Citizen Brown

I recently applied to become a citizen of my adopted home; Canada. I could, if I chose, live out the remainder of my days here as a permanent resident without becoming a citizen. I would have all the same rights and privileges that a Canadian has including protection under the law, educational and employment opportunities, access to medical care and freedom to travel etc. The one right that I would not have however, and the main reason for my decision to finally apply, is the right to vote.

In most technologically advanced, democratic countries, citizenship is granted by either; birth in a given country, having a parent who is a citizen of that country (by birth or adoption), or through a naturalization process whereby one can apply to become a citizen if certain criteria are met. It is this last process that I am currently undertaking. A part of this process will be the completion of a written citizenship examination. To be completely clear, I have no problem going through a citizenship application and this is not a complaint made against the current process or the cost of going through that process. It’s an entirely philosophical argument.

Most people accept that to be able to vote, you must be a citizen of (ergo, you must meet the one of the criteria outline above) whatever country you live in, but I am writing this piece with a view to questioning the validity of that premise. I do so from the perspective of a fundamental question: What is a Citizen?

The ancient Greeks are one of the earliest people to use citizenship as a concept and to them it was primarily a way of protecting the freedom of “citizens” and prevent those citizens being taken into slavery. Modern civilization owes the ancient Greeks more than it could ever repay, but it’s worth noting that though they were enlightened in most regards, they still did not extend this privilege to women, slaves (and slavery was still legal) or “barbarians”. The latter class of people was mostly foreigners or “inferior” races or peoples in their judgment. Still, the citizen class banded together, had laws and governed themselves in very much the same way that modern society does.

Under the ancient Greek definition of citizenship, along with certain rights and privileges came reciprocal civic responsibilities. Citizens were all allowed to raise concerns and grievances and expect resolution or at least acknowledgement. Conversely, all citizens were required to make themselves available to serve in public office. This meant that every citizen had to maintain an understanding of current affairs in the area they lived and generally keep abreast of local issues, just in case they were required to govern or administrate in some respect. Intrinsically, the expectation of contribution was just as important in this culture as the individual freedom of thought, movement, belief and speech.

When Rome began to expand its empire, it also extended the concept of citizenship for political reasons. To try to appease conquered nations, the subjugated masses were granted Roman citizenship along with the rights that that included. The same sense of civic duty was lacking in this arrangement however and the lower classes were not encouraged to, or in most cases, allowed to, seek public office or contribute to civic life.

In both systems, there was still a class divide and very much an “old boys club” who maintained control, but at least the Greeks paid more than lip service to the idea of freedom of the individual and the concept of civic duty.

During the middle ages, in Europe, a two-tier system developed where there was a nobility, or ruling class, headed by a hereditary monarch and then a second tier of local government who ruled the subjects of that monarch. At the local level, the Roman principle of citizenship was still approximately used and people saw their role in civic matters in much the same was as the lower Roman classes would have done.

In modern terms, Citizenship has evolved and, in any real sense, only refers to the country (or countries) whose passport you travel under and whose elections you can vote in. Beyond this, I doubt most people ever consider what their citizenship actually means. Certainly, I would argue that a majority of Canadians would say that they have rights and privileges as a citizen, but would probably not consider that they had any real obligations. The social, economic, political, and anthropological reasons for this are far too numerous to go into here, but the advent of capitalism saw a major shift in how people view their role within the context of the whole country.

I’ve given a tortuously brief history of the origins of the idea of citizenship and what it meant to those who operated under its auspices so it now falls to me to make my argument, or arguments.

Why should an accident of birth afford you rights and privileges that you have not earned and, in some cases, do not deserve? Why am I not treated as a citizen, when people who were born here are? Firstly and most obviously, that is the current law of the land. Society has generally agreed that we are all from somewhere and should bloody well stay there. If we want to move, we must prove where we are from (along with all the stereotypical assumptions and judgments that are made with it) and provide a valid reason for wanting to be somewhere else. Philosophically this seems like a poor way to treat people but the governmental, judicial, and societal reality is that we do need some sort of oversight on the movement of people from one geographic location to another. However, I would argue that there is a difference between “Nationality” and “Citizenship” and I believe that there is an important distinction between the two and that there should be a difference in the rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with each.

