ideas of right and wrong, ethnicity, and patterns for how a person should behave in society.[3] When there are many different groups within a nation, citizenship may be the only real bond which unites everybody as equals without discrimination—it is a "broad bond" linking "a person with the state" and gives people a universal identity as a legal member of a specific nation.[4]
Modern citizenship has often been looked at as two competing underlying ideas:[5]
  • The liberal-individualist or sometimes liberal conception of citizenship suggests that citizens should have entitlements necessary for human dignity.[6] It assumes people act for the purpose of enlightened self-interest. According to this viewpoint, citizens are sovereign, morally autonomous beings with duties to pay taxes, obey the law, engage in business transactions, and defend the nation if it comes under attack,[6] but are essentially passive politically,[5] and their primary focus is on economic betterment. This idea began to appear around the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and became stronger over time, according to one view.[7] According to this formulation, the state exists for the benefit of citizens and has an obligation to respect and protect the rights of citizens, including civil rights and political rights.[7] It was later that so-called social rights became part of the obligation for the state.[7]
  • The civic-republican or sometimes classical or civic humanist conception of citizenship emphasizes man's political nature, and sees citizenship as an active process, not a passive state or legal marker.[5] It is relatively more concerned that government will interfere with popular places to practice citizenship in the public sphere. Citizenship means being active in government affairs.[6] According to one view, most people today live as citizens according to the liberal-individualist conception but wished they lived more according to the civic-republican ideal.[5] An ideal citizen is one who exhibits "good civic behavior".[7] Free citizens and a republic government are "mutually interrelated."[7] Citizenship suggested a commitment to "duty and civic virtue".[7]
Scholars suggest that the concept of citizenship contains many unresolved issues, sometimes called tensions, existing within the relation, that continue to reflect uncertainty about what citizenship is supposed to mean.[7] Some unresolved issues regarding citizenship include questions about what is the proper balance between duties and rights.[7] Some see these two aspects of citizenship as incompatible, such that social rights have gone too far with not enough emphasis on duties citizens owe to the state.[7] Another is a question about what is the proper balance between political citizenship versus social citizenship.[7] Some thinkers see benefits with people being absent from public affairs, since too much participation such as revolution can be destructive, yet too little participation such as total apathy can be problematic as well.[7] Citizenship can be seen as a special elite status, and it can also be seen as a democratizing force and something that everybody has; the concept can include both senses.[7] According to political scientist Arthur Stinchcombe, citizenship is based on the extent that a person can control one's own destiny within the group in the sense of being able to influence the government of the group.[3]:p.150 One last distinction within citizenship is the so-called consent descentdistinction, and this issue addresses whether citizenship is a fundamental matter determined by a person choosing to belong to a particular nation––by his or her consent––or is citizenship a matter of where a person was born––that is, by his or her descent.[8]

[edit]International citizenship

In recent years, some intergovernmental organizations have extended the concept and terminology associated with citizenship to the international level,[9] where it is applied to the totality of the citizens of their constituent countries combined. Citizenship at this level is a secondary concept, with rights deriving from national citizenship.

[edit]Commonwealth citizenship

The concept of "Commonwealth Citizenship" has been in place ever since the establishment of the Commonwealth of Nations. As with the EU, one holds Commonwealth citizenship only by being a citizen of a Commonwealth member state. This form of citizenship offers certain privileges within some Commonwealth countries:
  • Some such countries do not require tourist visas of citizens of other Commonwealth countries.
  • In some Commonwealth countries resident citizens of other Commonwealth countries are entitled to political rights, e.g., the right to vote in local and national elections and in some cases even the right to stand for election.
  • In some instances the right to work in any position (including the civil service) is granted, except for certain specific positions, such as in the defense departments, Governor-General orPresident or Prime Minister.
Although Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949, it is often treated as if it were a member, with references being made in legal documents to 'the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland', and its citizens are not classified as foreign nationals, particularly in the United Kingdom.
Canada departed from the principle of nationality being defined in terms of allegiance in 1921. In 1935 the Irish Free State was the first to introduce its own citizenship. However, Irish citizenswere still treated as subjects of the Crown, and they are still not regarded as foreign, even though Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth.[10] The Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947 provided for a distinct Canadian Citizenship, automatically conferred upon most individuals born in Canada, with some exceptions, and defined the conditions under which one could become a naturalized citizen. The concept of Commonwealth citizenship was introduced in 1948 in the British Nationality Act 1948. Other dominions adopted this principle such as New Zealand, by way of the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act of 1948.

