Accommodation or ‘cleansing’: Germany's state employees from the old regime

Two theoretical traditions within comparative political analysis suggest very different answers to the question of what post‐transformation East Central European states should do with bureaucrats from the old regime. A state‐centred Weberian ‘competence’ institutionalism suggests a de‐politicised accommodation and retention of former officials. A society‐centred timing/intensity/mobilisation perspective suggests a politicised ‘cleansing’ of bureaucrats. Applied to the Federal Republic of Germany, the successor regime to the GDR, each perspective is found to be wanting. In their place, this essay offers a distinctly German statist ‘political’ institutionalism combined with a distinctly Western German societalist politicisation.     

Effective citizenship in the cracks of neocorporatism

Citizenship is increasingly investigated not just in terms of rights and duties, but as contentious, evolving and continuously forged anew. This article analyzes an Israeli High Court ruling from 2007 to show how a liberal, human rights-based discourse enabled effective citizenship within neocorporatist frameworks for those outside the formal political community. The ruling, which extended Israeli labor law to Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, marks the breakdown of neocorporatism’s fundamental premise of congruence between labor force participation and participation in the political sphere, which engenders new opportunities for rejecting subjecthood and demanding inclusion. This marks a new development in the balance between the conflicting imperatives of economic inclusion and political exclusion in Israel’s relations with the Palestinians, and legitimizes practices of citizenship where formal political space is denied. It is not yet the ‘de-nationalizing’ of the state, but may be a step in decoupling effective citizenship from national belonging.     

Citizens versus permanent guests: Cultural memory and citizenship laws in a reunified Germany

This article offers a critique of the optimism generated by the new political culture of ‘European citizenship’ based on a historical analysis of the content and utilisation of citizenship laws in pre‐ and post‐reunification Germany. It argues that even if nationality ceases to be a barrier for democratic governance in a consolidated Europe, this development is likely to affect primarily those who are already citizens of a Member State residing in another Member State. The argument made here is supported by the case of ‘guest workers’ in Germany. Although there is growing evidence that especially the Turkish population in Germany enjoys a vast array of civil, social and locally defined political rights, their franchise beyond the ‘limits of citizenship’ does not alleviate larger impacts of the formalised cultural memory of who qualifies to be a German. The most‐documented example of the persistent strain of genealogy‐based nationalism in Germany is the admission and naturalisation policies applied to the ‘returning’ ethnic Germans from neighbouring states. Based on a comparative analysis of the historic treatment of ‘German’ versus ‘non‐German’ outsiders entering Germany, the article concludes that the still‐dominant definition of Germanness emphasising ancestral lineage (jus sanguinis) poses serious obstacles for the achievement of a civic/political self‐understanding in German society as well as in Europe at large.     

Abjects or agents? Camps,contests and the creation of ‘political space’

The ‘Urdu-speaking population’ in Bangladesh, displaced by the Partition in 1947 and made ‘stateless’ by the Liberation War of 1971, exemplifies some of the key problems facing uprooted populations. Exploring differences of ‘camp’ and ‘non-camp’ based displacement, this article represents a critical evaluation of the way ‘political space’ is contested at the local level and what this reveals about the nature and boundaries of citizenship. Semi-structured and narrative interviews conducted among ‘camp’ and ‘non-camp’ based ‘Urdu-speakers’ found that citizenship status has been profoundly affected by the spatial dynamics of settlement. However, it also revealed the ways in which ‘formal’ status is subverted – the moments of negotiation in which claims to political being are made. In asking how and when a ‘stateless’ population is able to ‘access’ citizenship, through which processes and by which means, it reveals the tension, ambiguity and conceptual limitations of ‘statelessness’ and citizenship, unearthing a reality of partial, shifting and deceptively permeable terrain. In doing so, it also reveals the dissonance and discord (constitutive of an ‘us’ and ‘them’ divide) upon which the creation of ‘political space’ may rely. Citizenship functions to exclude and, therefore, it is very often born of contestation.     

