We must rethink citizenship as an emancipatory instrument

The concept of citizenship has evolved significantly, originating in the city-states of ancient Greece and the republics or ganas of ancient India to become the cornerstone of modern nation-states in the 20th century. From its inception, citizenship was exclusionary, restricted in the Greek city-states to free, native-born males, excluding women, slaves and foreigners. Over time, the concept has undergone several transformations. Acknowledging its long history of advances and regressions, it is crucial that we reimagine citizenship to break free from its past constraints and embrace more emancipatory futures.

The early decades of the 21st century have witnessed a troubling rise in chauvinism and xenophobia, conflicts over resources, wars, forced displacements — including those driven by climate change — and increasing hostility towards migrants and refugees. Together, these factors have fuelled exclusionary ideologies and the denial of citizenship and the rights it entails.

The social struggles of the past century have largely focused on expanding substantive citizenship — rights, entitlements, welfare and inclusion — for those historically excluded. These struggles have brought small but significant gains, particularly for marginalised groups such as women, the descendants of freed slaves and those at the bottom of racial and caste hierarchies, including Indigenous and tribal communities. These advancements have introduced additional rights and protections for the oppressed.

To address inequalities within liberal democracies, some have argued for differentiated citizenship, which involves granting additional or withholding specific legal or constitutional rights to groups or individuals. In its progressive dimension, differentiated citizenship provides pathways to address historical oppression and social injustices through protective and affirmative measures.

The principles of differentiated citizenship have been institutionalised in various forms, such as treaties with First Nations and affirmative action enshrined in the constitutions of several nations. These measures have provided vulnerable groups with a degree of protection and inclusion. 

However, the promises of liberty and equality remain unfulfilled or only partially realised for many. Marginalised groups, such as Indigenous peoples in the Americas, Aboriginal communities in Australia and Indonesia, the Romani in Europe and Dalits and nomadic tribes in South Asia, continue to live as “second-class citizens,” as reflected in social and economic indicators. 

Their frustrations with citizenship have led to demands for further affirmative actions, political representation, reparations and autonomy. Dr B R Ambedkar’s warning to the Indian Constituent Assembly — that without social democracy rooted in liberty, equality and fraternity, political democracy would be meaningless — remains pertinent.

Differentiated citizenship also draws strength from notions of birth or nativity as the basis for citizenship. The argument of “original inhabitants” as the first citizens has energised the struggles of Indigenous peoples and others in settler-colonial and nation-state contexts. Anti-colonial movements in the 20th century, however, left the fate of indigenous peoples in the settler colonies of the Americas, Australasia and Southern Africa largely unresolved and pushed to the margins, without fully addressing the need to differentiate and thus protect the “original inhabitants” and “native” populace from those who came later to occupy or settle on their lands. Decolonisation movements, such as “land back” campaigns, seek to rectify these injustices, as exemplified by Zimbabwe’s land redistribution efforts under Robert Mugabe.

Nonetheless, the reliance on birth as a determinant of citizenship excludes millions of stateless individuals, refugees and those deemed a sovereign risk. In his essay Beyond Human Rights, Giorgio Agamben critiques the conflation of nativity with nationality and citizenship, highlighting the refugee as a figure that challenges the traditional state-nation-territory paradigm. In 2020, an estimated 82.4 million people globally were refugees, a number likely to rise due to climate change. Citizenship based on birth fails to address the realities faced by modern societies.

In its regressive dimension, differentiated citizenship has also been used to deny rights to groups and individuals. This has become particularly concerning in the 21st century, driven by rising inequalities, economic displacements, fear of refugees and recurrent economic crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic. These conditions have fuelled xenophobic and chauvinistic movements, threatening to undo the modest progress achieved for marginalised communities.

The growing trend of terminating or revoking citizenship, often triggered by conflicts and contestations, is alarming. While this practice is not new — thousands were denaturalised during World War II — it has taken on new trajectories in recent times. For instance, the German government recently enabled the revocation of citizenship for former “Islamic State” fighters. Similarly, Denmark and Australia have adopted such measures. 

The cases of ISIS-affiliated individuals like Shamima Begum and Hoda Muthana are particularly well-known. In the United Kingdom, the revocation of citizenship increased by 600 per cent in 2019. Meanwhile, the 47th President of the United States has proposed ending automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants, contradicting the provisions of a 19th-century constitutional amendment.

These actions, often justified on the grounds of “risk,” fail to address the underlying issues. Instead, they create stateless individuals and perpetuate a hierarchical human rights system that distinguishes between for two "forms of life", “citizens” and “undesirables,” the “parasite” and the alien. This practice fosters what has been termed “graduated citizenship,” where certain groups enjoy preferential treatment, driven by market demands, while others are excluded. Revocations and selective grants of citizenship undermine inclusivity and must be replaced to prevent racialised and majoritarian futures for citizenship.

As Hannah Arendt observed, “To be stripped of citizenship is to be stripped of worldliness…. A man who is nothing but a man has lost the very qualities which make it possible for other people to treat him as a fellow man… they could live and die without leaving any trace, without having contributed anything to the common world.” This profound observation highlights the urgent need for nation-states to reimagine citizenship.

Nation-states today must challenge the traditional frameworks of citizenship rooted in birthright and selective inclusivity driven by short-term economic or political agendas. Without this reimagining, the pursuit of justice risks exacerbating exclusions, retributions and forced displacements across continents. Decolonisation efforts will remain incomplete and millions of refugees, particularly those affected by climate change and minority persecution, will continue to live in precarity, outside the protection of “citizenship registers.”

An international agreement is urgently needed — not just to ensure humane treatment for refugees, but to guarantee full and protective citizenship for all who seek refuge from disasters and persecution. Articles 14 and 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide a foundation for such a framework: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” “Everyone has the right to a nationality.” “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” It needs realisation on ground.

Denials of rights and justice to the indigenous peoples, the “original inhabitants” and all the “second class” citizens today, descendants of those who never had protections in the past, need to be redressed. With the diversities across contexts, these include, at the very least, the indigenous peoples, those suffering racial oppression — among the descendants of slaves, people at the lowest end of the caste spectrum, nomads and de-notified tribes, LGBTQI + persons and religious minorities. Joining these ranks of the second class citizenry are also the 2 billion migrant and informal workers of the world, whose spectre of precarity was on open display during the pandemic. 

Here the progressive aspects of differentiated citizenship in the spirit of positive affirmation are much needed. Under threat of dismantling from privileged classes, positive affirmation policies and programmes need further protection, nurture, newer expansion and committed realisation on the ground. Today's nation-states need to stand strong not to give in to "majoritarian, supremacist logic” and be committed to securing a just and equal future for all. What is needed is the birth of emancipatory futures and socialisation of democracies, where "the principle of one person, one value” drives action.

A new world order at its core necessitates a new and inclusive imagination of citizenship to escape the prisons of history and create emancipatory futures.

Sandeep Chachra is anthropologist and Executive Director of ActionAid Association, the author is also the Managing Editor of Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy. 

Views are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of the organisations represented or Down To Earth