Commonwealth citizenship: Is there such a status?

Eris D. Schoburgh, Contributor

The first Commonwealth Conference, organised by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in collaboration with the Commonwealth Foundation and the Institute of Commonwealth Studies was held November 10-12, at Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, United Kingdom, at which many of the current award holders, from across the Commonwealth member states were in attendance.

The aim of the conference was to explore what it means to be a citizen of the Commonwealth in the 21st century, on the basis that issues pertaining to citizenship status were given short shrift in the Communiqué of the 2009 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

Moreover, it was acknowledged that a citizenship status that allows populations of member states to maximise their individual potential and contribute to shaping the future of their countries is a necessary precondition for the achievement of Commonwealth goals in areas of democracy, sustainable development, human rights, combating corruption and tackling climate change.

Of course, all the presenters made a fair attempt at tackling at least one of the aforementioned issues drawing on relevant empirical examples, but steered clear of issues such as, immigration, movement of persons across member states and the informal economy, that in my view, are contentious yet critical to understanding the meaning and forms of citizenship within the Commonwealth.

A subliminal message of the conference, at least my interpretation of the events, appears to be advocacy for the recognition and acceptance of the notion of Commonwealth citizenship, perhaps as a vehicle for promoting a collective response to climate change and adaptation. Yet such a status is not merely problematic to substantiate, but trivialises the different realities of citizenship within the 54-member states of the Commonwealth and which has provoked this article.

Citizenship

Citizenship is a status acquired through two primary means - birth or naturalisation. By being ascribed the status of citizen, an individual can make certain claims on a state or government, and in return, the individual assumes certain duties and responsibilities, the most common being to pay taxes. Citizenship status has three fundamental characteristics: (a) it is attached to a territory (state); (b) it is conferred by a government; and (c) it has a structure - rights and responsibilities. Further the overarching normative foundation of citizenship status is equality of membership in a particular political community, substantiated by the rights and freedoms that are attached.

These rights and freedoms pre-supposedly counterbalance what would otherwise be the perverse impact on society of those who are privileged by their natural abilities, or have access to endowments such as wealth (inherited or acquired) and social status, and educational attainment, etc. Essentially, citizenship status represents a social contract between the state (government) and an individual, set within a relationship based on the principle of reciprocity.

Non-existent

When the notion of Commonwealth citizenship is held against the aforementioned values, it is clear that such a status is rendered non-existent. And the associative character of the relationship among member states makes such an idea even more spurious, in the absence of agreed protocols on what aspects of citizenship will be realised beyond the boundaries of the member state á la what pertains in the European Union.

Globalization and citizenship status

Granted the phenomenon of globalisation, this has exaggerated the discrepancies that already exist between formal citizenship status (i.e., juridical dimension) and substantive citizenship (i.e., psychosocial dimension). For as we know, one's socio-economic experience is the most direct means through which citizenship status is validated, and this experience varies between persons and among groups, for a myriad of reasons but which is a key determinant of the degree of attachment that an individual has to a geographic space or the sense of belonging that one feels in a political community.

Frequent use of labels, such as global, international and cosmopolitan citizenship, like Commonwealth citizenship, seems an attempt to illustrate perceptions of decline in the psychosocial dimension of citizenship and the concomitant increase in the movement of persons across state borders. However, these labels are mere examples of social construction employed by commentators who seek to understand the evolving relationship between the individual and the state. They are instruments of analysis rather than representations of reality. For research shows that more than 80 per cent of the persons in Commonwealth member states live and die in the country in which they were born. Nor is movement of persons, at least a small group, a useful indicator of a new sense of belonging to, or new-found identity with elsewhere.

And, even if one accepts that populations have become more itinerant as a consequence of globalisation, it is uncertain how ease of movement is enabled under the rubric of Commonwealth citizenship, where an estimated 61 per cent of the population within the Commonwealth is unable to travel to another member state, on account of the restrictive visa regimes that have been implemented.

Source of inequality

If there is such a status as Commonwealth citizenship, it applies to a small number of countries within the Commonwealth, whose population, in addition to having 'free' movement, can exercise certain rights and have access to certain entitlements. This is not the case for the majority. On that basis, the notion of Commonwealth citizenship negates the fundamental value of equality on which citizenship is predicated, and is more a source of inequality for a significant number of persons.

Not only for the fact that in the practice of state relations citizenship that is derived from developed member states is accorded a higher worth over those from the developing states, and even within this latter group the degree of 'Commonwealthness' varies between countries.

The fact that Jamaicans are subject to biometric scanning when they seek to travel to the United Kingdom and Trinidadians are exempt, or are not even required to acquire a visa bears relevance here. Further, within developing member states, the ability to acquire such a status in another country is held as the new social status symbol by a small elite, to which status the lumpen aspires. The result - frustration, alienation and ultimately social exclusion.

Eris D. Schoburgh (PhD) is a lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI and Commonwealth Fellow at the University of Manchester, UK. Comments can be emailed to: eris.schoburgh02@uwimona.edu.jm, eris.schoburgh@manchester.ac.uk or columns@gleanerjm.com.