‘Citizens of the region’: Party conceptions of regional citizenship and immigrant integration

Citizenship is usually regarded as the exclusive domain of the state. However, changes to the structure of states resulting from decentralisation and globalisation have required a re‐conceptualisation of citizenship, as authority is dispersed, identities multiply and political entitlements vary across territorial levels. Decentralisation has endowed regions with control over a wide range of areas relating to welfare entitlements, education and cultural integration that were once controlled by the state. This has created a new form of ‘regional citizenship’ based on rights, participation and membership at the regional level. The question of who does or does not belong to a region has become a highly politicised question. In particular, this article examines stateless nationalist and regionalist parties' (SNRPs) conceptions of citizenship and immigration. Given that citizenship marks a distinction between members and outsiders of a political community, immigration is a key tool for deciding who is allowed to become a citizen. Case study findings on Scotland, Quebec and Catalonia reveal that although SNRPs have advocated civic definitions of the region and welcome immigration as a tool to increase the regional population, some parties have also levied certain conditions on immigrants' full participation in the regional society and political life as a means to protect the minority culture of the region.     

Modern post-colonial approaches to citizenship: Kwame Nkrumah’s political thought on Pan-Africanism

This project of critical citizenship studies and comparative political theory utilizes a framework of multiple modernities in order to deeply explore the ontological foundations and complexities of a non-Western conception of citizenship and nationhood: political pan-Africanism. It does so through a study of the political thought of Kwame Nkrumah, a deeply influential political theorist and actor, in the context of the Gold Coast’s struggle for independence and in the initial years of Ghanaian post-colonialism. How did Nkrumah conceive of Pan-Africanist citizenship and nationhood in political and ontological terms? How does this relate to both modern conceptions of citizenship as tied to the nation-state and traditional Ghanaian conceptions of citizenship and belonging? After considering these questions, this paper explores how Nkrumah’s vision of Pan-Africanism was influenced by, yet contradicted central tenets of, Western political thought and modernity. It explores the theoretical and practical tensions inherent between this non-Western conception of the nation and the dominance of aspects of ‘Western’ modernity. Exploring these questions through the lens of Nkrumah’s political thought offers an Afrocentric study in an effort to strengthen African historical agency and to deparochialize citizenship studies and political theory.     

Two hypotheses about the emergence of a post-national European model of citizenship

Citizenship is not just a status (defined by a set of rights and obligations), it is also an identity that expresses membership in a political community. It also has a substantive political dimension of active participation in the public sphere. Traditionally, collective identity and the membership dimensions of citizenship have been seen as intrinsic to the nation-state. The processes of globalization that have undermined the sovereignty of the nation-state make it necessary to reconceptualize citizenship in light of a ‘post-national’ framework. At the same time, however, the ‘culturalization’ of the social and the ‘multiculturalization’ of societies are putting into question the homogeneity of a collective identity. According to a recent hypothesis, a new post-national model of citizenship is emerging, one of European construction. In seeking to explore this position, the paper advances two additional hypotheses: (i) EU policy-making and governance are likely to foster a post-national European civil society with multi-level citizenship participation; and (ii) European anti-discrimination regulations are likely to accelerate the emergence of an alternative model to multiculturalism that can address differences within a universal framework of rights.     

The Measure of a Nation

In his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, and in several speeches in subsequent years, Enoch Powell claimed that immigration was an ‘issue of numbers’. Britain could not, he believed, accommodate a significant number of non‐white people without threatening the existence of the nation. I argue that Powell's opposition to immigration, and his numerical framing of it, rested upon his racialised conception of British, or English, nationhood. As he was shunned by political elites, Powell articulated an increasingly populist nationalism. Drawing repeated references to Britain's wartime experiences, Powell claimed that the British, or more often the English, were being attacked by an immigrant enemy without, and betrayed by an establishment enemy within. I conclude with some reflections on the similarities between Powellite nationalism and contemporary discourses about national identity during and since the European Union referendum.     

Making political citizens? Migrants’ narratives of naturalization in the United Kingdom*

Citizenship tests are arguably intended as moments of hailing, or interpellation, through which norms are internalized and citizen-subjects produced. We analyse the multiple political subjects revealed through migrants’ narratives of the citizenship test process, drawing on 158 interviews with migrants in Leicester and London who are at different stages in the UK citizenship test process. In dialogue with three counter-figures in the critical naturalization literature – the ‘neoliberal citizen’; the ‘anxious citizen’; and the ‘heroic citizen’ – we propose the figure of the ‘citizen-negotiator’, a socially situated actor who attempts to assert control over their life as they navigate the test process and state power. Through the focus on negotiation, we see migrants navigating a process of differentiation founded on pre-existing inequalities rather than a journey toward transformation.     