[edit]European Union citizenship

Main article: Citizenship of the European Union
The Maastricht Treaty introduced the concept of citizenship of the European Union. Article 17 (1) of the Treaty on European Union[11] stated that:
Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.[12]
An agreement known as the amended EC Treaty[12] established certain minimal rights for European Union citizens. Article 12 of the amended EC Treaty guaranteed a general right of non-discrimination within the scope of the Treaty. Article 18 provided a limited right to free movement and residence in Member States other than that of which the European Union citizen is a national. Articles 18-21 and 225 provide certain political rights.
Union citizens have also extensive rights to move in order to exercise economic activity in any of the Member States[13] which predate the introduction of Union citizenship.[14]

[edit]Subnational citizenship

Citizenship most usually relates to membership of the nation state, but the term can also apply at the subnational level. Subnational entities may impose requirements, of residency or otherwise, which permit citizens to participate in the political life of that entity, or to enjoy benefits provided by the government of that entity. But in such cases, those eligible are also sometimes seen as "citizens" of the relevant state, province, or region. An example of this is how the fundamental basis of Swiss citizenship is citizenship of an individual commune, from which follows citizenship of a canton and of the Confederation. Another example is Åland where the residents enjoy a special provincial citizenship within Finland, hembygdsrätt.
The United States has a federal system in which a person is a citizen of their specific state of residence, such as New Jersey or California, as well as a citizen of the United States. State constitutions may grant certain rights above and beyond what are granted under the United States Constitution and may impose their own obligations including the sovereign right of taxation and military service; each state maintains at least one military force subject to national militia transfer service, the state's national guard, and some states maintain a second military force not subject to nationalization.

[edit]History

Main article: History of citizenship

[edit]Polis citizenship

Main article: Polis
Many thinkers point to the concept of citizenship beginning in the early city-states of ancient Greece, although others see it as primarily a modern phenomenon dating back only a few hundred years. Another view is that the concept of citizenship arose with the first laws. Polis meant both the political assembly of the city-state as well as the entire society.[15] Citizenship has generally been identified as a western phenomenon.[16] There is a general view that citizenship in ancient times was a simpler relation than modern forms of citizenship, although this view has come under scrutiny.[2] The relation of citizenship has not been a fixed or static relation, but constantly changed within each society, and that according to one view, citizenship might "really have worked" only at select periods during certain times, such as when the Athenian politician Solon made reforms in the early Athenian state.[7]
Historian Geoffrey Hosking in his 2005 Modern Scholar lecture course suggested that citizenship in ancient Greece arose from an appreciation for the importance of freedom.[17] Hosking explained:
It can be argued that this growth of slavery was what made Greeks particularly conscious of the value of freedom. After all, any Greek farmer might fall into debt and therefore might become a slave, at almost any time ... When the Greeks fought together, they fought in order to avoid being enslaved by warfare, to avoid being defeated by those who might take them into slavery. And they also arranged their political institutions so as to remain free men.
—Geoffrey Hosking, 2005[17]

Geoffrey Hosking suggests that fear of being enslaved was a central motivating force for the development of the Greek sense of citizenship. Sculpture: a Greek woman being served by a slave-child.
Slavery permitted slaveowners to have substantial free time, and enabled participation in public life.[17] Polis citizenship was marked by exclusivity. Inequality of status was widespread; citizens had a higher status than non-citizens, such as women, slaves or barbarians.[8][18] The first form of citizenship was based on the way people lived in the ancient Greek times, in small-scale organic communities of the polis. Citizenship was not seen as a separate activity from the private life of the individual person, in the sense that there was not a distinction betweenpublic and private life. The obligations of citizenship were deeply connected into one’s everyday life in the polis. These small-scale organic communities were generally seen as a new development in world history, in contrast to the established ancient civilizations of Egypt or Persia, or the hunter-gatherer bands elsewhere. From the viewpoint of the ancient Greeks, a person's public life was not separated from their private life, and Greeks did not distinguish between the two worlds according to the modern western conception. The obligations of citizenship were deeply connected with everyday life. To be truly human, one had to be an active citizen to the community, which Aristotle famously expressed: “To take no part in the running of the community's affairs is to be either a beast or a god!” This form of citizenship was based on obligations of citizens towards the community, rather than rights given to the citizens of the community. This was not a problem because they all had a strong affinity with the polis; their own destiny and the destiny of the community were strongly linked. Also, citizens of the polis saw obligations to the community as an opportunity to be virtuous, it was a source of honour and respect. In Athens, citizens were both ruler and ruled, important political and judicial offices were rotated and all citizens had the right to speak and vote in the political assembly. An important aspect of polis citizenship was exclusivity. Citizenship had a much higher status than non-citizens, such as women, slaves or ‘barbarians’.

