Health & Australian Federal Government - Case Study Example

When the Australian Federal Government announced in 2007 that it would require all migrants to take a citizenship test, controversy and debates beganto hound the declaration as various groups denounced the policy as decadent. Critics of the test assert that even the Australian-born residents could fail the test and could lose their citizenship as the test questions are too complicated even for politicians themselves. The examination comprises of questions ranging from the country’s history and values such as cultural and political values the Australians hold dear. There is a contention that a test such as this may not succeed as nation states are not spurred by values since a national character could not spawn from the directive of an overlord whose convictions are immoral and self-serving. These extreme remarks are highly disputable and require careful scrutiny so as to qualify them as justifiable. This involves cautious exploration of applied political philosophy and the modern theoretical foundation of nation states and the ethos that govern them. As the issue encompasses every facet of the political and social life, our examination of the aforementioned assertion on the values of a nation state would take into consideration concepts with regards multiculturalism, international politics and modern social and political structure. One of the most prominent and influential philosophers who brought forth the theory with regards the values of the nation state is John Rawls. He contends that it is the responsibility of the state to foster cooperation among its citizens. Based on his concept of an ideal nation and comparing it to the realities the modern state experiences, we can argue that a citizenship test can actually prosper as long as the as the government and the citizens take into account their moral, social and political obligations. As Rawls (1999) embraces a different concept of the nation-state – one that is not just a sovereign entity pledging allegiance to the national culture. It is not just a territory or a state which protects itself and its national identity. The Rawlsian notion of a state/nation is one that safeguards the fundamental interests of its citizens, characterizing these interests as reasonable and legitimate because the state is aware that it can effect institutional resolution to systemic dilemmas that normally beset a state or a country. For Rawls, nation-states are moral societies that could foster cooperation from its citizens who behave with self-respect and gentle manners. These states are not locked in the effort to gain wealth and power, or aim to advance self-interest, these are institutions that promote fair-mindedness, justice and pluralism. (Montesquieu, 2006 ed.) Moreover, the idea of citizenship, according to the Rawlsian philosophy, should be founded on historical occurrences. Citizens have come together as a group and are aware of the importance of their formation based on common and collective interests which are fundamentally political. Borrowing on John Stuart Mills’ liberal concept of citizenship and nationality (Eisenach, 1998), Rawls argues that democratic citizens are bestowed access and rights to a similar judicial system, given the equal opportunity to vote in elections and highly consider the historical experience of the nation state reciprocally significant and of universal interest among them. Hence, these are not necessarily values in a more profound sense but the beliefs and experiences that form the consciousness of a collective group which in turn cement the foundation of a state’s stability. Rawls adds that the citizens, in a moral and ideal sense, must identify their mutual obligations among themselves, recognizing that a satisfactory existence could never be achieved if cooperation was not effected by a considerable number of the state’s domestic residents (Rawls, 1993). This cooperation must be based on respect and genuine concern towards others which consequently foster political stability and in turn morally validates the existence of a state (Dworkin, 1977). This brings us to the concept of nationality - a segment of mankind united by a shared sympathy, cooperating freely with others and aspires to be under a single democratic government (Miller, 1995). The nationalistic sentiments are spurred by the effect of ethnicity, race or cultural background. Shared language and religion highly contribute to these nationalist sentiments as well as geography, shared history, cultural and ethnic pride and even the painful experiences of a nation in the past (Robson, 1997). The Rawlsian philosophy of nationality holds that reciprocity results to moral learning. When a citizen, say a more opulent one, helps another who is not very well-off, he asserts his values and at the same time improves cooperation between him and another citizen. The same holds true in reciprocity of cooperation between a group and the state. Political reciprocity, according to Rawls becomes the foundation of stability in a liberal democratic state (Hayashi, 1999). These contentions, in fact, put emphasis on a state’s moral values and character (Rawls, 1999). Thus, we can say that in idealistic sense, a national character exists. The Rawlsian concept also holds that an institutionalization of the principles of reciprocity is necessary in order for the state to achieve the requirements of justice (Rawls, 2001). This means that the main aim of the system of mutual cooperation is to generate extensive support of the population in the fashioning of social institutions that entrench upon the state and the citizenry the notion of the society as a just system (Hardimon, 1994). These social institutions call for the