Ethnicizing citizenship,questioning membership. Explaining the decreasing family migration rights of citizens in Europe

Citizenship does not equal belonging. In this paper, we investigate how the disjunction between the ‘imagined community’ and the formal citizenry impacts on citizens’ rights. In particular, we analyse decision-making on the family migration rights of citizens in France, Germany and the Netherlands. Our analysis shows that in these three countries, notwithstanding their different migration and citizenship regimes, the reduction of citizens’ family migration rights is based on the same discursive mechanism: the ‘membership’ of citizens of migrant origin who marry a partner from abroad is called into question. As they are excluded from membership of the imagined community, their entitlement to family migration rights is decreased. Ethnic conceptions of national community, intersecting with gender and class, play a crucial role in shaping the rights attached to citizenship in Europe today.     

Bordering through domicide: spatializing citizenship in Calais

ABSTRACT

This paper examines domicidal practices against illegalized border crossers in Calais, France as a technology of citizenship and migration governance. It addresses recent calls to include actions and interventions which restrict citizenship in the context of illegalized migration within critical citizenship studies literature. Studying the state violence upholding and spatializing normative citizenship allows for a deeper understanding of citizenship’s implication in the European border regime, and raises questions on the concept’s continued application to theorizations of migrants’ political movements and spatial manifestations. The paper proposes anti-citizen politics as an alternative before arguing that the presence of this politics within the city’s squats and jungles, more than the physical occupations as such, is what the French state seeks to eradicate through acts of domicide. Working from empirical examples, the article describes a ‘carrot-and-stick’ domicide currently at work in Calais where the eviction and destruction of autonomous forms of migrant inhabitance is combined with a simultaneous offer of state managed accommodation. These tactics operate together to drive migrants out of the city of Calais, away from the UK border, and ultimately into a determination of their detain/deport-ability via citizenship’s scrutiny.     

Europe's could‐be demos: Recasting the debate

‘A great democratic revolution is taking place in our midst. ... Some think it a new thing and, supposing it an accident, hope that they can still check it; others think it irresistible, because it seems to them the most continuous, ancient, and permanent tendency known to history’.1 Thus wrote de Tocqueville in his much‐celebrated Democracy in America on the extension of democratic ideas across borders. This article is about a similar revolution which unfolds against the background of an ever‐more complex and sophisticated framework of political interactions: the European Union. Both processes point to the same desirable state of affairs ‐ democracy. The difference now is that we are witnessing the qualitative transformation of a system of democracies into a democratic system. Or, alternatively, of a plurality of detnoi into a pluralistic demos. It is to Europe's could‐be demos that we now turn, in an attempt to recast the debate of democracy and integration in the European Union of the 1990s.     

Towards cultural citizenship? Cultural rights and cultural policy in Taiwan

This article reviews existing literature on the construction of cultural citizenship, and argues that cultural citizenship expands the concept of ‘citizenship’, promotes citizens' consciousness and ensures the protection of minority rights. Since the 1990s, three cultural policies have arisen related to cultural citizenship in Taiwan: ‘Community Renaissance’, ‘Multicultural Policy’ and the ‘Announcement of Cultural Citizenship’. ‘Cultural citizenship’ has expanded the concept of citizenship in two ways. First, it has led to the consideration of the minority rights of Taiwanese indigenous peoples, the Hakkas, foreign brides and migrant workers in ‘citizenship’; and second, it has placed emphasis on ‘cultural rights’ in addition to civil rights, political rights and social rights. This article begins by exploring what approach to cultural citizenship is used in cultural policy, and what approach is suitable for practising cultural citizenship in Taiwan. I argue that minority groups practise their cultural rights with the public participation of Community Renaissance. Taiwan's case bears out Stevenson's view: a society of actively engaged citizens requires both the protection offered by rights and opportunities to participate. Finally, this article shows the challenges and contradictions of cultural citizenship in Taiwan: the loss of autonomy and the continuation of cultural inequality.     

European citizenship and political identity

A common European identity is necessary to support European citizenship. National identity does not represent a suitable model for European identity because it relies on elements of kinship, like ancestry, culture, language and traditions, which are not shared by all European citizens at the same time. Only a model of collective identity based on political association could bring together all the different European cultural and national identities. However, if we reject the national, culturally homogeneous model of identity in favour of an entirely political one, we are faced with the task of defining the substance of European political identity. The main purpose of this paper is to outline the essential elements of a European political identity, by looking at Europe's political and constitutional history and at the practice of citizenship in the European Union. European political identity and citizenship will be confronted with two major issues affecting the fields of identity and citizenship: pluralism and exclusion.     

