by Citizens' Income Trust | Oct 5, 2015 | Opinion
John Clarke, Kathleen Coll, Evelina Dagnino and Catherine Neveu, Disputing Citizenship, Policy Press, 2014, viii + 214 pp, hbk, 1 4473 1252 9, £70, pbk, 1 4473 1253 6, £21.99
The authors of this book come from the UK, the USA, Brazil, and France, and in all of these countries they find evidence for their major contention: that there is so much conflict over the keyword ‘citizenship’ because citizenship is a focus for conflict within society – which of course makes conflict over the idea different in each of the four countries. Citizenship therefore has no fixed or ‘proper’ meaning, but instead has a diverse history of complex meanings – click here to learn more about citizenship and immigration laws.
In recent years, the broader definition of what it means to be a citizen of a particular location have changed. For example wealthy investors can now acquire Dominica citizenship by investment real estate. Other locations around the globe also offer similar citizenship by investment strategies and motives.
In their first chapter the authors ‘recentre’ citzenship to the margins of society where people do not experience the full benefits of their or others’ understandings of citizenship.
Citizenship is both exclusionary and aspirational, the object of desire and the product of dispute, as well as a dispute in itself. (p.49)
In the second chapter they ‘decentre’ citizenship by showing how its connection to a variety of social actors decentres it from state governments and bureaucracies. Citizenship therefore becomes less of a legal status and more of a discourse about the relative strengths of different political and social actors. The authors might usefully have mentioned the Scottish independence referendum as a location for conflict over citizenship and – whichever side had won – as a decentring of citizenship from Westminster.
The third chapter shows how diverse the many locations of citizenship discourse are, and how this means that the concept is always under construction and never in any sense fully defined. The UK in particular represents a patchwork of levels at which citizenship is exercised and contested: the UK, its four separate nations, local government, and such institutions as schools: and here we see most clearly the authors’ understanding of citizenship as a social process rather than as a legal status (which for most people living in England it is only in an ambiguous form anyway, because we are the subjects of a monarch and without a legally defined citizenship – except for immigrants who have passed the citizenship test and attended a town hall ceremony and are therefore in some ways more ‘citizens’ than the rest of us).
Given the authors’ agenda it is no surprise that the book is ‘undisciplined’, by which the authors mean that it does not fit neatly into such disciplines as political economy, but instead wanders across disciplinary boundaries in order to understand the conflicts around citizenship and the context-specific nature of understandings of it. Where the authors do find coherent theories of citizenship (for instance, Marshall’s), they show that such theories are as context-specific as the conflicts around citizenship.
This book is seriously interesting to those of us committed to debate on the desirability and feasibility of a Citizen’s Income – whether or not we call an unconditional and nonwithdrawable income for every individual a Citizen’s Income or a Basic Income – because a nation state’s definition of citizenship will influence who in that state’s territory (and outside it) will receive a Citizen’s Income, and the granting of a Citizen’s Income will affect that nation’s understanding of citizenship. Means-tested and contributory benefits systems fragment the population of a country. A Citizen’s Income would go to every legal resident (and perhaps in some cases to people living abroad), so citizenship at every societal level would inevitably become more inclusive.
The ways in which benefits systems are determined by a country’s diverse understandings of citizenship, and the ways in which a benefits system in turn contributes to understandings of citizenship, would be a fascinating future project for the authors of this book.
[This review was first published in the Citizen’s Income Newsletter, 2015, issue 3.]
by Stanislas Jourdan | Oct 3, 2015 | News
Last week (Sept 23rd 2015) the Swiss Parliament voted for a motion calling on the Swiss people to reject the Popular Initiative for Unconditional Basic Income.
Update: the date of the referendum has be set to 5th June 2016
After hours of debate, the National council (the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland) voted for a recommendation by the ruling party to reject the popular initiative for unconditional basic income after six hours of debate.
The motion was passed with a large majority (146 votes), with only a minority of 14 MPs supporting the initiative and 12 abstentions (see the detailed vote report here).
“The most dangerous and harmful initiative ever”
Basic income was opposed by all political groups, but the harshest critics came from the Centre and Right-wing parties. Sebastian Frehner (Centrist) described the initiative as “the most dangerous and harmful initiative that has ever been submitted,” mentioning the risks of immigration, disincentive to work, and that the basic income proposed would not be financeable anyway.
For similar reasons, the Liberal party spokesman Daniel Stolz described the initiative as “intellectually stimulating,” but that it is also a “cocked hand grenade that threatens to tear the whole system to pieces.” His party colleague Ausserrhoden Andrea Caroni spoke of basic income as a “bomb in the heart of our society and our economy.”