securing of the rights of every citizen of the state ensuring that every single entity is given the opportunity to acquire it. Hence, when a state, as for instance, create a citizenship test for its population for the purpose of institutionalizing the rights of its citizen, the state endows itself moral value as this springs from its obligations to secure the rights of its citizen. Acting on and realizing that obligation results to stabilization. There are those of course who oppose the institutionalization or nationalization of a certain aspect of their social and political life as this brings forth the creation of a singular culture which results to the curtailing the rights of the cultural minorities in a nation-state. The biggest criticism in the Australian promulgation of the citizenship examination, for instance, is that, the test forces speakers of minority language to learn English and these results to the disappearance and disintegration of the cultural minority group (Kukathas, 1972). The integration of a minority culture in the mainstream culture threatens aspects of their ethnicity because nationalization under the liberal ideology aims to universalize the concept of rights, justice and equality. This is a stark contrast to what liberalists preach. However, Will Kymlicka (1989) argues that the liberal philosophy put forward by Rawls does not violate the fundamental principles of liberalism which adhere to the promotion and protection of the rights of the minority as the liberal ideology came to the defense of a multicultural nation state. The citizenship examination does not aim to nationalize but purports to reassert the rights of the minority within the larger context of society. This shows that a nation-state such as Australia purports to protect the rights of individuals and minorities alike by the institutionalization of these rights. The citizenship test is not meant to harass non-English speakers and non-Anglophiles or non-Christians. The test solely aims for the members of the society to create familiarity on what their nation is all about. The purpose is for one to get to know her own country of residence. It is essential for any person to get to know the community he lives in as much as his nation. Even travelers have to learn the culture of the community they are visiting. What more if you choose to become a permanent resident of on territory. Minorities who came to Australia in order to escape persecution and constraints of their rights in their native countries cannot expect to bring the same sets of limitations to another setting or put forth their own laws or moral beliefs in another sovereign territory (Cooray 1979). Successful modern nation states have similarly applied constraints and limitations to their citizen which function as a form of control or for the purpose of securing and stabilizing the nation. What many democratic adherents refuse to see is for democracy to turn into anarchy. We have seen in our history that an uncontrolled, misunderstanding of our freedom results to failure in the system. In addition, citizens must subject themselves to policies that they are able to understand and inculcate effectively and if this is achieved well through a rigorous test, then members of the society must subject themselves to it in order to attain stability and for their freedoms to be protected. If the citizens believe that this will encourage cooperation and participation in public and government policy then the ideal Rawlsian nation-state which is founded on morals and values can be, in a sense, realized. However, the question arises whether nation-states practice these values in reality or whether the modern nation-states hold ‘values’ in reality. This is especially problematic as the previous statement with regards values of the nation states is strongly categorical and doesn’t allow exceptions. The term ‘values’ also denotes several definitions and subjective characterizations. The question is if the aforementioned assertion solely involves traditional nation-states which if investigated carefully clearly did not hold clear morals or values. History showed us that nations in the past were locked in their selfish desires to subdue the whole world and use anything of value to their advantage. However, long gone are those times and the systems that a nation-state forced upon another or its citizens remained just a thing of the past, obsolete and deemed absurd in this century. In fact, we cannot deny that nations all over the world have ‘advanced’ and respect for human rights, cultural rights, individualism and freedom remained to be the goal of the majority of democratic society all over the globe. Although improvements are needed to be applied in various aspects of our political life, our society can be considered a much better one as compared to societies which existed in the previous centuries. John Ruggie (2000), one of the most prominent scholars in the study of modern nation states argue that we face an epochal change upon us brought about by the change in global economic systems, technology that links on nation to another and the emergence of the European Union – an important political entity in the post-modern world. Ruggie argues that the modern system of governing nations is founded mainly on defined, immutable, mutually exclusive territory whose domination is both moral and legitimate – a unique form of political system in human history. The modern state has been assembled socially and we cannot take its longevity for granted. The modern state which gradually developed out of the feudal Europe is deemed more natural and less arbitrary. Contemporary scholars of democratic institutions affirm that without a state, modern democracy would not have come into