If  you consider Nationality, the place where you are born, or the place where your parents are born and that you have the right to live, is entirely arbitrary. You could be born anywhere, that’s just a product of chance. This seems to me a very poor basis on which to decide participation in society. I completely understand the need to control borders, limit and legislation immigration, and have a system of checks and balances that ensure that the resources of the country are not put under undue strain by an influx of people. However, this is where the problem lies for me. The resources of the country are already put under unnecessary strain by lots of people who were born here and take those resources for granted and in some cases, contribute nothing back to maintaining them. This is where I think a clear distinction between “Nationality” and “Citizenship” could be made.

I have lived permanently in Canada now for just about 14 years. During that time, I have spent, I would say, a total of about maybe 6 months where I was unemployed and not paying any taxes. That doesn’t include the two years I spent going through secondary education. In that time, I have also worked, for just about half of it, with an organization that monitors and reports on the status of diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans in Canada. I have participated in community programs, coaching community soccer as well as coaching in a program that offered opportunities to play soccer to inner-city kids. I have never had criminal charges laid against me, have always paid all my taxes, on time and in the full amount and general have been no burden to society and I hope have actually helped in some very small way. I don’t say all this in any attempt to portray myself as a “good guy”. I could do more in my community and I know there are unsung heroes out there that dedicate themselves to a huge extent to help their fellow man. I only offer this in contrast to the people, in Saskatoon and in the country, who only take from society. People who, for whatever reason, think they don’t have to pay taxes, or expend a majority of their time finding loopholes to pay as little as possible. People who find it perfectly fine to sell drugs and prostitute other people. People who claim benefits from the government when they don’t need them, or aren’t actually entitled to them. People who are career criminals who have spent a huge part of their adult life behind bars for various offences.

When you consider who is actually a citizen, without taking into account nationality, out of the two types of people who would you say should have the right to vote?

Citizenship should have obligations as well as affording rights and freedoms. Citizenship should be about contribution and value to society as a whole as much as it should be about leaning on society or bending it to your purpose.

I’m not saying that everyone should be constantly knocking on their neighbour’s door and asking them if they need a hand putting up shelves. I’m not suggesting that old, infirm, or poorly-educated people shouldn’t be afforded the same rights as everyone else. I’m also not necessarily suggesting that people should have their rights and privileges removed (other than as a result of serious criminal offences). My argument is, that those people who actively work against society are granted more rights simply because of where they were born than those people who were born somewhere else. To me, this is entirely undemocratic and ethically suspect.

To put this in context. Imagine that everyone in Saskatoon had to go and write the Citizenship exam tomorrow. How many current Canadian citizens, how many of you, would pass?

The illusion is that we want non-citizens to understand Canadian culture and respect and agree to live by that culture. The reality is that it’s a completely meaningless exam that will not be useful once you have passed it and would not be passed by the massive majority of the population over 23. I arbitrarily say 23 as I believe that most school kids and those recently graduated would probably have a better chance of passing than most adults! Who is defining Canadian culture and what does that mean? To state something so absolutely on a citizenship exam that is so flexible and wide-ranging is completely pointless. Having lived here for long enough now, I would say that Canada is one of the greatest places to live in the world precisely because there isn’t a consistent, unified culture and the majority of people don’t ram their views down everyone else’s throats. Canadians tend to be quite liberal (not in the political sense, before anyone has a coronary) in their approach to life and are mostly tolerant of other people’s beliefs. Generally, the rule is; “As long as what you’re doing doesn’t impact my life negatively, have at ‘er buddy!” Is that a defined, accepted cultural philosophy or simply a product of a young migrant country that has developed over the years with a MULTI-cultural ethos at its core?

Having said all this, I’m not a naive person. I realize that there are economic and administrative reasons why having a branched system could prove difficult to manage. There are logistical questions surrounding how you would establish a criteria for citizenship and the rights it entails. Would you have residency rules? Would you have to prove contribution? With what frequency would this have to occur? Would anyone be grandfathered into this system? Would there be systematic exclusions? I realize that there are a lot of procedural and logistical issues that make implementing any sort of system like this very difficult. I’m also not saying that I think this should happen with any urgency.

The current system, flawed though it may be, basically works to a large extent, but as all good logicians and scientists know, just because it works, doesn’t mean it can’t work better.

As a society, maybe we need to examine what the rights AND obligations of citizenship are, at a local, regional, national, and international level. Maybe I watch too much Star Trek, but I believe that Gene Rodenberry’s vision of the future in which mankind puts aside tribal arguments and works together toward a greater good for all is both noble, and in the long term, achievable.