{"title":"Dual Citizenship Debates in Armenia: In Pursuit of National Identity since Independence","authors":"A. Harutyunyan","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.283-302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Dual citizenship has been a highly contested issue in Armenia since independence. Contesting perceptions of Armenian national identity have largely contributed to diverging policies on dual citizenship. On the one hand, pragmatists have emphasized state security concerns, endorsed a civic type of national identity and rejected dual citizenship. Nationalists, on the other, have emphasized pan-national/ethnic security concerns, endorsed an ethnic vision of national identity and advocated dual citizenship based on ethnic criteria. Following a liberal nationalist approach, this article argues that national identity is not just a function of a pre-existing ethnicity or religion. It is primarily a political phenomenon and requires shared political experiences within a bounded political community. Therefore, granting citizenship to diaspora Armenians with different political experiences and worldviews most probably will restrict the capacity for self-determination among local citizens and will aggravate the existing democratic deficit and endemic lack of trust in government. Key words: Armenia, democracy, dual citizenship, national identity, nationalists, pragmatists ********** Constitutional amendments are a pivotal political issue for Armenia. (1) Among several changes that the amended constitution does not contain is a clause banning dual citizenship, specified in Article 14 of the constitution. (2) The issue of dual citizenship in Armenia has been at the heart of political debate since independence. As the National Assembly's (NA) Deputy Speaker, Ara Sahakyan, announced in 1994, debates around dual citizenship and citizens' rights and obligations divided the NA into two extreme poles. (3) This article discusses two interrelated themes. First, it will present official and opposition attitudes on dual citizenship in Armenia from 1994 to 2005. In this section it will be argued that the dual citizenship debate in Armenia is essentially a result of differing perceptions of national identity. While the pre-1998 official discourse on national identity clearly leaned toward a civic type, the post-998 official discourse is marked by a tendency toward an ethnic definition of national identity. A great deal of the literature on citizenship indicates that the historical link between citizenship and nationality is disappearing as a result of processes such as globalization and the proliferation of human rights. The importance and impact of those processes is undeniable. Yet the Armenian case indicates that the current debates on citizenship are also debates about nationhood. As William Rogers Brubaker argues, debates on citizenship \"are debates about what it means, and ought to mean, to be a member of a nation-state in today's increasingly international world.\" (4) Moreover, while adopting international norms and the standardized language of universal rights, states are in a position to mold and adjust the discourse to domestic priorities and security concerns. Second, based on the theory of liberal nationalism, an argument will be made against dual citizenship in Armenia. It will be argued that concessions and tolerance are possible only when there is trust within \"ethical communities,\" that is, states whose citizens have special moral obligations to each other, but not to outsiders. (5) The sense of shared national identity (based on shared political experiences), and belonging to a bounded political community, helps sustain the trust and solidarity needed for citizens \"to accept the results of democratic decisions and the obligations of liberal justice.\" (6) Some Theoretical Considerations on Civic and Ethnic Typology of National Identity Since the mid-twentieth-century, scholars have categorized nationalism based on a Western/civic/liberal and Eastern/ethnic/organic definition. According to this definition, civic national identity, which emerged in the late sixteenth-century in Western Europe, and later in North America, is based on concepts of individual liberty, choice, and rational cosmopolitanism. …","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"1 1","pages":"283-302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Demokratizatsiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.283-302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Abstract: Dual citizenship has been a highly contested issue in Armenia since independence. Contesting perceptions of Armenian national identity have largely contributed to diverging policies on dual citizenship. On the one hand, pragmatists have emphasized state security concerns, endorsed a civic type of national identity and rejected dual citizenship. Nationalists, on the other, have emphasized pan-national/ethnic security concerns, endorsed an ethnic vision of national identity and advocated dual citizenship based on ethnic criteria. Following a liberal nationalist approach, this article argues that national identity is not just a function of a pre-existing ethnicity or religion. It is primarily a political phenomenon and requires shared political experiences within a bounded political community. Therefore, granting citizenship to diaspora Armenians with different political experiences and worldviews most probably will restrict the capacity for self-determination among local citizens and will aggravate the existing democratic deficit and endemic lack of trust in government. Key words: Armenia, democracy, dual citizenship, national identity, nationalists, pragmatists ********** Constitutional amendments are a pivotal political issue for Armenia. (1) Among several changes that the amended constitution does not contain is a clause banning dual citizenship, specified in Article 14 of the constitution. (2) The issue of dual citizenship in Armenia has been at the heart of political debate since independence. As the National Assembly's (NA) Deputy Speaker, Ara Sahakyan, announced in 1994, debates around dual citizenship and citizens' rights and obligations divided the NA into two extreme poles. (3) This article discusses two interrelated themes. First, it will present official and opposition attitudes on dual citizenship in Armenia from 1994 to 2005. In this section it will be argued that the dual citizenship debate in Armenia is essentially a result of differing perceptions of national identity. While the pre-1998 official discourse on national identity clearly leaned toward a civic type, the post-998 official discourse is marked by a tendency toward an ethnic definition of national identity. A great deal of the literature on citizenship indicates that the historical link between citizenship and nationality is disappearing as a result of processes such as globalization and the proliferation of human rights. The importance and impact of those processes is undeniable. Yet the Armenian case indicates that the current debates on citizenship are also debates about nationhood. As William Rogers Brubaker argues, debates on citizenship "are debates about what it means, and ought to mean, to be a member of a nation-state in today's increasingly international world." (4) Moreover, while adopting international norms and the standardized language of universal rights, states are in a position to mold and adjust the discourse to domestic priorities and security concerns. Second, based on the theory of liberal nationalism, an argument will be made against dual citizenship in Armenia. It will be argued that concessions and tolerance are possible only when there is trust within "ethical communities," that is, states whose citizens have special moral obligations to each other, but not to outsiders. (5) The sense of shared national identity (based on shared political experiences), and belonging to a bounded political community, helps sustain the trust and solidarity needed for citizens "to accept the results of democratic decisions and the obligations of liberal justice." (6) Some Theoretical Considerations on Civic and Ethnic Typology of National Identity Since the mid-twentieth-century, scholars have categorized nationalism based on a Western/civic/liberal and Eastern/ethnic/organic definition. According to this definition, civic national identity, which emerged in the late sixteenth-century in Western Europe, and later in North America, is based on concepts of individual liberty, choice, and rational cosmopolitanism. …
DemokratizatsiyaSocial Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
Occupying a unique niche among literary journals, ANQ is filled with short, incisive research-based articles about the literature of the English-speaking world and the language of literature. Contributors unravel obscure allusions, explain sources and analogues, and supply variant manuscript readings. Also included are Old English word studies, textual emendations, and rare correspondence from neglected archives. The journal is an essential source for professors and students, as well as archivists, bibliographers, biographers, editors, lexicographers, and textual scholars. With subjects from Chaucer and Milton to Fitzgerald and Welty, ANQ delves into the heart of literature.