Political Belonging - Essay Example

Political Belonging “Do political communities need strangers and outsiders to affirm their own identities?” Introduction There has been a wide range of debate on the development of transactional as well as cosmopolitan citizenry. Besides, the influence of many scales on claims of citizenships and identities has also manipulated most of the debates with a view to identifying with certain political identities especially in the European Nation states. In particular, the effect of immigrations on citizenships has been a major dominant factor in the context of international scholarly focus an aspect that has drawn significant interest due to its implication on political communities (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 9). Indeed, the main debate has been the extent to which international regimes have eventually outmoded nation-state in order to certify rights. Analysis Indeed, it has emerged now that the rights of immigrants is not firmly based on citizenship but territorial assertiveness with the development of human rights discourses for all with claim that claims the universal rights beyond nation-states. This scenario applies to both the economic and social rights as well the individual cultures. As a result, migrants claim that their individual rights lies on the personhood as opposed to membership of a given political community. This aspect result to the disintegration of both rights and identities. Rights do no longer require nation-state leaving identities locally defined and structured. This development is uniquely positioned via the diffusion of sovereignty of other political echelons such as in the case of European Union that falls above nation-state and considerably below regional level (Walzer, 1983, pp 60). Through his work based on the sphere of Justice, Michael Wlazer provides that the essence of a given idea regarding social justice is to define spheres of distribution of a particular social good This creates a sense of distribution of certain sphere where its respective criteria of distribution does not influence the distribution of others from different spheres (Walzer, 1983, pp 20). This is a pull factor for migration of people. Subsequently, no existence of social goods will prevail as a monopolistic aspect that could otherwise trigger unnecessary social dominance. Migration trends and types is central to the organization of the social-political situation of different countries for instance, the European states have been projecting on a managed migrants policies where they allow migrants to enter their territories and settle given that they fulfill certain conditions and ways of belongings. The international rights of migrants regime has been presented as a discourse as opposed to effective practical engagement. This results into a situation of cross-cutting violations of human rights. Indeed, human rights asserted on behalf of humanity ought to be guaranteed by the responsible authoritative political unit (Walzer, 1983, pp 62). This implies that the political body should identify with the strangers through acquittal with their rights and privileges. The advances that have been made with regard to human rights must be comprehended via a historical perspective relative to specific incidences in history. The contemporary state of globalization has however not resulted into its wake equal governance regimes relative to the individuals on the move. According to the recent accounts of the United Nations Global Commissions for International Migration of 2004, it is virtually impossible to have a worldwide regime in the short-run while proposing that any measures to advance on human rights would be empirically defined through a regional regime framework such as the case bilateral agreements. Despite the fact that post-nationalism may exist side-by-side with nation-state as opposed to linear progression and the replacement of states, the present decade is virtually diverse as the theoretical framework pertinent to this issue in understanding dynamics of citizenship practices, identities and rights have grossly changed over time (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 13). In essence, Walzer provision on social justice regards a particular society as a, ‘limited world’. He also refers, ‘the political community’ as a group of individuals committed to dividing, sharing and exchanging social goods initially, among themselves (Walzer 1983, 31). This idea is very essential to the dominance of certain social groups. Liberalism and post-nationalism are juxtaposed when it comes to idea of political and social integration in the context of differentiated citizenship with the impact of fortified civic integration. Democratic citizenship, when effectively addressed is believed to have the capacity to act as an effective instrument of integration. The idea behind this issue is the citizens comprise a set o political, social and civic rights. When used as a political practice, it can assist in generating desirable feelings of both identity and belonging. This assertion however seems to underscore the importance of integrating both citizenship and nationality and their mutual capacity to enhance social integration. (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 31). Some research has revealed that the capacity of citizenship to accomplish its integrative function is dependent on the existence of mutual nationality. However, others claim that in the context of pluralism, nationality may not act as an effective focus on support and identity. The mutual identity of the contemporary democratic states ought to be established on the more abstract and universalistic legal and political guidelines that exceeds cultural differences. This creates the essence of aliens in enhancing a political alignment of a given political community (Walzer 1983, 33). This focus brings forth the evaluation of the impact of citizenships in the contemporary societies associated with considerably high extent of internal diversity and complexity. Liberal nationalists on the other hand argues that only certain prejudged conducts of specific instincts of a political practice can lead to development of high level of trusts and loyalty among citizens. For instance, in the case of political activities of Athens’ Citizens or the commonly referred Rousseau’s, ideal Republic acknowledged head to head relations involving co-operations (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 11). The extent of modern states has also made the type of political orientation assumed by the Rousseau at the best marginal. In this regard, Citizens are not involved in the actual legislative process. This implies that they do not partake in the formulation of laws. On the contrary, they are mere strangers while their involvement in politics involving representative democracies is often periodic and considerably weak. In such instances, politics cannot play a central role to individual’s lives. Instead, there must be creation of other elements that would effectively develop loyalty and trust essential to effective functioning of the political community. In Rousseau’s, ideal Republic’s history, the Nation has commissioned large number of individuals to exercise commonality while setting apart from other groups while at the same time making solidarity possible among strangers. The post-nationalists do not decline on this issue particularly on the essential role of the nation in enhancing the republican’s politics across large modern states of US. Instead, they perceive common nationality as the zeal behind political mobilization of inhabitants while facing their shared decent history or languages. However, democracy’s association with the nation-state is particularly conditional than necessary. In history, it has been perceived that the historical balance sheet regarding nation-state identifies a legacy of oppression facing minority cultures as well as political and economic imperialistic orientations beyond its borders. The understanding of the nation-states internal diversity and high sensitivity to forcible assimilations undermine its capacity to unite people under one nation (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 