A discussion of what constitutes identity and citizenship is timely and welcome. The linkage of

citizenship to history and the association of citizenship with rights and responsibilities are

appropriate. Nonetheless, we have concerns with some aspects of the discussion on citizenship

Mycock, Andrew

Tonge, Jonathan

English

University of Huddersfield Repository

University of Huddersfield RepositoryMycock, Andrew and Tonge, JonathanThe Future of CitizenshipOriginal CitationMycock, Andrew and Tonge, Jonathan (2007) The Future of Citizenship. In: Failing Politics? A Response to 'The Governance of Britain' Green Paper. The Political Studies Association, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK, pp. 18-21.This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/10168/The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of theUniversity, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the itemson this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners.Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generallycan be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in anyformat or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profitpurposes without prior permission or charge, provided:• The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy;• A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and• The content is not changed in any way.For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, pleasecontact the Repository Team at: E.mailbox@hud.ac.uk.http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/Failing Politics? A response to The Governance of Britain Green Paper18The Future of CitizenshipAndy Mycock and Jon TongeA discussion of what constitutes identity and citizenship is timely and welcome. The linkage ofcitizenship to history and the association of citizenship with rights and responsibilities areappropriate. Nonetheless, we have concerns with some aspects of the discussion on citizenship.What is meant by the idea of citizenship?The Green Paper suggests ‘we can learn much from countries that have a more clearly definedsense of citizenship’, citing a number of examples including Australia, South Africa, and France.Such comparisons are of limited value, failing to acknowledge that anxieties concerning citizenshipand national identity, and the values that inform them, are as prevalent. These are evident inthe ‘culture’ or ‘history’ wars in most examples identified, where competing constructions ofthe national past reflect the plurality of their contemporary societies thus challenging orthodoxviews of national identity.There appears to be inconsistency within the Green Paper regarding the deployment of the terms‘British’ and ‘UK’ citizenship. Paragraph 193, for example, refers to the need to ‘ensure that thereis a common bond between all types of citizens in the UK’ to clarify the ‘common core of rightsand responsibilities that go with British citizenship’.This imprecision and assumed interchangeabilityin terminology reflects a wider flaw within the Green Paper, the perceived synonymity of citizenshipand national identity, which is reflected through the inconsistent use of ‘Britain’ and the ‘UK.The UK is not a nation, but rather a multi-national state whose origins lay in series of Acts ofUnion. The term ‘union’ state more accurately reflects the series of legislative measures whichsaw Wales, Scotland and Ireland incorporated into a unitary state which some UK citizens viewas ‘colonial’. Moreover, plural interpretations of ‘Britain’, viewed within the paper as a nation(para. 182), a nation of nations (para. 199) and as a multi-national state (para. 141), reflect alack of surety as to its definitive articulation.Highlighting the difference between Britain and the UK is not merely constitutional pedantry.The Government’s attempted promotion of the primacy of UK citizenship fails to acknowledgeits contestability in Northern Ireland. It appears to breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement,which recognises ‘the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves andbe accepted as Irish or British’ and promises ‘full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, socialand cultural rights…and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity,ethos and aspirations of both communities’.[1] Given that the Irish government has also legislated,on the basis of referendum support for the Agreement, to entitle any person born on the islandof Ireland to Irish citizenship, the promotion of a ‘common bond’ between all types of citizensin the UK by the government may be strongly contested.Indeed, ambiguity persists throughout the paper as to whether the government is attemptingto define and promote ‘Britishness’ or ‘UK-ness’. The Green Paper rightly acknowledges that UKcitizens possess ‘multiple identities’ (para. 182). However, the suggestion that UK citizenshippromotes a national identity which ‘brings the nation together’ (para. 183) is problematical asthe assumption of an organic and homogeneous form of Britishness is more claimed than proven.Although there is acknowledgement of the ‘relative lack of precision about what we mean tobe British’ (para. 184), it is unclear whether ‘Britishness’ is viewed as a wholly civic construct oris tied to cultural practice which potentially establishes citizenship and identity norms that canexclude some citizens.The demand to be British?The assumption that all UK citizens wish to ascribe to an overarching identity is myopic. Certainlya series of important shared experiences, such as the growth (and decline) of empire and heroicefforts in two World Wars, has helped shape a sense of Britishness extending beyond England.However, a range of statistical studies has highlighted the relative decline of British identityacross the home nations during the last decade.