Social Policy and Citizenship

Describe citizenship. How does it make someone a welfare state beneficiary? These are a few important questions to ask in order to comprehend social policies and their scope in every State. Although participation, rights, obligations, and compliance are frequently used to define citizenship, are these concepts the same in all welfare states? Or are there variations in how "citizenship" is conceptualised across welfare models, and do these variations have an impact on how social policies are formulated in different nations? In this blog, we'll try to investigate these issues. The reader will be able to comprehend the following by the end of this post:

What is Citizenship
Various Models of Citizenship
Relevance of these models of citizenship in shaping Social Policies

Content

What is Citizenship?
Citizenship- Rights, Obligation or Compliance?
Three Citizenship Models
Gender in Citizenship
Conclusion

What is Citizenship?

According to Stewart (1995), some people describe citizenship as "Shared membership in a political society." This definition emphasises the political nature of citizenship and the political power it carries. Marshall proposes that citizenship actually has three fundamental components: Civil, Political, and Social. This is because citizenship refers to more than just political affiliation with a society (Marshall, 1992). The following explanations of these citizenship components:

Civil: The right to personal freedom, freedom of speech, liberty, property ownership, the right to one's own beliefs, and the right to justice are all included in the civil aspect. An individual's right to justice offers him or her access to the legal system to assert their equality and defend their rights. Therefore, the Court of Law is the entity in charge of protecting the civil component of citizenship.

Political: This component emphasises the freedom to take part in state politics as a voter and as elected officials with the ability to exercise political influence. The local legislative councils and the parliament are the bodies in charge of effectively delivering political rights.

Social: This component includes the ability to live a dignified life in accordance with the accepted social norms as well as the right to social heritage and economic well-being. Social services and the school system are the entities in charge of maintaining the social component of citizenship.

As the institutions maintaining these parts were typically fused in earlier times, these elements were frequently combined. But over the course of centuries, these three components gradually developed independent roots before coming back together to form a comprehensive conception of citizenship. Beginning with civil rights in the eighteenth century, political rights in the nineteenth century, and social rights in the most recent twentieth century, these three components reappeared in diverse nations. This is not to say that these events occurred perfectly; they frequently overlapped, timings were flexible and connected to one another, and they continue to change with the passage of time.

The inclusion of Habeas Corpus, the lifting of the prohibition on free media, and other similar events can be considered the beginning of the era of civil rights. The ability to work in any occupation of one's choice after completing the necessary basic education and skill-set training was one of the major turning points in the economic sector. In the past, many professions were only open to members of particular social groups, which generated inequality in society and a chasm between the classes.

All people received civil rights, which ended the few people in society's monopoly. It became more important to counteract these backward behaviours with a rekindled belief in individual liberty and its significance for the advancement of a country. The common man became a citizen as a result of the law's expansion of its scope to include those who were excluded and subject to oppression.

Being a fully functional, genuine free citizen of the community was therefore axiomatic with the right to freedom and liberty. The terms freedom and citizenship were being used indiscriminately as the era of civil rights came to an end. The expansion of political rights, which literally meant extending those rights to fresh, earlier-excluded segments of society, came next.

Reforms like the Reforms Act of 1832 and the Suffrage movement of 1848 insisted on giving citizenship a whole new definition that included political rights. Citizenship was evolving into a tool that allowed people to enjoy their freedom and liberty in terms of how they chose to live, work, purchase property, and participate in politics. Social rights, the third component of citizenship, came into existence in the 20th century and overlap with the protection of political rights. The first social safety nets came from belonging to a family or community, but soon the State began actively intervening to support citizens' survival in the free-floating, competitive market economy through wage laws. This form of regulation needed to be removed since it ran counter to the free spirit of the market economy. The Elizabeth Poor Laws were now limited to addressing just destitution, thus widening the gap between civil citizens and the poor, who were not regarded as citizens due to the social stigma. As a result, any social feature of citizenship used to be a subsumed part of the civil aspect, as was the case with the country's educational system for children, which directly affected the nation's future citizens. The first step in raising progressive citizens in the nation is to educate the youth.