[edit]Roman ideas of citizenship

In the Roman Empire, citizenship expanded from small scale communities to the entire empire. Romans realised that granting citizenship to people from all over the empire legitimized Roman rule over conquered areas. Roman citizenship was no longer a status of political agency; it had been reduced to a judicial safeguard and the expression of rule and law.[19] Rome carried forth Greek ideas of citizenship such as the principles of equality under the law, civic participation in government, and notions that "no one citizen should have too much power for too long",.[20] but Rome offered relatively generous terms to its captives, including chances for lesser forms of citizenship.[20] If Greek citizenship was an "emancipation from the world of things",[21] the Roman sense increasingly reflected the fact that citizens could act upon material things as well as other citizens, in the sense of buying or selling property, possessions, titles, goods. One historian explained:
The person was defined and represented through his actions upon things; in the course of time, the term property came to mean, first, the defining characteristic of a human or other being; second, the relation which a person had with a thing; and third, the thing defined as the possession of some person.
—J. G. A. Pocock, 1988[22]
Roman citizenship reflected a struggle between the upper-class patrician interests against the lower-order working groups known as the plebeian class.[20] A citizen came to be understood as a person "free to act by law, free to ask and expect the law's protection, a citizen of such and such a legal community, of such and such a legal standing in that community."[23] Citizenship meant having rights to have possessions, immunities, expectations, which were "available in many kinds and degrees, available or unavailable to many kinds of person for many kinds of reason."[23] And the law, itself, was a kind of bond uniting people.[24] Roman citizenship was more impersonal, universal, multiform, having different degrees and applications.[24]

[edit]Middle Ages

During European Middle Ages, citizenship was usually associated with cities, see burgher, Great Burgher and Bourgeoisie. Nobility used to have privileges above commoners (seearistocracy), but the French Revolution and other revolutions revoked these privileges and made citizens.

[edit]Renaissance

During the Renaissance, people transitioned from being subjects of a king or queen to being citizens of a city and later to a nation.[3]:p.161 Each city had its own law, courts, and independent administration.[25] And being a citizen often meant being subject to the city's law in addition to having power in some instances to help choose officials.[25] City dwellers who had fought alongside nobles in battles to defend their cities were no longer content with having a subordinate social status, but demanded a greater role in the form of citizenship.[26] Membership inguilds was an indirect form of citizenship in that it helped their members succeed financially.[27] The rise of citizenship was linked to the rise of republicanism, according to one account, since independent citizens meant that kings had less power.[28] Citizenship became an idealized, almost abstract, concept,[7] and did not signify a submissive relation with a lord or count, but rather indicated the bond between a person and the state in the rather abstract sense of having rights and duties.[7]

[edit]Modern times

The modern idea of citizenship still respects the idea of political participation, but it is usually done through "elaborate systems of political representation at a distance" such as representative democracy.[2] Modern citizenship is much more passive; action is delegated to others; citizenship is often a constraint on acting, not an impetus to act.[2] Nevertheless, citizens are usually aware of their obligations to authorities, and are aware that these bonds often limit what they can do.[2]
Further information: History of citizenship

[edit]Honorary citizenship

Some countries extend "honorary citizenship" to those whom they consider to be especially admirable or worthy of the distinction.
By act of United States Congress and presidential assent, honorary United States citizenship has been awarded to only seven individuals. Honorary Canadian citizenship requires the unanimous approval of Parliament. The only people to ever receive honorary Canadian citizenship are Raoul Wallenberg posthumously in 1985, Nelson Mandela in 2001, the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso in 2006, Aung San Suu Kyi in 2007 and Prince Karim Aga Khan in 2009.
In 2002 South Korea awarded honorary citizenship to Dutch football (soccer) coach Guus Hiddink who successfully and unexpectedly took the national team to the semi-finals of the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Honorary citizenship was also awarded to Hines Ward, a black Korean American football player, in 2006 for his efforts to minimize discrimination in Korea against half-Koreans.
American actress Angelina Jolie received an honorary Cambodian citizenship in 2005 due to her humanitarian efforts. Cricketers Matthew Hayden and Herschelle Gibbs were awarded honorary citizenship of St. Kitts and Nevis in March 2007 due to their record-breaking innings in the 2007 Cricket World Cup.
In Germany the honorary citizenship is awarded by cities, towns and sometimes federal states. The honorary citizenship ends with the death of the honoured, or, in exceptional cases, when it is taken away by the council or parliament of the city, town, or state. In the case of war criminals, all such honours were taken away by "Article VIII, section II, letter i of the directive 38 of the Allied Control Council for Germany" on October 12, 1946. In some cases, honorary citizenship was taken away from members of the former GDR regime, e.g. Erich Honecker, after the collapse of the GDR in 1989/90.[citation needed]
In Ireland, "honorary citizenship" bestowed on a foreigner is in fact full legal citizenship including the right to reside in Ireland, to vote etc.
According to the Chapter II, Article 29, Paragraph 'e)' of the Cuban Constitution, Cuban citizens by birth are those foreigners who, by virtue of their exceptional merits won in the struggles for Cuba’s liberation, were considered Cuban citizens by birth. Che Guevara was made an honorary citizen of Cuba by Fidel Castro for his part in the Cuban Revolution, of which Guevara later renounced in his well known farewell letter.[29]
Historically, many states limited citizenship to only a proportion of their population, thereby creating a citizen class with political rights superior to other sections of the population, but equal with each other. The classical example of a limited citizenry was Athens where slaves, women, and resident foreigners (called metics) were excluded from political rights. The Roman Republic forms another example (see Roman citizenship), and, more recently, the nobility of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had some of the same characteristics.