existence (Bukovansky, 2002). The liberal political concept is linked to the formation of the state and in turn shaped our notion of citizenship. Without these two, democracy could have not arisen (Bukovansky 2002). Hence, we can safely assume that nation states as a whole shaped the values and the freedom we enjoy today. The small success of the EU in obtaining its authority from member states only justifies the contention that nation states can develop values. The EU has moved forward from being just a union of nations, beyond federalism but towards intergovernmentalism. Obviously, nations in Europe have also progressed beyond the concept of nationalization but towards policing the rest of the world. Many would critic the EU’s behavior, but countries who had a bad record of human rights violations face a formidable challenge because of what the EU stood to upholds (Armstrong 2006). It is said that the EU reasserted itself to become the world’s biggest and most influential NGO which is outside the stereotyped structure of politics as the organization is formed without robbing its member states of their sovereignty. The EU has achieved success in making its constituents follow the order of the center without the application of violence or pressure. It is therefore interesting to note that the EU has developed a legal structure – in the form of an intergovernmental political system complete with a democratic and constitutional backing whose decisions and promulgations are voluntarily recognized by member states (Armstrong, 2006). This intergovernmental form is very divergent from what we have observed in the past where unions were deemed catastrophic and impossible (Plattner, 1998). But what is the importance of the formation this union in Europe with regards the argument that nation-states cannot develop values and do not necessarily have inherent values? The answer lies again in the arguments brought forth by Rawls on the liberal democratic ideals and values of the nation state. The emergence of the EU as a liberal institution, fashioning its structure on the Rawlsian doctrine only shows that the Rawlsian ideals did not remain merely ideals. It further illustrates that nation states can move beyond the dictates of their ‘imperial overlord’, cooperate, learn the importance of cooperation and actually create a workable, peaceful system. We cannot discount the fact the rise of the new power – a modern liberal power – founded on liberal democratic principles and respect for another – could emerge from the values that nation states in Europe embrace dearly. We must understand that the EU functions this way since the member of the union are liberal democracies. This denotes that the center of power cannot utilize force against another nation or another state cannot use force against another. Historical evidence also suggests that liberal democracies rarely waged war against another (Cooper, 1996). This doesn’t mean though that liberal democratic institutions have never gone to war. J.H.H. Weiler contends that federal system enforced by the EU depicts its most profound sets of democratic values, founded mainly on the ‘Principles of Constitutional Tolerance.’ Although it refuses to recognize overt nationalism and extreme loyalty to the constitution, its goal according to Weiler, is to live a decent existence. Hence, it is very apparent nation-states have developed sets of values which became the foundation of a more moral system of governance (Weiler 2000). Another argument brought forth with regards nation-states is that, they cannot possibly develop a national character as nation-states are directed by an imperial overlord to wage war on another state or entity. The argument mentions the Boer War as a result of the empire’s order to attack the Dutch settlers in South Africa and the Gallipoli Campaign in which the British overlord involved the Australians and the New Zealanders. This marked the beginning of ANZAC spirit celebrated every April 25th of every year in Australia and New Zealand as a holiday. The Australians’ landing in Gallipoli during the WW1 is said to have helped develop the country’s shared national character specifically referring to the soldiers’ perceived qualities shown during the war (New York Times, 1916). This includes persistence, courage, humor, ‘mateship,’ creativity and endurance, just to name a few examples. The soldiers also depicted irreverence to the authority and contemptuous behavior toward class distinction as opposed to the British approbation of it. The argument states that a national character, which marked Australia’s characteristics, could not have developed because the soldiers or the people were under the directive of an imperial overlord. However, we are talking about a possible urban legend or a myth (Manne 2007). This contention of course borders on absurdity. If one, for instance, wishes to dwell on semantics, a national character will take a definition almost similar to the definition of culture. Nations have cultures and nation states sometimes have a multiculture. Since Australia is nation, then it is allowed to have a national character, call it subculture or near that definition. The problem with the idea that nations under the directive of another cannot have a national character is a not very well thought of contention since subculture exists – becoming a sub-national character - emerging even in a very sovereign nation. The right of any nation to deem its experiences as a ‘national character’ should not be limited. Rawls mentioned that a nation state’s experiences can become a collective consciousness and if the government of that state decides that the same experience should become a part of the citizenship test, then the people should make up