Citizenship

If we accept that need for an organized authority contributed in the emergence of the state, then relationship between the people and the organized authority of the State needs to be defined. It is possible that in early history, loyalty might have been due to tribal or clan or religious affiliations. Due to forced subjection, as it happened in forced occupation or colonialism or despotic rule, in place of loyalty, obedience of the subjects might have been ensured by use of force. While the people render loyalty and obedience to the central authority, the latter is required to provide rights, liberty and protection. It is required to identify those whom the State can trust as loyal and force them to willingly obey its laws as well as confer rights, liberty and protection. Initially, this might have been tribal group or clan where people might not have a territorial nature. Later on, residence/domicility in a demarcated territory might have become a critical element for defining people under a particular authority. The concept of citizenship emerges. Citizens are territorially demarcated people with defined rights and obligations to a central authority. We have argued that in contemporary times, citizenship is an important element of the nation-state.

MacIver feels that citizenship alone does not ensure that the state serves all the interests of the citizens. He treats citizenship as a purely political relationship, which neither engulfs all loyalties of the individuals to the state nor serves all their interests. For MacIver, individual’s interests are reflected in various associations. Without disagreeing with MacIver’s pluralist perspective, one can argue that the idea of citizenship does provide a basis of unity for associating people with a political organization.