Many theorists concerned with the idea of ‘citizenship’ have trouble explaining the proper implementation of their ideas in the promotion of 'active citizenship'. These types of problems arise because, unlike ancient Greek or Roman times, modern citizens who do not see their involvement in politics as a necessary part of their identity or life. In other words, modern citizens may not see the incentive in their participation in politics because their individual impact will be minimal or irrelevant. Thus, it is easy to see why modern citizens can become disenfranchised and feel marginalized. The point is that it is difficult for modern citizens in a liberal democratic society to see their direct impact and easy to see why many are 'passive' rather than 'active' citizens.
Modern citizens differ from other citizens of the past because their identity is not directly tied to the political process. For example, politics will not define modern citizen but rather it is simply one of his or her many pursuits or interests. Active participation in the political process is not required of every individual in modern democracies and this further confirms the assumption that a single citizen cannot directly effect the political process.
Iris Young uses her example of a heterogeneous public, which would only be possible if every citizen possesses ‘public spiritedness.’ In other words, every citizen must be open to new ideas and perspectives which may be radically different than their own. These citizens must first be willing to participate. This is no easy undertaking. What makes the situation worse is that even if this ideal political setting was implemented, it would not necessarily ensure the active participation of the citizens in that setting.
This had led many contemporary political philosophers to analyze the necessary virtues a citizen must possess to promote this idea of active citizenship. Many of these philosophers have strongly emphasized the need for ‘public reasonableness,’ which means the ability to properly convey one’s beliefs while at the same time remaining open and sensitive to others beliefs. This includes a general willingness to listen to what may seem like absurd or even comical political beliefs.
Furthermore, if an individual does possess ‘public reasonableness,’ he or she must be able to distinguish between 'public' and 'private' beliefs. By ‘public’ beliefs I mean beliefs which directly effect the well being of the public at large in purely practical terms. For example, individuals of particular faiths have different belief systems but these ideas to not directly effect the well being of the public at large. To be more precise, health care, education, sports, civic engagement are public matters and should be deal with through a more ‘public perspective.’ These important matters should be considered more cautiously and empathetically and not selfishly. This requires an active engagement in politics and knowledge of the different cultures and beliefs involved.
I am not claiming that religious matters are irrelevant or that citizens do not have the right to religious expression. I am claiming that citizens should be aware that modern cultures are more diverse and pluralistic. Many countries in the world have progressively become more diverse. Thus, if citizens in these diverse countries and nations do not possess a certain amount public reasonableness, then their democracies may lead to tyranny and oppression. The idea of democracy requires a threshold of active citizens. This threshold is subjective but rather the point should be made that a certain number of "active" citizens are required for democracy to exist.
The virtues required of citizens in a modern democracy are usually referred to as ‘civic virtues.’ These virtues have naturally led many contemporary philosophers to re-emphasize the importance of education and its role in providing citizens with these important virtues.
Moreover, the idea that every citizen in a given society can possess public reasonableness is optimistic. I will not argue about the innate nature of human beings but it remains clear that societies obviously differ in their moral, political, philosophical, religious, sexual, cultural, artistic and conventional beliefs. The main thing to gather from this discussion is that this idea of civic engagement is extremely complex.
For the most part, citizens of modern democracy’s are less likely to meet in town halls, participate in a protest or even vote. These are only some of the core features of a democratic society. If citizens cannot see the effects of their active participation, then their desire to participate will substantially diminish. In turn, these citizens are less likely to see political involvement as a necessary part of their lives. Many of these citizens look to nationalism for a sense of identity and community.
Post-nationalists see nationalism as contingent and unnecessary for a functioning democracy. In other words, if a nation is truly democratic, then it can free itself from its history. They argue that not only is this possible but morally and pragmatically necessary to ensure the survival of democracy in a given society.
Historically, governments have used nationalism to mobilize its citizens by focusing on a given nation’s language, culture or history. However, modern democracies and other societies have become more diverse. This means that governments cannot use the idea of a shared sense of language or history to mobilize its citizens because a modern citizens’ share different languages and backgrounds.
This point shows how complex this idea of public reasonableness actually is because it raises many important questions. For example, if modern citizens share different languages, then how does the nation conduct political dialoges that are essential for democracy? Would it not be easier to simply implement a more common and universal language to promote these types of dialogs within and between various nations? This idea of a ‘common’ or ‘universal’ language is another example of the need for the differentiation between public and private beliefs. In other words, it is in a citizen’s public interest to learn the necessary common or universal language but against their private interests in maintaining their culture. The point is that the public interest should outweigh the private interest because it promotes commonality, empathy and more importantly democracy.
Modern democracies cannot sustain themselves if they continue to use nationalism as their means of mobilization to facilitate political participation. Many political philosophers have emphasized human rights as a natural progression from a more nationalistic conception of a democratic society. The majority can no longer impose its will on the minority because nations are more diverse. Thus, it is necessary to allow individual fractions within these societies to develop and formulate their own conceptions of the 'good' and 'just'. Eventually, along with a certain degree of public reasonableness, these different conceptions will evolve into universalism. Jurgen Habermas called this ‘constitutional patriotism’ because these different conceptions will be epitomized in a nations’ constitution. Finally, he argues that constitutional patriotism should replace nationalism.
The political process of democracy can reduce or eliminate the need for a commonality among its citizens. Habermas argues that because democracy is not tied to any particular culture, belief system or otherwise, it is alterable and adaptable to any culture and belief. This idea places the democratic political process on a pedestal. However, this emphasis on the democratic political process presupposes the existence of an active citizenry. Without an active citizenry, the democratic political process will cease to be representative and thus cease to be democratic.
To ensure the functionality of a democracy, citizens must see the idea of ‘citizenship’ as essential. These modern citizens must not only see active citizenship, along with ‘public reasonableness’, as essential for political rights but also essential in a social and cultural sense as well.
Liberal nationalists on the other hand believe that a successful democracy is only possible if its citizens are already enjoying mutual trust and respect. These types of welfare policies that democratic institutions are supposed to provide assistance to citizens in need. In other words, these policies can only be implemented if its citizens support these types of policies. This assumption arises out of empathy because a citizen would hope to receive the same type of assistance if they were ever in need of such assistance.
Moreover, liberal nationalist believe that it is not essential to remove a democracy’s history. They believe that this possibility is theoretically easy to say, yet much harder to accomplish. Furthermore, they do admit that although the existence of a democracy and it’s history are merely contingent and circumstantial, this does not necessarily mean we should erase or disassociate such a history. To simply assume that it is possible to eliminate a society’s history is to overstate the differentiation between politics and its cultural influence.
In any case, the majority will always feel uneasy in dealing with minorities. This does not imply that we should simply do away or neglect these minorities but rather provide a ‘thin conception of nationhood.’ Many have proposed a thin conception of nationhood which, whether post-nationalist or liberal nationalist, is adaptable and open to change. What is agreed upon is that citizens should be able to deliberate in public settings, which allows for a constant re-evaluation of a democracy’s goals and identity.
This idea of a thin conception of nationhood may not be too different from the post-nationalist because both focus on a commonality and integration. In contrast, liberal nationalists believe that culture cannot be easily removed from the political process. They are skeptical that democratic institutions alone can increase the level of active participation among its citizens. In other words, they claim that a shared sense of cultural identity is not necessary but rather is directly linked to the political process. Without a cultural identity it is difficult to assume that democratic institutions alone will produce an active citizenry.
No comments:
Post a Comment