Dual Citizenship Debates in Armenia: In Pursuit of National Identity since Independence

Q2 Social Sciences
A. Harutyunyan
{"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. …
亚美尼亚的双重国籍之争:独立以来对国家认同的追求
摘要:自亚美尼亚独立以来,双重国籍一直是一个备受争议的问题。对亚美尼亚民族认同的不同看法在很大程度上导致了双重国籍政策的分歧。一方面,实用主义者强调国家安全问题,支持公民类型的国家认同,拒绝双重国籍。另一方面,民族主义者强调泛国家/族裔安全问题,赞同民族认同的族裔观点,并主张基于族裔标准的双重国籍。遵循自由民族主义的方法,本文认为,国家认同不仅仅是一个预先存在的种族或宗教的功能。它主要是一种政治现象,需要在一个有限的政治社区内分享政治经验。因此,给予具有不同政治经验和世界观的散居亚美尼亚人公民权,很可能会限制当地公民自决的能力,并将加剧现有的民主赤字和对政府普遍缺乏信任。关键词:亚美尼亚、民主、双重国籍、民族认同、民族主义者、实用主义者**********修宪是亚美尼亚的关键政治议题。(1)在修改后的宪法中没有包含的几项修改中,有一项是宪法第14条规定的禁止双重国籍的条款。亚美尼亚的双重国籍问题自独立以来一直是政治辩论的核心。正如国会副议长Ara Sahakyan在1994年宣布的那样,关于双重国籍和公民权利和义务的辩论将国会分成了两个极端。这篇文章讨论了两个相互关联的主题。首先,它将介绍1994年至2005年期间亚美尼亚官方和反对派对双重国籍的态度。本节将论述亚美尼亚的双重国籍辩论本质上是对民族认同的不同看法的结果。1998年以前的官方国家认同话语明显倾向于公民类型,而998年后的官方话语则倾向于民族认同的民族定义。大量关于公民身份的文献表明,由于全球化和人权的扩散等进程,公民身份和国籍之间的历史联系正在消失。这些进程的重要性和影响是不可否认的。然而,亚美尼亚的案例表明,当前关于公民身份的辩论也是关于国家地位的辩论。正如威廉·罗杰斯·布鲁贝克(William Rogers Brubaker)所说,关于公民身份的辩论“是关于在当今日益国际化的世界中,成为一个民族国家的一员意味着什么,以及应该意味着什么的辩论。”(4)此外,各国在采用国际规范和普遍权利的标准化语言的同时,能够根据国内优先事项和安全关切塑造和调整话语。其次,以自由民族主义理论为基础,对亚美尼亚的双重国籍进行论证。有人会说,只有在“道德共同体”内部存在信任的情况下,让步和宽容才有可能。“道德共同体”是指公民对彼此负有特殊的道德义务,而对外人没有特殊的道德义务的国家。(5)共同的国家认同感(基于共同的政治经历),以及对一个有限的政治共同体的归属感,有助于维持公民“接受民主决定的结果和自由正义的义务”所需的信任和团结。(6)关于国家认同的公民和民族类型学的一些理论思考自20世纪中叶以来,学者们将民族主义划分为西方/公民/自由主义和东方/民族/有机的定义。根据这一定义,出现于16世纪后期西欧和后来的北美的公民国家认同是基于个人自由、选择和理性世界主义的概念。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Demokratizatsiya
Demokratizatsiya Social 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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信