[edit]Citizenship education

Main article: Citizenship education
"Active citizenship" is the philosophy that citizens should work towards the betterment of their community through economic participation, public, volunteer work, and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens. In this vein, schools in some countries provide citizenship education.

[edit]United Kingdom

Citizenship is offered as a General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) course in many schools in the United Kingdom. As well as teaching knowledge about democracy, parliament, government, the justice system, human rights and the UK's relations with the wider world, students participate in active citizenship, often involving a social action or social enterprise in their local community.
  • Citizenship is a compulsory subject of the National Curriculum in state schools in England for all pupils aged 11–16. Some schools offer a qualification in this subject at GCSE and A level. All state schools have a statutory requirement to teach the subject, assess pupil attainment and report student's progress in citizenship to parents.[30]
  • In Wales the model used is Personal and Social Education.[31][32]
  • Citizenship is not taught as a discrete subject in Scottish schools, but is a cross-curricular strand of the Curriculum for Excellence. However they do teach a subject called "Modern Studies" which covers the social, political and economic study of local, national and international issues.[33]

[edit]Ireland

It is taught in Ireland as an exam subject for the Junior Certificate. It is known as Civic, Social and Political Education (CSPE). A new Leaving Certificate exam subject with the working title 'Politics & Society' is being developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) and is expected to be introduced to the curriculum sometime after 2012.[34]

[edit]Nova Scotia

Citizenship is taught as a unit as part of the curriculum in Grade 8 Social Studies in Nova Scotia.[citation needed]

[edit]See also

[edit]References

  1. ^ Virginia Leary (2000). "Citizenship. Human rights, and Diversity". In Alan C. Cairns, John C. Courtney, Peter MacKinnon, Hans J. Michelmann, David E. Smith.Citizenship, Diversity, and Pluralism: Canadian and Comparative Perspectives. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. pp. 247–264. ISBN 978-0-7735-1893-3. "... The concept of 'citizenship' has long acquired the connotation of a bundle of rights... ."
  2. ^ a b c d e Isin (co-editor), Engin F.; Bryan S. Turner (co-editor) (2002). Handbook of Citizenship Studies. Chapter 5 -- David Burchell -- Ancient Citizenship and its Inheritors; Chapter 6 -- Rogers M. Smith -- Modern Citizenship. London: Sage. pp. 89–104, 105. ISBN 0-7619-6858-X.
  3. ^ a b c Taylor, David; Bryan Turner and Peter Hamilton (editors) (1994). Citizenship: Critical Concepts. United States and Canada: Routledge. pp. 476 pages total;.ISBN 0-415-07036-8.
  4. ^ Gross, Feliks (1999). Citizenship and ethnicity: the growth and development of a democratic multiethnic institution. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. pp. xi, xii, xiii,4.ISBN 0-313-30932-9.
  5. ^ a b c d Beiner (editor), Ronald (1995). Theorizing Citizenship. J. G. A. Pocock, Michael Ignatieff. USA: State University of New York, Albany. pp. 29, 54. ISBN 0-7914-2335-2.
  6. ^ a b c Oldfield, Adrian; Bryan Turner and Peter Hamilton (editors) (1994). Citizenship: Critical Concepts. United States and Canada: Routledge. pp. 476 pages total; source: The Political Quarterly, 1990 vol.61, pp. 177–187; in the book, pages 188+.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Heater, Derek (2004). A Brief History of Citizenship. New York City: New York University Press. pp. 157. ISBN 0-8147-3671-8.
  8. ^ a b Hebert (editor), Yvonne M. (2002). Citizenship in transformation in Canada. chapters by Veronica Strong-Boag, Yvonne Hebert, Lori Wilkinson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 3, 4, 5. ISBN 0-8020-0850-X.
  9. ^ Daniele Archibugi, "The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy", Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008
  10. ^ Murray v Parkes [1942] All ER 123.
  11. ^ Note: the consolidated version.
  12. ^ a b Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union
  13. ^ Note: Articles 39, 43, 49 EC.
  14. ^ Violaine Hacker, « Citoyenneté culturelle et politique européenne des médias : entre compétitivité et promotion des valeurs », NATIONS, CULTURES ET ENTREPRISES EN EUROPE, sous la direction de Gilles Rouet, Collection Local et Global, L’Harmattan, Paris, pp. 163-184
  15. ^ Pocock 1998, p. 32.
  16. ^ Zarrow 1997, p. 4.
  17. ^ a b c Hosking, Geoffrey (2005). Epochs of European Civilization: Antiquity to Renaissance. Lecture 3: Ancient Greece. United Kingdom: The Modern Scholar via Recorded Books. pp. 1, 2 (tracks). ISBN 1-4025-8360-5.
  18. ^ Pocock 1998, p. 33.
  19. ^ See Civis romanus sum.
  20. ^ a b c Hosking, Geoffrey (2005). Epochs of European Civilization: Antiquity to Renaissance. Lecture 5: Rome as a city-state. United Kingdom: The Modern Scholar via Recorded Books. pp. tracks 1 through 9. ISBN 1-4025-8360-5.
  21. ^ Pocock 1998, p. 35.
  22. ^ Pocock 1998, p. 36.
  23. ^ a b Pocock 1998, p. 37.
  24. ^ a b Pocock 1998, p. 38.
  25. ^ a b Weber 1998, p. 44.
  26. ^ Weber 1998, p. 46.
  27. ^ Weber 1998, pp. 46-47.
  28. ^ Zarrow 1997, p. 3.
  29. ^ "Che's Farewell Letter". History of Cuba (historyofcuba.com). 1965. Retrieved 2009-09-22.
  30. ^ "National curriculum". British Government, Department for Children, Schools and Families. Retrieved 2009-02-02.
  31. ^ "NAFWC 13/2003 Personal and Social Education (PSE) and Work-Related Education (WRE) in the Basic Curriculum. Education (WRE) in the Basic Curriculum.". Welsh Assembly Government. 15 June 2003. Retrieved 2007-06-09.
  32. ^ "Personal and Social Education Framework: Key Stages 1 to 4 in Wales". Welsh Assembly Government. Retrieved 2007-06-09.
  33. ^ "Modern Studies Association". Retrieved 2007-08-09.
  34. ^http://www.ncca.ie/en/Publications/Reports/Senior_Cycle_Politics_and_Society_Report_on_the_consultation.pdf

