The Idea Of A Global Citizenship

The idea of a global citizenship

Historically, the term citizenship has relevance at the revolutionary cusp of the late 18´, that is, objects of power. For this, the idea of recognition of human dignity as an intrinsic element of the individual is solid and already established, a concept that excluded the structure of social slavery, whose parts did not achieve the categorization of “people as components of a community”.

Later the concept of citizenship is attributed to individuals within a space with aristocratic limitations, that is, that faculty depended on the status of the individual in society, so it is possible to refer to the qualification of an individual as a citizen, as a privilege of thesame. For example, in the Roman Empire, the one who belonged to an elite or the one who maintained a religious bond, equivalent hierarchy in later monarchies systems such as the nobility or clergy was qualified as a citizen.

However, those privileges attributed to aristocratic minorities have currently become rights, being equal to all in terms of accessibility, a factor that manages to modify the definition of citizenship as a social construction accompanied by inclusion and exclusion processes.

This is why today and after the inherent acceptance of political concepts as a State and sovereignty, the word citizenship refers to the “accumulation of rights and duties that each citizen has.”(Borja, 2012). However, the modernization of the same league its conceptualization as those rights endowed with each individual in relation to a sovereign territorial state government.

(Gildardo, 2004)

Thomas Marshall theorized in 1949, three factors that determine the action of citizen role in capitalist societies: the civil factor, where the individual has the right of the exercise of individual freedoms, the political factor, where the individual can choose and be democratically elected and finally, a social factor, which guarantees the individual a dignified life. (Parada, 2009)

Rodrigo Borja supports this conceptualization by exposing in the encyclopedia of politics that “each individual is attributed rights as politically active elements to their State, which are civil, social and political and rights inherent to the individual for their human quality”, a factor that factor thatIt allows us to introduce the concept of citizenship early as a global or cosmopolitan concept.

This categorization evokes a series of philosophical-political questions by introducing to the discussion the concept of a cosmopolitan citizenship, that is to say that borders crosses. So the citizen is contrasts as being inserted in a state, with the cosmopolitan citizen who presumes belonging to a supraestatal or legal political community. (Garcia, 2003 P.23)

Contemplating the concept of global citizenship as an ideal, has a root in the idea that this citizen qualification was completeresult of important war conflicts that would mark the history of the world as a social concept and of each state-nation as a political concept forever.

This idea materializes, for example, at the end of World War I with the creation of an institution called the Nations Society that is born in response to the need for an international system of political and citizen organization, which would perhaps be, perhaps,The first institution that perceived the idea of a globalized world. However, despite how positive this extemporaneous attribution to its time, the institution would fail to be criticized for its contradictory actions by sanctioning an important part of the great war conflict, isolating it of its rights with a reason for legal regulation.

Currently, despite having exceeded those inequalities that reigned in the monarchies, aristocracies and dictatorships, there are different forms of inequality and therefore of citizen organization in relation to their rights. On the one hand, thanks to civil rights, anyone who belongs to a qualified state-nation territory has the right of access to its basic services and freedoms of expression, but different social problems arise when evaluating the communities from a point ofView of active labor participation, citizen economic growth and maintenance of natural resources, that is, the level of access to institutions but the quality of the same is not evaluated.

For this, it is necessary to extrapolate citizen rights and categorize citizenship with differentiation, for example, of sociocultural and collectivities rights, the same that belong to different states or nations. The former refer to a global community and break with the basic characteristic of a human right to be different for each group that is qualified as a minority (hence the importance of equity differentiation as corresponding rights according to the individual and equality as thesame rights for all), and the latter refer to municipalities or legal personalities.

On the contrary to what is established above, establishing the definition of global citizenship as an unquestionable legal possibility would be to belitCulture and history.

In conclusion, it is possible to affirm that there is currently no State or Nation, that it is regulated by citizen laws that completely ignore the needs of their minorities of the elderly, women or people with different abilities, or groups with sociocultural differentiations and collectivities,That is, in order for a fair State to exist, inter and intrasocial inclusion and exclusion processes mustWe could in parallel establish the importance of a differentiation of global (or world) and local citizenship (or each state).