their mind if that is really necessary. To share a collective consciousness, not just our individual experiences or our sub-culture, is sometimes necessary for the development of a nation. A person who says that a national character should not and could not be permitted to emerge because a nation was under an overlord is worse than the overlord himself. Nations and citizens of the state must decide whether a part of their experience as a group should be included in their institutions or not. We must remember that every nation state exhibit its own kind of absurdity. In addition, national identity and national character does not at all times reflect our political ideals, systems, institutions and morals which have become a part of our consciousness. If a nation state is ordered to attack another by an overlord as a part of that state’s international ‘obligation’ and the nation state cannot refuse, as for instance, a superpower, the moral responsibility for the attack falls on the overlord. Moreover, this does not result to the development or the emergence of a national character. If it did, then the national characters of players in the war in Iraq would find their nation state’s character as repulsive. We must go back once again to the Rawlsian argument that the nation states’ internal rule or external actions can be justified as long as the states’ decision took careful consideration of the interest of their citizenry and can be deemed reasonable (Rawls, 1993 ). Moreover, nation states must adhere and submit to the conventions of the international political culture as a part of their obligation to other states. The culture in international politics consists of conditions for justifiable and legitimate rule and the international behavior and conventions. The culture is mainly of the rulers deemed as formidable players in international politics at a certain period of time. A state is a player in international political stage, given the authority to rule and carry out the external relations of the state if it is recognized by other leaders. This is a significant aspect of sovereignty in that mutual recognition among states is practiced. The main point here is that, in this century, there is no such thing as an imperial overlord that commands states to attack another. The troop sent by the Allied forces in Iraq had the sanction, or almost had the sanction of the UN as well as the UN Security Council composed of powerful nations such as China, France and Russia – countries which would protest if the US were wrong about its contentions of the Iraqi nuclear weapon and weapons of mass destruction. The US went on with attacks amidst criticisms from its allies and even the Americans who had just experienced a catastrophe. Yet, it was a moment in our history when countries feared that a similar disaster could occur in their soil and fear took over among democratic liberal nations and thus, the attack in Iraq began. There was no moment in our recent history when Australia or any nation state was ordered by powerful overlord to encroach on another sovereign territory. Thus, the statement that Australia had to send its forces in Iraq, and help destroy a nation, as a result of a different imperial overlord is completely false and is based on assumption rather than on facts. In addition, the overlords in the previous century, even during the first half of the 20th century who ordered the attacks on the Boer and Gallipoli is incomparable to the aforesaid ‘overlord’ in the modern times. The events surrounding those attacks are very different as compared to the occurrences that transpired at the turn of the century. In order to understand this deeply, a rereading of what transpired before the attack in Iraq started is necessary and consider the loopholes in the imperfect UN Charter. Article 51 of the UN Charter for instance, states that the article can be invoked as a response to an imminent attack (Schlesinger 2003). This argument and the loophole to the charter were utilized by the leadership of George Bush in order to justify his attack on Iraq. Countries that support the US were made to believe that Saddam Hussein was dangerous, Iraq harbors terrorists and was developing weapons of mass destruction. Noam Chomsky (2003) warned nations of an imperial president who was going to bring the whole world to a brink of third world war . In the end, America pushed through with its plan of war against Iraq and brought its allies to help destroy a country. However, they did not find weapons of mass destructions in Iraq. There had been a change in leadership and Hussein was stripped of his power and executed for crimes against humanity and genocide. Some nations in other parts of the world were elated as the Iraq was no longer dangerous nor a threat. Nevertheless, the war shaped many ideologies and beliefs we hold dear this century. It was also a time for the world to realize the dangers of assumption and attacking another state without much evidence. In addition, the whole world did not wait and see. Unlike in the past where countries and citizens did not have the slightest idea of the occurrences in their neighboring states, let alone their neighboring city, nations and populations and citizens in various parts of the world participated, brought forward their opinion about the war. In Boer War and in Gallipoli, the world had no idea what exactly transpired. It was a dark time in history as information could not be obtained easily. But the war in Iraq produced vigilant citizens out of us. Information spreads like a wildfire, and in a short instant, we found out that poor George was lying through his teeth and we all participate in criticizing him, blamed the allies which supported him and demanded that our troops pull