[edit]Further reading

  • Archibugi, Daniele (2008). The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-2976-7.
  • Beaven, Brad, and John Griffiths. "Creating the Exemplary Citizen: The Changing Notion of Citizenship in Britain 1870–1939," Contemporary British History (2008) 22#2 pp 203–225doi:10.1080/13619460701189559
  • Carens, Joseph (2000). Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-829768-0.
  • Heater, Derek (2004). A Brief History of Citizenship. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-3672-2.
  • Kymlicka, Will (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-829091-9.
  • Maas, Willem (2007). Creating European Citizens. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-5486-3.
  • Marshall, T.H. (1950). Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays. Cambridge University Press.
  • Shue, Henry (1950). Basic Rights.
  • Smith, Rogers (2003). Stories of Peoplehood: The Politics and Morals of Political Membership. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-52003-4.
  • Somers, Margaret (2008). Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have Rights. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-79394-0.
  • Soysal, Yasemin (1994). Limits of Citizenship. Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe. University of Chicago Press.
  • Turner, Bryan S. (1994). Citizenship and Social Theory. Sage. ISBN 978-0-8039-8611-4.

[edit]External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:Citizenship
Look up citizenship in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
เขียนโดย ที่

Political Prisoner

According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’.
The term is used by persons or groups challenging the legitimacy of the detention of a prisoner. Supporters of the term define a political prisoner as someone who is imprisoned for his or her participation in political activity. If a political offense was not the official reason for detention, the term would imply that the detention was motivated by the prisoner's politics.

Contents

  [hide] 

[edit]Various definitions

Some understand the term political prisoner narrowly, equating it with the term prisoner of conscience (POC). Amnesty International campaigns for the release of prisoners of conscience, which include both political prisoners as well as those imprisoned for their religious or philosophical beliefs. To reduce controversy, and as a matter of principle, the organization's policy applies only to prisoners who have not committed or advocated violence. Thus, there are political prisoners who do not fit the narrower criteria for POCs:[1]
AI uses the term “political prisoner” broadly. It does not use it, as some others do, to imply that all such prisoners have a special status or should be released. It uses the term only to define a category of prisoners for whom AI demands a fair and prompt trial. In AI's usage, the term includes any prisoner whose case has a significant political element: whether the motivation of the prisoner's acts, the acts in themselves, or the motivation of the authorities. “Political” is used by AI to refer to aspects of human relations related to “politics”: the mechanisms of society and civil order, the principles, organization, or conduct of government or public affairs, and the relation of all these to questions of language, ethnic origin, sex or religion, status or influence (among other factors). The category of political prisoners embraces the category of prisoners of conscience, the only prisoners who AI demands should be immediately and unconditionally released, as well as people who resort to criminal violence for a political motive. In AI's use of the term, here are some examples of political prisoners:
  • a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group;
  • a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime committed in a political context, such as at a demonstration by a trade union or a peasants' organization;
  • a member or suspected member of an armed opposition group who has been charged with treason or “subversion”.
Governments often say they have no political prisoners, only prisoners held under the normal criminal law. AI however describes cases like the examples given above as “political” and uses the terms “political trial” and “political imprisonment” when referring to them. But by doing so AI does not oppose the imprisonment, except where it further maintains that the prisoner is a prisoner of conscience, or condemn the trial, except where it concludes that it was unfair.
In the parlance of many political movements that utilize armed resistance, guerrilla warfare, and other forms of political violence, a political prisoner includes people who are imprisoned because they are awaiting trial for, or have been convicted of, actions which states they oppose describe as (accurately or otherwise) terrorism. These movements may consider the actions of political prisoners morally justified against some system of governance, may claim innocence, or have varying understandings of what types of violence are morally and ethically justified. For instance, Frenchanarchist groups typically call the former members of Action Directe held in France political prisoners. While the French government deemed Action Directe illegal, the group fashioned itself as an urban guerilla movement, claiming a legitimate armed struggle. In this sense, "political prisoner" can be used to describe any politically active prisoner who is held in custody for a violent action which supporters deem ethically justified.
Some[who?] also include all convicted for treason and espionage in the category of political prisoners.
Political prisoners can also be imprisoned with no legal veneer by extrajudicial processes. Some political prisoners need not be imprisoned at all. Supporters of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima in the 11th Panchen Lama controversy have called him a "political prisoner", despite the fact that he is not accused of a political offense. He is held under secluded house arrest.[2]
Political prisoners are also arrested and tried with a veneer of legality where false criminal charges, manufactured evidence, and unfair trials (kangaroo courts, show trials) are used to disguise the fact that an individual is a political prisoner. This is common in situations which may otherwise be decried nationally and internationally as a human rights violation or suppression of a political dissident. A political prisoner can also be someone that has been denied bail unfairly, denied parole when it would reasonably have been given to a prisoner charged with a comparable crime, or special powers may be invoked by the judiciary. Particularly in this latter situation, whether an individual is regarded as a political prisoner may depend upon subjective political perspective or interpretation of the evidence.