In recent years, we have seen an amalgamation of these factors, i.e., educated voters are necessary for an efficient political democracy, a civilised society is necessary for achieving social wellbeing, and political democracy is necessary to protect individuals' civil liberties. These three components are present in differing amounts in the citizenships of different nations around the world, and these variances characterise the models of citizenship that the State has chosen. We shall examine the various models of citizenship in our upcoming part.

Citizenship- Rights, Obligation or Compliance?

Citizenship's more general components could be viewed as Rights, Obligations, and Compliance. These elements are variables rather than being constants in nature.

As well as defining the type or model of citizenship used in a specific nation, these variations vary in their emphasis on rights vs compliance or obligation. The other two components of citizenship, however, are only relegated to being the supporting elements rather than being unimportant.

Citizens who practise right-based citizenship view their rights as privileges or entitlements.

This gives citizens the choice to defend their rights in any nation by going to court. Citizens have the option of petitioning the court if their rights are violated because citizenship is viewed as a legal status. "Citizenship is an united pool of many sorts of citizenship rights, including civil, political, and social rights," said T. H. Marshall.

The foundation of rights-accentuated citizenship is comprised of two main tenets: equality of status and the legality principle, which seeks to eliminate societal hierarchies that prevent some citizens from reaching their full potential.

These two principles protect citizens' rights and treat all people equally in the eyes of the law, regardless of their caste, creed, colour, or gender.

Loyalty, solidarity, and trust are examples of civic virtues that are central to the obligation-centered citizenship model. This paradigm has two facets: the first is the moral duty that citizens have to the nation, and the second is the practical interpretation of that duty, without which a republic cannot endure. The first component is based on the Aristotelian idea of civic friendship in citizenship (Sherman). Since solidarity is the bedrock of democracy and freedom, citizens are supposed to be selfless and supportive of one another. The second point emphasises how crucial civic duty is to a republic's survival. This component makes the case that anytime there is a low level of engagement, solidarity, and trust among the people in a republic, democracy and the welfare of its citizens are threatened. Therefore, civic responsibility is necessary for a republic to survive. Deliberative procedures and communicative norms are two important methods to an aim in obligation-centered citizenship. These conditions not only aid in leveraging support but also allow citizens to engage in both practical and moral dimensions of civil obligation.

Compliance is the third element of citizenship; any compliance-centered citizenship paradigm would view individuals as objects of political authority who need to be shielded from rival forces. This concept is based on the legitimacy and necessity of the interaction between the citizen and the political authority. This component's fundamental nature is that the populace will logically elect the rulers who will then be tasked with defending the populace from hostile forces. The models' central topic is power sovereignty, which diverges from citizens' individual rights and obligations. According to this idea, citizens must be ruled in order to prevent societies and their members from disintegrating into anarchy.

Although this element may have elements of a dictatorship, it is entirely founded on the democratic choice of political leaders. Citizenship on compliance can be seen in the light of the current regime's security-focused policies. According to Michel Foucault, "Record-keeping and behavior-monitoring surveillance activities can be understood as defining elements of modernity and citizenship" (Foucault, 1977). The protection of citizens' civil rights is subordinated to the safety of their lives under this system. As a result, citizens' acquiescence and allegiance to political authority appear to be a justifiable duty and a deliberate decision to preserve society.

These three elements do not exist in an ideal form; rather, each citizenship model contains all three elements, with one of them predominating. This brings us to the topic of citizenship models in our following part.

Three Citizenship Models

The three citizenship models have a connection to the three aspects of citizenship that were covered in the section above. Each component coexists rather than existing in its purest form in each of the three models, with one leading component that establishes the citizenship model. The three citizenship models are therefore listed below together with their respective leading component.

Rights – Liberal Citizenship Model
Obligation – Republican Citizenship Model
Compliance – Caesarean Citizenship Model

The Aristotelian ideal of "as a zoon politikon, the political man for whom politics is a way of leading a decent life in the republic" serves as the foundation for the republic citizenship paradigm. The Liberal Citizenship paradigm, which states that citizens are people whose main concern is not the realisation of any human ideal of good but, rather, resides in the realisation of their interests and emotions, has largely borrowed from the writings of David Hume and John Locke.