out of Iraq. We even asked our government leaders to stay out of the mess or we will never vote for them during the elections. We have seen in the past few years how the current American government tried to hold on to its power. Criticisms have thrown at them coming from various parts of the society. A few years after the war, some ally governments pulled their troops out of Iraq. The Philippines pulled its troop out in order to save the life a truck driver. South Korea pulled out after intense pressure from its citizens. Australia had to deal with its culpability in joining the war and the people would show their wrath towards leaders who support the Bush government in their elections. Currently, the US faces a switch in power as the Democrats aimed to take over the White House come election day. One of the major reasons for the declining support of the Republicans is the war in Iraq. Many Americans want their troops back home. Hence this only shows that some nation states and their citizens have done their part in policing the world – one of the values we learned during these turbulent times at the turn of the century. Nation-states have not only asserted their national character but developed a national identity that adheres to liberal democracy, cooperation and respect. Governments have learned that they simply cannot subject themselves to the whims of a powerful state and if they do, they face an adverse consequence in their own soil. Their power wanes and their political career dissipates. Superpowers have learned too that they cannot do it alone. Superpowers learn that a wrong action or decision can lead the world to turmoil and they get to be hated as a consequence. It should also be remembered that a national character merely emerges as culture transforms and arise. Traditions, norms, beliefs, ideals, values and character constitutes culture in totality. Tribes and communities develop their own distinct culture as a form of adaptation to their environment. Cultures have social and psychological functions. If a nation’s traditions would look humorous to another, it because, communities develop this distinction relative to their own experience. Any book on cultural anthropology would argue that cultures arise even in the most difficult situation (Herskovits 1995). A national character emerges, whether a nation is shackled or self-determined. A national character is often strengthened by the pain it experiences to become a free and successful nation. The values that shape a nation state and the character it develops, the identity it asserts are not solely the consequence of freedom. It is the totality of the nation’s experience that makes her a distinct nation – whether at war or peace, in freedom and bondage, during good times and hard times, in its opulent and impoverished moments, whether it is controlled by an empire, an evil lord, a prudent and wise leader, a nation-state is an aggregation of its experiences which becomes its spirit. In the end, the nation state does not utilize this aggregation of national consciousness to move backward but to lunge forward in order to advance. BIBLIOGRAPHY ARMSTRONG, K. A. (2006). Governing social inclusion: the law and politics of EU co-ordination. Oxford studies in European law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. BUKOVANSKY, M. (2002). Legitimacy and power politics: the American and French Revolutions in international political culture. Princeton studies in international history and politics. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. CHOMSKY, N. (2003). Hegemony or survival: Americas quest for global dominance. New York, Metropolitan Books. COORAY, L. J. M. (1979). Conventions, the Australian constitution and the future. Sydney, Legal Books. DWORKIN, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. EISENACH, E. J. (1998). Mill and the moral character of liberalism. University Park, Pa, Pennsylvania State University Press. HARDIMON, M. (1994). Role Obligations. The Journal of Philosophy, Volume 91, No. 7. July 1994. HAYASHI, N. et al titled (1996). Reciprocity, Trust and the Sense of Control in Rationality and Society. Sage HERSKOVITS, M. J. (1955). Cultural anthropology. New York, Knopf. J.H.H. Weiler (2000). Epilogue, “Fischer: The Dark Side,” in Christian Joerges, Yves Mény, and J.H.H. Weiler, eds., What Kind of Constitution for What Kind of Polity? Responses to Joschka Fischer. San Domenico di Fiesole, Italy: Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. KUKATHAS, C. (1992). Cultural Rights Again: A Rejoinder to Kymlicka. Political Theory Volume 20, no. No. 4. MANNE, R. (April 25, 2007). The war myth that made us. The Age. New York. MILLER, D. (1995). On nationality. Oxford political theory. Oxford, Clarendon Press. MONTESQUIEU, C. D. S. (2005). The spirit of laws. Clark, N.J., Lawbook Exchange. NEW YORK TIMES (April 26, 1916). ANZAC Day in London; King, Queen, and General Birdwood at Services in Abbey,".. PLATTNER, M.F. (1999). Globalization and Self-Government. Journal of Democracy RAWLS, J. (1993). The Law of Peoples," n On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures, edited by Stephen Schute and Susan Hurley. New York, Basic Books. RAWLS, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Briefer Restatement. Cambridge, Harvard. ROBSON, J.M. 1997 Collected Works. Considerations on Representative Government. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1997), p. 546. RUGGIE, J. G. (2000). Sustaining the Single Global Economic Space. UN Chronicle. 37, 36. SCHLESINGER, S. C. (2003). Act of creation: the founding of the United Nations : a story of superpowers, secret agents, wartime allies and enemies, and their quest for a peaceful world. Boulder, Colo, Westview Press. Read More