[edit]Variants

  • In the Soviet Union, dubious psychiatric diagnoses were sometimes used to confine political prisoners.
  • In Nazi Germany, "Night and Fog" prisoners were among the first victims of fascist repression.
  • In North Korea, entire families are jailed in large political prison camps if one family member is suspected of anti-government sentiments.[3]
  • Political prisoners sometimes write memoirs of their experiences and resulting insights. See list of memoirs of political prisoners. Some of these memoirs have become important political texts.
  • In Finland, on 30 May 2008, the Tampere District Court sentenced Seppo Lehto, a political activist, to two years and four months imprisonment. Lehto was charged with nine counts of his political opinions, especially gross defamation, inciting ethnic hatred and religious blasphemy against Islam.

[edit]Famous historic political prisoners

Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (February 2012)
  • Aung San Suu Kyi led the opposition National League for Democracy which was victorious in 1990 general election. Under jail or house arrest for 15 out of the 21 years from 1990 to 2010.[4]
  • Kim Dae Jung served one term (1976–1979) and in 1980 was exiled to the United States, but returned in 1985 and became President of South Korea in 1998.[5]
  • Bobby Sands was an Irish volunteer of the Provisional Irish Republican Army and elected member of the UK Parliament who died on hunger strike along with several other Irish volunteers while imprisoned in HM Prison Maze. His funeral was attended by 100,000 people [6].
  • Nelson Mandela was arrested for treason in 1956 and acquitted. He left the country and returned, only to be rearrested and imprisoned for a long term (1962–1990) for paramilitary offences & political activism, after which he negotiated the end of Apartheid and went on to become President of South Africa.[4]
  • Thomas Mapfumo was imprisoned without charges in 1979 by the Rhodesian government for his Shona-language music calling for revolution.[7]
  • Benazir Bhutto was a political prisoner for four years under General Zia ul Haq.[8]
  • Antonio Gramsci was a leftist Italian writer and political activist who was jailed and spent 8 years in prison. He was released conditionally due to his health situation and died shortly after.[9]

[edit]References

  1. ^ "AI's FOCUS". Amnesty International. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
  2. ^ "Tibet's missing spiritual guide". BBC News. May 16, 2005. Retrieved May 3, 2010.
  3. ^ "The Hidden Gulag – Exposing North Korea’s Prison Camps". The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. Retrieved February 7, 2011.
  4. ^ a b "Top 10 Political Prisoners". TIME. 2010-08-15. Retrieved 2011-01-01. "Full List FREEDOM FIGHTERS: Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson Mandela, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Andrei Sakharov, Vaclav Havel, Akbar Ganji, Benigno Aquino Jr., Ho Chi Minh"
  5. ^ Kim, Jack (2009-08-18). "Former South Korean leader Kim Dae-jung dies". Seoul: Reuters. Retrieved 2011-01-01. "The former political prisoner, once sentenced to death under one of the country's early military rulers whom he relentlessly opposed, was elected South Korea's president in December 1997 on his fourth attempt."
  6. ^ http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/hstrike/chronology.htm
  7. ^ The Struggle Continues. 5. Spin. February 1990. "The chimurenga of Thomas Mapfumo has made him both a pop star and political prisoner in Zimbabwe"
  8. ^ Weaver, Mary Anne (2003). Pakistan: In the Shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan. Macmillan Publishers. p. 73. "Benazir Bhutto... was under house arrest at the time of her father's death; Zia made her a political prisoner for four years"
  9. ^ Germino, Dante L. (1990). Antonio Gramsci: Architect of a New Politics. Louisiana State University Press. p. 23. "Gramsci carried with him from his Sardinian upbringing two qualities that were to enable him to stand... his long years as a political prisoner in Benito Mussolini's Italy"