Meso‐discourses,state forms and the gendering of liberal‐democratic citizenship

This article builds upon Michel Foucault's fleeting observation that ‘the state consists in the codification of a whole number of power relations’ and that ‘a revolution is a different type of codification of these same relations’ (Held et al., 1983, pp. 312–3). Specifically, the article uses the case of Canada to argue that distinct state forms rest on particular meso‐discourses which inform a logic of governance, historical configurations of the public and private and gendered citizenships. The meso‐discourses of separate spheres, liberal progressivism and performativity (the logics of governance for the laissez‐faire state, the Keynesian welfare state and the neo‐liberal state, respectively) have coded and recoded gendered citizenships, thereby providing women and men with differential access to the public sphere and to citizenship claims. The neo‐liberal state's meso‐discourse of performativity is especially challenging for women and all equity‐seeking groups because it prescribes the ascendency of market relations over political negotiation or ethical considerations, as well as the attrition of social and political citizenship rights. Social citizenship is being eclipsed by market citizenship.     

Towards a post-ethnic Europe

Martiniello looks at the ethnic and post-ethnic identities that are being created, reproduced and asserted in the European Union, and how they are linked to ideas about citizenship and belonging in a new type of political society that might be called a 'non-state'. His discussion falls into two parts. First, he presents a critical view of European culture, identity and citizenship as they are now, for the most part, conceived. He then briefly presents David Hollinger's view of post-ethnicity in the United States, and tries to see what we can learn from it for a European context. In conclusion, he claims that the post-ethnic perspective is a rich and normative one that can help us to envision a future democratic, multicultural and open Europe     

Two discourses of citizenship in Germany. The difference between public debate and administrative practice

The recent policy changes concerning immigration and citizenship in Germany are interpreted as outcomes of the conflicting interaction between public deliberations and administrative practices. While these changes were viewed by both the public and the state as responses to an emerging crisis of the stability of German nationhood, the public and the state placed the problems of migration and citizenship in a different context. The public debated these issues in the context of moral obligations resulting from a xenophobic past; the administrative system treated them in the context of the constitutional imperative to further the social integration of the residents of Germany. Further conflicts over these issues seem likely in Germany which has yet to adjust to a situation of continuous future immigration. This will put pressure on the public and the state to find new solutions to the problem of membership in the nation‐state.     

Tocqueville and Weber on the sociological origins of citizenship: The political culture of American democracy

While Alexis de Tocqueville's commentary on America is famous, Max Weber's is far less so. However, in scattered writings, he addresses two of the themes at the centre of Tocqueville's analysis of the ‘manners and mores’ of the American political culture: the potential for a ‘tyranny of the majority’ in the US and the critical role of civil associations. By reference to these two themes, this study seeks to examine the divergent perspectives of these classicial theorists upon the political culture of the US, contrast Tocqueville's more structural and interest‐based mode of analysis to Weber's emphasis upon the significance of values and beliefs, and comment upon, in light of the insights offered by both theorists, the sociological origins of citizenship. Unlike Tocqueville, Weber sees an odd juxtaposition—an accentuated, ‘world mastery’ individualism and an accentuated orientation to civic sphere ideals—at the centre of the American political culture.     

Regional politics: The European union and citizenship

This article examines the development of citizenship within the European Economic Community as a model for citizenship as such, within a global environment. In historical terms, citizenship evolved within the nation‐state, but the nation‐state, which is no longer valid as the exclusive model of economic development, may be inappropriate as a framework for social rights. The fluidity of labour within the European community means that traditional means of political representation within the nation‐state are irrelevant. Within a global context, the economic barriers which are required by nation‐states constitute political barriers to social rights through the vehicle of citizenship. The article considers the European experience of regional politics as lessons for citizenship reform in a global system.     

Avoiding the ‘joint-decision trap’: Lessons from intergovernmental relations in Scandinavia

Abstract. This essay provides a critical assessment of an important contribution to the debate on institutional efficiency and inefficiency in European policy–making: the thesis on the 'joint–decision trap'. This trap was identified by Fritz W. Scharpf, first in German federalism and later in policy–making in the European Union. The essay argues that joint–decision traps may be a much more prevalent phenomenon than envisaged by Scharpf. However, the essay demonstrates that joint–decision traps are not inherent to joint–decision systems. The basic argument of the essay is that the effects of joint–decision systems on public policy is contingent upon the central government's ability to threaten intergovernmental actors with exit. If this is possible, joint–decision systems turn into an asset. This argument is made on the basis of an analysis of intergovernmental relations in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and a comparison of the Scandinavian systems with those of France and Germany.