13). The reduced inference to political groupings and cultural orientations makes it necessary for the majority culture to avoid imposing it to their minorities, an aspect that may deter their progress in identifying with nation-state and further reduce its acceptability. In instances of pluralism, majority culture may not act as the central pillar of shared identity. Instead, it must be replaced by universal principles regarding human rights and law which do not impose majority culture on their minorities. As a result, every political community has to develop specific interpretations of the inference of the aforementioned principles with time, an aspect that later develops into its political and legal practices (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 24). In response, this forms a political culture that finally crystallizes around the constitution of the country while making the principle underlying the concept to universally acceptable values. This presents embedded democratic and liberal principles via a specific political culture which results into a situation of constitutional patriotism as an effective replacement of nationalism while focusing on common identity. In countries that have eventually achieved formidable national conscience, their political culture has also been inclined to her majority culture. This fusion ought to be dissolved if different ethnic groups, cultures and religions have to coexist and interact equally within the same political community (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 28). Indeed, the assertions that democratic political practices may provide an effective stimulus to integration among complex democracies is often considered the only available option in such settings. In this case, there is absolutely no need for background agreements based on cultural homogeneity to catalyze the situation for democracy such that the democratic political process involving deliberations by the public and the decision-making constitutes a considerable political understanding for all including the strangers. The democracy as a set of approaches can acquire legitimacy without substantive commonalities among citizens and eventually achieve positive social integration (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 29). In this regard, democracy is not attached to common cultural practices and therefore can be responsive to certain changes in cultural components of citizens and further produce a universal political culture. Indeed, the democratic process and political participation among citizens is essential to the realization of social integration. Within complex societies, the deliberative opinions and citizen’s will-formation anchored in popular sovereignty constitutes ultimate medium for legally bound solidarity that further manifest itself through political participation. Indeed, the democratic process is said to fulfill its intended roles only if it is capable of achieving a particular level of legitimacy by output. In this regard, the correct solidarity levels are mainly sustainable if and only if the society satisfies the fundamental standards of social justice. Indeed, if it has to remain a potential source of cohesion, citizenship must be perceived as ideal and valuable status related to both civil and political rights as well as the fulfillments of basic cultural and social rights (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 36). Another fundamental question is about whether the political community has moral right to determine the persons who can or cannot be a citizen to a state. The obligations of the political community to people who flees from impoverished countries seeking better lives for self and families has been a major concern for many philosophical debaters. Besides, it is a major concern on the moral status regarding political communities as well as their rights to protect their own integrity through exclusion of non-members. One of the mechanisms of characterizing the obligations of the political community towards strangers has been indicated as removing any possible or present relations of cooperation and manipulates typical humanity as the only bond between the political community and aliens. In this regard, it has been posited that only a feeble, imperfect or even conditional obligation of assistance can be deduced from such type of premises (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 39). Indeed, the latter duty further limits the fundamental rights and obligations of the political community to issue member as it may regard and in any way, displacing it. Nevertheless, individuals have a moral obligation to assist strangers through urgent needs if such can be done without due exposition to significant costs or risks. This shows the risk-averse community. At collective perspectives, the implications are more substantial since political community are considered to have more resources and may consider a number of benevolent approaches at relatively negligible costs. Principles of mutual aid may also justify membership redistribution, wealth and resources such that certain states have excess of their needs (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 41). In such instances, redistributive policies remain principally dependent on wealthier countries that understand their specific problems and urgency needed from the strangers’ conditions. However, there is no obligation whatsoever to provide equal weight to the interests pertaining to strangers or the non-members. For instance, all goods that are distributed in a society are mainly social goods since they are created and sold via certain social processes that may differ from one society to the other. This implies that the immigrants may have special interests deduced from their source points that may differ from the natives’ (Walzer, 1983, 7). According to a different point of view, the Geneva Convention based on the Status of Refugees of 1951, the proposed principle of non-refoulement provides that signatory states must not deport either the asylum seekers or refugees back to their countries if such measures would threaten their freedoms or even lives. richer countries are however encouraged to raise the number of immigrants admitted into richer states although such is dependent on the evaluation of the effect of such admissions on the natives’ own interests (Koppelman & Goodhart, et al. 37). Nevertheless, if it could be considered and regarded on the principle of moral equality via full extension, the distinction between aliens and citizens is considered morally arbitrary and cannot be either justified by achievement or nature. In US for instance, the problem of immigration has been major debate across all quarters. Subsequently, mechanisms seeking to address immigration policies have found a tremendous challenge in the process of mainstreaming the interest of all affected entities including the citizens and the aliens. This would be ideal in positioning an equitable approach to the issue that could otherwise result into shear security hitches. Indeed, the political communities however cannot choose whether or not they can afford to let in the refugees claimants or even other potential immigrants merely based on their understanding of own situations, interests or demands. The framework of evaluating consequences such as sustainability of instigated welfare policies, effects of brain drain in third world countries is mutually welcome but diverse in nature with profound sphere of influence (Walzer, 1983, 32). As a result, this state of event would lead to a substantial change in both immigration and refugees policies across most Western democracies. Finally, the overall review shows that while strangers may influence the political orientation of a state or country, the political climate does not necessarily need strangers and outsiders to affirm their identities. Works Cited Walzer, Michael. Spheres of Justice : a Defence of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books, 1983. Print. Koppelman, Kent L, and R L. Goodhart. Understanding Human Differences: Multicultural Education for a Diverse America. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2005. Print. Read More