[edit]Further reading

เขียนโดย ที่

The Public Policy Cycle



The Public Policy Cycle

The logo of the Policy Studies Organization, a professional association of policy analysts, reflects the orientation of the field to understand public policy as a systematic process:
Logo
Think about the diagram above. It illustrates through a classic mythology what political scientist Robert L. Lineberry calls the two faces of the policy process: The Roman God Janus was always depicted as having two faces, one that looked eternally to the left and the other that always faced to the right. Public policy is somewhat like that, and we can imagine its having two such faces.
  1. The first face of policy is that of an output of the political process that presumably causes policies to be developed. In terms of cause and effect this is policy-as-effect, the result of all the constraints, compromises, and conflicts within the political system.
  2. The other face represents policy as the beginning point in a series of subsequent empirical effects and focuses on policy impacts. In the language of the social sciences, the first sees policy as the dependent variable, the second as an independent variable. (Lineberry 71)
The political scientist David Easton is often credited with interpreting political dynamics in terms of a continuous process, a system of interaction (Easton 1957). To Easton, a political system is an interrelated set of activities, roles, and institutions that operates within an environment which provides inputs to the political system and then translates these inputs into policy outputs.
Easton Model
The political actors and institutions act as gatekeepers, filtering demands into the tightly sealed political black box. The gatekeeper function is important, for it determines the political agenda. Most demands on the political system fail to pass through this filter.
The outputs of these political decisions are the actual policies formulated by the political institutions and actors. The impacts of the policy are concrete changes categorized as economic, social, and environmental. Hopefully, the impacts are what were intended, even desired and anticipated, but there may be impacts that were not intended and that might be adverse. Finally, such impacts are perceived and then injected back into the political system as feedback. The majority of agenda items in the political system may come from feedback. Most policy decisions are relatively minor modifications of past policies, a phenomenon called policy succession or incrementalism.
Easton's simple but elegant model was well received. Many political scientists find that it provided a systematic, comprehensive, orderly, coherent, and consistent framework from which to conceptualize political processes. Perhaps it could serve as a scientific statement advancing the field of policy analysis. At least it appealed to those who sought rigor and definition. Policy students recognized that it provided a useful alternative to the historical-institutional approach which had dominated the field. Easton opened up a systematic approach for public policy.

The Public Policy Cycle

Easton cast policy as the output of a closed political process, a sealed black box. Rather than ad hoc, messy, unconnected events, policy could now be depicted as smooth, flowing, logical, and even harmonious. Easton's model could be broken down into particular discrete stages, each understood as a coherent chain of events and given a context by which the chronology could be coherently organized. Thus, events could be logically related to each other and predictions could be made as the analyst anticipated the next stage in the sequence. A methodology was emerging.
Without the appealing design of a logo or diagram, political scientist Charles O. Jones elaborated on the idea of a system and a process, contributing a comprehensive treatment of policy as a cycle, a logical sequence of recurring events. This replaced Easton's black box, a reductionist depiction of the political process, and provided more definition without losing the coherence provided by a systematic model. Further, Jones attached elements of analysis to the stages in the cycle, creating an orderly, but somewhat arbitrary, container by which to logically organize a comprehensive and integrated study of public policy. Jones's treatment was seminal.
Jones did not offer a picture or logo, but I have:
cycle logo
The policy cycle has thus been cast as steps that display the sequential flow depicted by Jones's approach to public policy:
  1. Agenda setting: Problems are defined and issues are raised. Gatekeepers filter out those which well be given attention by either the executive or the legislative branches.
  2. Formulation: Analysis and politics determines how the agenda item is translated into an authoritative decision: a law, rule or regulation, administrative order, or resolution. There are two steps in policy formulation:
    1. Alternative policy proposals are put forth, claiming rationality and technical analysis within the process. Policy analysts bring these alternatives to the attention of political decision makers with their recommendations.
    2. The policy prescription is chosen among the alternatives, including the no-action option. This is usually accomplished by building the support of a majority. What is produced here is a binding decision or series of decisions by elected or appointed officials who are not necessarily experts but who are presumably accountable to the public.
  3. Implementation: The authorized policy must be administered and enforced by an agency of government. The agency must take instructions as stated in the policy, but will probably be called upon to provide missing pieces and to make judgments as to intent, goals, timetables, program design, and reporting methods. The agency's mission may be well defined or poorly understood, but the action has shifted.
  4. Budgeting: Financial resources must be brought to bear within an ongoing annual stream of budget cycles. Budget decisions are generally made with partial information and by changes from year to year which are only slightly different from the year before, a process called incrementalism. In recent years, budget constraints have significantly elevated budget considerations in importance within the policy cycle. Budget items are highly competitive and vital for policy delivery.
  5. Evaluation: The impacts of the policy may be assessed. If goals exist, the effectiveness of the policy and its components can be determined. Side-effects must also be discovered and reckoned. The output of evaluation may be no change, minor modification. overhaul, or even (but rarely) termination. The feedback provided by evaluation is injected back into the agenda setting stage, thus closing the loop of the cycle.
The framework can comprehensively and coherently organize facts and concepts that support an understanding of public policy. A recent text in public policy supports the cycle model:
As a methodological approach, the policy cycle deconstructs the policy process in a manner most conducive to understanding how private issues evolve into public and political concerns, how the legislative process structures political concerns into legislative concerns, how the laws are formulated and put into effect, as well as how such policies are evaluated and may eventually change or end. (Theodoulou and Kofinis 34)
But there are dangers.