The most noticeable supporter of basic income was probably the Socialist MP Silvia Schenker who argued that basic income was the answer to the complexity and loopholes of the current welfare system and a better way to integrate the people “who have no place in the world of work.”
This was not enough however to convince the Greens and other Socialists. “The Greens support the objectives of the Popular Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income, but as it stands, it endangers our social system,” said Christian van Singer, spokesperson for the Greens. He argued that while one goal of the initiative is to simplify the social system, “it could level down the benefit system to the detriment of those who do not find work or cannot work.”
Similarly, the Socialist MP Jean-Christophe Schwaab said he opposed basic income because it could be a pretext to dismantle the welfare system and reduce wages.
Politicians dismiss it, electors like it
Basic income campaigners just published a new book and distributed in front of the Parliament.
Ironically, while politicians were voting against basic income by a large majority, an online poll (Tagesanzeiger.ch) showed that 49% of the Swiss would vote in favour, while 43% are against it, and another 8% said it depends on the amount.
The general outcome of the six-hour session was not a surprise. The strong opposition to basic income followed a similar opinion from the Federal Council (the executive branch of government) which rejected the initiative in August 2014. Earlier this year the two relevant parliamentary committees on social affairs had also recommended opposition to the initiative. The Upper chamber of the Parliament will deliberate on the issue over the winter.
Under the Swiss Constitution, all citizens’ initiatives that collect more than 100,000 signatures get the right to have a referendum. However, this referendum only takes place after a series of official deliberations in the Federal Council and the National Council. In practice, this can allow the legislative power to immediately adopt into law proposed citizens’ initiatives if representatives agree with it, thus accelerating the process.
This vote is therefore not decisive, it is only a recommendation. Whatever the politicians decide, a nationwide referendum will be organised for 2016.
The Popular Initiative for Unconditional Basic Income was launched in March 2012 and successfully collected 125,000 signatures by October 2014.
“Politicians are afraid of the People”
Despite the unsuccessful vote in Parliament, “The debate was good for the idea and the movement for Basic Income,” wrote basic income campaigner Che Wagner in a column for the Swiss newspaper Tages Woches.
Wagner said the debate revealed how afraid politicians are of the people: “Among the political class, the fear has spread, a threat has been identified: they are afraid of the people of this country and their potential epidemic laziness. Until the referendum in Autumn 2016 we will find out whether and how much these dangerous people are afraid of themselves too.”
by Toru Yamamori | Sep 19, 2015 | News
The home page of the ‘International Basic Income Week‘ features the interview with Enno Schmidt, co-initiator of the Swiss Citizen’s Initiative.
The initiative collected about 126,000 signatures for demanding to include a basic income in the Swiss constitution. A national referendum on this will take place in 2016.
The interview was conducted in German and translated to English by Manja Taylor.
by Karl Widerquist | Sep 17, 2015 | News
international basicincome week
International Basic Income Week from 2008 until today: How did it all start?
Basicincomeweek.org is finding out what is happening with Basic Income initiatives around the world, regarding International Basic Income Week and beyond.
The organization is talking with the people who brought International Basic Income Week to life and who have made it into the international event it is today. It all started with local events that everyone is invited to join.
Then Basic Income Week is talking with activists of countries taking part for the first time in 2015. Later on there will be interviews with initiatives that are otherwise significantly contributing to worldwide Unconditional Basic Income.
Basic Income Week has interviews with:
Further interviews to expect:
- 18th September: Enno Schmidt, Swiss Referendum campaign
- Pastor Diergaardt, Chairperson of BIG Coalition, Namibia
by Toru Yamamori | Sep 15, 2015 | News
Enno Schmidt, co-founder of the Swiss basic income initiative, made a film on Jae-Myeong Lee, the mayor of Seongnam City, talking his plan for ‘Youth Dividend’.
Jae-Myeong Lee wants to introduce a basic income for the young people in his city, a city of one million inhabitants, 30 km southeast of the capital Seoul. While he was working on this he heard from Prof. Kang Nam-Hoon, a pioneer of the basic income movement in South Korea, about the idea of an unconditional basic income. For Lee this idea is linked with democracy. He expects and hopes that Switzerland will take the first steps in this direction with the upcoming 2016 referendum. He said this would make it easier for other countries to follow and would be a big help for him as welll. The youth basic income in Seongnam City could be a first step in South Korea for further steps towards the introduction of an unconditional basic income for everyone in the country.
Geum Min and Enno Schmidt interviewed the mayor on 19th June 2015, during the International Basic Income Conference in Seoul. This was held as a prelude to the next Basic Income Earth Network Congress, to be held summer 2016 in Seoul.
A film by Enno Schmidt, 8 Min.
In Korean with English subtitles.
English translation by Ji-Young Moon and Barb Jacobson