The Caesarean citizenship paradigm, which supports the notion that "being a citizen implies to think of politics in categories of friend and enemy," also has its roots in the writings of Thomas Hobbes and Carl Schmitt. It characterises politics as an ongoing conflict with the political opposition.

2011 (Suszycki). Below is a detailed discussion of these models:

Republican Citizenship: This framework emphasises the responsibility of the citizen to carry out their obligations in a democratic society. It outlines political engagement as the sole means of fostering active liberty in a community. As a result, the republican model places more emphasis on the responsibility aspect of citizenship. This concept is based on the idea of deliberative democracy, in which people gather to discuss the common good until they arrive to an agreement. It is the responsibility of all interested citizens to participate in the discussions in order for the republic to run properly. The power of argument is favoured in disputes, therefore it is thought to be a fair way to reach an agreement where the strongest argument prevails.

The argument, though, should focus on the public welfare rather than being self-centered. The necessity of the shared obligation, which is made up of moral resources, collective identity, and societal integration, is the foundation of the traditional republican citizenship tradition.

Liberal Citizenship: "Rights-based Citizenship" is the main tenet of the liberal model. In this concept, politics, which is simply one of the areas besides culture, the business, and the like, is subordinated to self-interest and passion. The primary responsibility of the government is to protect the rights and interests of its constituents and to prevent violations by one citizen against another. The democratically elected representative, who can be ousted at the first sign of inefficiency or distraction, is given the power to make political decisions. According to this paradigm, citizens have passive liberty, which means they are more concerned with their own freedom and personal issues than they are with democracy.

Additionally, in liberal citizenship, the government's role is minimised to the point that it solely manages the supply of necessities that cannot be generated on a personal basis. To ease the financial burden on the populace, governmental bodies are typically kept small with relatively limited budgetary scope. According to the theory, taxpayers are compelled to pay taxes for the wellbeing of strangers, which is viewed as an infringement on citizens' rights under this citizenship model.

Caesarean citizenship: This form of citizenship serves as a buffer between the state and any political unrest. This concept is predicated on the idea that people recognise the legitimacy of political authorities to defend them from potential political adversaries. The peacekeeping state, according to Thomas Hobbes, is the outcome of people agreeing to permanently cede political control over themselves to Leviathan, the all-powerful ruler. People are viewed as being unable to coexist peacefully, and civil unrest is quite likely. In order to contain any political upheaval, a strong political rule is a given.

This concept is reminiscent of the rule of Caesar, when people were free to pursue their economic interests but were constrained in their political choices. According to this concept, citizenship is not about rights or duties but rather about people' compliance and the power of political authorities to make decisions in the face of unrest.

In the Caesarean model of citizenship, identity technology is used to speed up the identification process and increase group conformity. This citizenship model includes the constant use of biometric technologies, surveillance, and prison facilities to protect citizen identification and any protests against political authority.

In their respective nations, these distinct citizenship models implement a variety of welfare models that are significantly influenced by the defining characteristics of each citizenship. Therefore, each citizenship model has a corresponding welfare model that is distinct. The laws that govern how citizens and the state interact are known as welfare citizenship. Welfare citizenship is different from social citizenship, which is limited to seeing citizenship through the prism of the State's social policies. Therefore, in order to comprehend the various welfare citizenship kinds, we must split them into three groups: Republican, Liberal, and Caesarean Welfare citizenship.

Citizenship in the Republic of the Republic is based on collective welfare, not individual welfare. The republican wellbeing becomes essential in light of increased civic engagement of the people in political duty. Since slavery gave people plenty of time to do their civic duties, Republican welfare is a solution for a society based on slavery. Similar to this, under the republican welfare model, residents are protected by social security in terms of limited working hours, pay restrictions, old-age support, and similar systems. In times of economic depression and protracted unemployment, these minimal social safety net defend citizens' social and economic independence and empower them to make political decisions that benefit everybody. Citizens must be compensated for the income loss resulting from civic engagement for there to be a collective participation. Republican welfare is also necessary for the civic involvement of the deliberative institutions. The republican belief in the equality of all citizens is opposed by the republicans' investment in mass education, which aims to improve citizens' discursive skills. Without this, only a select group of educated individuals will have the opportunity to lead debates for the common good.