Caution!

The aura of the systems model contains several hazards, however. The smooth symmetry stands in contrast to the rough-and-tumble of political life. The implicit and value-laden efficiency which we could easily project on such an orderly system may bias the analyst. Is the policy making process so harmonious or so efficient? What do you think?
So, the caution of critical thinking is again advised. Do not be misled into projecting a priori an unwarranted enthusiasm for the efficacy of public policy. While the model provides a framework within which to cast the analysis of public policy, we must always maintain a skeptical and critical perspective. The realism explained earlier may balance the idealization inherent in such neat and tidy concepts as process, system, cycle, dynamics, and feedback. While the systems approach may help provide a handle to grasp public policy, we must resist any bias it engenders. It must not sanitize the reality behind the presumed orderly structure of the interactions.
The next five chapters follow the diagram of the public policy cycle. In turn, we will examine in detail agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation, budgeting, and evaluation.

WORKS CITED

Dewey, John. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1927.
Easton, David. "An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems." World Politics. 9 (April. 1957). Jones, Charles 0. An Introduction to Public Policy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984.
Jones, Charles. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984.
Lineberry, Robert L. American Public Policy. New York: Harper & Row, 1977.
Theodoulou, Stella Z, and Chris Kofinis. The Art of the Game: Understanding American Public Policy Making. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2004.
The Public Policy Cycle Web Site | Page: http://profwork.org/pp/study/cycle.html
© Wayne Hayes, Ph.D. | ™ ProfWork | wayne@profwork.com
Initialized: June 16, 2001 | Last 5/27/2009

เขียนโดย ที่

POSDCORB


POSDCORB

POSDCORB is a word composed of the initials of the functions of the executives. POSDCORB is developed by Luther Gulick.
POSDCORB lists the functions of the executives according to  Luther Gulick who was a well known member of the classical school. POSDCORB includes seven functions. According to POSDCORB model the seven functions of executives are as follows:
POSDCORB
POSDCORB is an acronym created by Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick in their �Papers on the Science of Administration� (1937). Developed as a means to structure and analyze management activities, it set a new paradigm in Public Administration. Based on the theories of Henri Fayol�s 14 Principles of Management, Gulick and Lyndall Urwick disputed the prevailing thinking that there was a dichotomy between politics and administration. Instead that it was impossible to separate the two. It has been called the �high noon of orthodoxy,� due to the assumption that it was the principles that were important and not where they were applied.

The acronym which formulates the responsibility of a chief executive or administrator stands for: Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Direction, Coordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting. It defines the principles as follows:


Planning
Planning is working out in broad outline the things that need .to be done and the methods for doing them to accomplish the purpose set for the enterprise;


Organizing
Organizing is the establishment of the formal structure of authority through which work subdivisions are arranged, defined and coordinated for the defined objective;


Staffing
Staffing is the whole personnel function of bringing in and training the staff and maintaining favorable conditions of work;


Directing
Directing is the continuous task of making decisions and embodying them in specific and general orders and instructions and serving as the leader of the enterprise; 


Coordinating
Coordinating is the all-important duty of interrelating the various parts of the work;


Reporting


Reporting is keeping those to whom the executive is responsible informed as to what is going on, which thus includes keeping himself and his subordinates informed through records, research and inspections;


Budgeting
Budgeting, with all that goes with budgeting in the form of fiscal planning, accounting and control

All executives perform broadly similar functions. The President of the United States, like the governors of the states or the Prime Minister of England, does many things in common with his subordinate executives and with all those who have headed large organizations. Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick have classified these common tasks of the executive, and his categories of important executive functions: What is the work of the chief executive? What does he do? The answer is POSDCORB.

References

http://polt906f07.wikispaces.com/POSDCORB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSDCORB

เขียนโดย ที่
สมัครสมาชิก: บทความ (Atom)