[2] Although the Green Paper suggests that thereare ‘many cultural traits and traditions’ that characterise being ‘distinctively British’ (para. 185),these are not identified. To what extent do they exist, or are they amount to dated clichés orcultural stereotyping, which, if matched by discussions of other nations in similar ways, wouldbe seen as patronising or offensive? The Green Paper is ambiguous if and in what ways factorssuch as ethnicity, culture and religion inform national identity.The Green Paper fails to fully acknowledge how nationalist tensions challenge the legitimacy ofUK citizenship and identity. Some citizens, particularly those who promote separatist nationalistagendas, view conceptions of ‘Britishness’ as the antithesis of their own identities. Moreover,the reference to our ‘relative stability as a nation’ (para. 184) begs the question, relative towhat, exactly? The UK was, prior to the Yugoslav wars of secession in the 1990s, the site ofeasily the worst ethnic conflict in post-World War II Europe, one in which more British liveswere lost than in Iraq or Afghanistan. In Scotland, the largest party in parliament wishes to severthe Union, whilst the significant minorities in Northern Ireland, Wales and in somecommunities in England do not associate their nationhood with the UK or Britain.Establishing the Values of Britishness? We agree that good citizenship should be seen to positively promote the values outlined in theGreen Paper. But it would appear however that the Green Paper is tied to an increasinglyfraught search for the ‘elixir’ of Britishness, this highlighted by the perceived need to develop aBritish statement of values. An aspiration to ‘rediscover’ fixed and immutable ‘British’ (ratherFailing Politics? A response to The Governance of Britain Green Paper 19the UK) values assumes that the UK was once successfully bound together by ‘benign’ qualitieswhich merely require rehabilitation. Although a general commitment to such values as liberty,tolerance and fair play is desirable and can be tied to positively to the political development ofthe UK state, they are neither universally ascribed to nor understood by many UK citizens.[3]Furthermore, ascription to such values is contentious and contestable both within historicaland contemporary contexts, particularly in light of the British imperial legacy, and fail toacknowledge enduring discrimination and inequality of contemporary UK citizenship.The proposedcodification could merely present a view of a UK political culture whereby the values eulogisedare portrayed as banal, static, and immutable, rather than developmental, progressive or aspirational.A British statement of values, if framed in a rigid codified framework, could actually emphasiseschisms in UK society. The Green Paper fails to recognise that some within the devolvedadministrations in the UK locate their values which inform citizenship at a sub-state nationallevel, and therefore question the necessity or desirability of a British statement. Nationalistparties in the devolved territories have identified and promoted national values which are distinctfrom those of what they perceive to be an ‘Anglo-British’ state. This concern over the projectedsynonymity of Britishness with the political culture of the dominant nation, England, is well-founded. By primarily locating the historical development of Britishness in ‘our own civil war’,‘the Declaration of Rights of 1689 and the Acts of Union’ (para. 184), the Green Paper projectsan Anglo-British view which is insensitive to the sensibilities of some UK citizens. Continuedasymmetric devolution of power could further undermine the common relevance of someinstitutions, thus Anglicising the UK state and its associated citizenship.Spreading citizenship It is right that the Green Paper acknowledges inconsistencies of UK citizenship, particularlyconcerning entitlement rights and responsibilities (paras. 192-3). This noted, the remit of theproposed review of citizenship is narrow and unclear. The Green Paper appears to question thelack of a British national context of the ECHR. It fails to acknowledge the plurality and transnationalityof UK citizenship.The three categories of UK citizenship which differentiate rights and responsibilitiesfor UK citizens, particularly residency, welfare and democratic rights, are not considered.Though the implications of dual citizenship are recognised, the Green Paper does not considerthe asymmetry of some arrangements, affording preferential rights to some Commonwealthand other foreign nationals, as problematical. Overall, the projection of a nationally-boundcitizenship reflects a political discourse which is inward-looking and fails to acknowledge the positivecontribution of transational and supranational community to our understanding of Britishness.Although the Government rightly believes that all citizens should understand their rights andresponsibilities, it targets immigrants and young people as being somehow distinct in their lackof comprehension of the norms of UK citizenship or their integration into a national culture. Itis questionable as to whether citizenship ceremonies are ‘highly successful’ (para. 186) or whetherthey successfully inculcate a sense of Britishness which the Green Paper acknowledges lacksclarity for many existing UK citizens. There would appear to be little concern for the possibilitythat broader society is failing to fully understand or satisfy their rights or responsibilities. WeFailing Politics? A response to The Governance of Britain Green Paper20Failing Politics? A response to The Governance of Britain Green Paper 21would encourage a holistic approach to inculcation of a citizenship culture and identity, thusavoiding the singling out of specific sections of society.[1] HMSO The Agreement: Agreement reached in multi-party negotiations, Belfast: HSMO, 1998, Article 1, paras. V/ViCambridge: Cambridge University Press.[2] Lucy Stone and Rick Muir, Who Are We? Identities in Britain, 2007, London, IPPR, 2007.[3] Anthony Heath, Jean Martin and Gabriella Elgenius, ‘Who do we think we are? The decline of traditional identities’, inAlison Park, John Curtice, Katarina Thompson, Miranda Phillips and Mark Johnson (eds.) British Social Attitudes: the23rd Report – Perspectives on a Changing Society, London: Sage, 2007, pp. 1-33.

The Future of Citizenship

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Huddersfield Repository