Liberal Welfare Citizenship: This welfare concept comes in both social and libertarian varieties. In a libertarian society, the state prioritises individual inherent rights over community benefit measures. And the state avoids engaging in policy activism whenever attempts are made to enact collective welfare measures that violate peoples' right to personal freedom, such as raising taxes to pay for social policies. Because of this, the primary role of the state is to protect natural rights of individuals from being violated or violated by the law.

In contrast to its republican counterparts, liberal citizenship models do not encourage citizens to engage in excessive political activity. It comes to the conclusion that politics just ensures formal equality for citizens while ignoring the significant inequities caused by the capitalist system in society. As a result, social rights are viewed as being just as crucial to establishing equality in society as civil and political rights. Similar welfare benefits to republican welfare, like social security, education, and healthcare services, are included in the social rights, but citizens are private right holders with very few if any civic duties or responsibilities.

Caesarean Welfare Citizenship: In this welfare citizenship framework, security politics are emphasised as a significant state welfare concern. Through expanded use of monitoring and inquiry, the state has begun to address the security issues, transitioning from rights-based citizenship to "neurotic" citizenship. Neurotic citizens define welfare politics in terms of the ongoing threat of terrorism and organised crime, against which only the government can protect the populace. In such a citizenry, the State is able to transform security politics into insecurity politics. The State legitimises the enemy's and terrorism's public faces; in such situations, minorities or migrants are also painted in a negative light. As a result, this fosters unease in a community that would otherwise be stable, and it gives the Caesarean welfare citizenship room to play politics of unease among the populace. Thus, "the Caesarean welfare citizenship emphasises border control and asylum policy, which constituted the foundation of a defensive collective identity." (2011) Suszycki

Different welfare citizenships reveal certain characteristics of the locality and the State in issue. A strong community and an even stronger government that places a high focus on deliberative institutions are necessary for republican welfare citizenship. Citizens must therefore prioritise the wellbeing of the community before personal interests. Individual welfare is prioritised over social welfare under the liberal citizenship, in contrast. Along with civil and political rights, individual social rights are seen as crucial components of citizenship. The Caesarean welfare citizenship, which is the third option, concentrates on securitizing benefits with laws that lessen the threat posed by immigrants and minorities in addition to criminals and terrorists. Therefore, the country's dominant civic ideology shapes all of these models, which in turn affects how social and welfare policies are created for the citizens.

Citizenship, according to Dahrendorf (1996), "describes the rights and duties associated with participation in a social unit, particularly with nationality. Although the issue of who is eligible for membership and who is not is a part of the contentious history of citizenship, it is still shared by all members. (2011) Kennett

The concept of male-breadwinner ideology has kept the rights of women to citizenship in check in all countries throughout its turbulent history. Being a caregiver reduced a woman's engagement in civic and political life and consigned her to the private world of family matters. Due to her low income contribution and the tight labour regulations on her involvement, she had less access to social benefits. In order to free the man to freely fulfil his civil and political commitments, the women were expected to take on the domestic duties of caring for children and the elderly at home. Policies like "Protection of Motherhood," which drew a clear distinction between the roles and responsibilities of men as breadwinners and women entrusted with the responsibility of familial and caring for children and the elderly in the family, served as an example of this gendered classification of work in Japan. Additionally, because she paid less into social security, the benefits she accumulated were likewise modest. Similar to other nations, women were prohibited from working in some occupations and endured wage inequality throughout a significant portion of the 20th century. Women didn't begin protesting the situation and fighting for citizenship equality on par with their male counterparts until the latter half of the 20th century.

Conclusion

Citizenship serves as a social line that divides the scope and coverage of welfare policies. It outlines the social dynamic between welfare and the populace in a certain State. It has been influenced by ideology, historical legacies, and societal conflicts over issues like gender, ethnicity, caste, race, and religion. Citizenship addresses societal problems like racism and patriarchy in addition to issues of class inequality. As a result, the idea of citizenship has been evolving along with the social fabric, but it still plays a crucial role in the Welfare State and its objectives.