Chapter Four

State,
Government
and
Citizenship
 The term ‘state’ has been used to refer to a
bewildering range of things: a collection of
institutions, a territorial unit, a philosophical idea,
an instrument of coercion or oppression, and so on.
 This confusion stems, in part, from the fact that the
state has been understood in four quite different
ways; from an idealist perspective, a functionalist
perspective, an organizational perspective and an
international perspective
 The idealist approach to the state is most clearly
reflected in the writings of Hegel. Hegel identified
three moments of social existence: the family, civil
society and the state.
 Within the family, he argued, a particular altruism
operates that encourages people to set aside their own
interests for the good of their children or elderly
relatives.
 In contrast, civil society was seen as a sphere of
‘universal egoism’ in which individuals place their own
interests before those of others.
 Hegel conceived of the state as an ethical community
underpinned by mutual sympathy – ‘universal altruism’.
 The drawback of idealism, however, is that it fosters an
uncritical reverence for the state and, by defining the
state in ethical terms, fails to distinguish clearly
between institutions that are part of the state and
those that are outside the state.
 Functionalist approaches to the state focus on the role or purpose of
state institutions.
 The central function of the state is invariably seen as the
maintenance of social order.
 state being defined as that set of institutions that uphold order and
deliver social stability. Such an approach has, for example, been
adopted by neo-Marxists (see p. 64), who have been inclined to see
the state as a mechanism through which class conflict is ameliorated
to ensure the long-term survival of the capitalist system.
 The weakness of the functionalist view of the state, however, is that
it tends to associate any institution that maintains order (such as the
family, mass media, trade unions and the church) with the state
itself.
 This is why, unless there is a statement to the contrary, an
organizational approach to the definition of the state is adopted
throughout this book.
 The organizational view defines the state as the apparatus
of government in its broadest sense;
 As that set of institutions that are recognizably ‘public’, in
that they are responsible for the collective organization of
social existence and are funded at the public’s expense.
 The virtue of this definition is that it distinguishes clearly
between the state and civil society. The state comprises the
various institutions of government: the bureaucracy, the
military, the police, the courts, and the social security
system and so on;
 It can be identified with the entire ‘body politic’. The
organizational approach allows us to talk about ‘rolling
forward’ or ‘rolling back’ the state, in the sense of
expanding or contracting the responsibilities of the state,
and enlarging or diminishing its institutional machinery.

The international approach to the state views it primarily as
an actor on the world stage; indeed, as the basic ‘unit’ of
international politics. This highlights the dualistic structure of
the state; the fact that it has two faces, one looking outwards
and the other looking inwards.

Whereas the previous definitions are concerned with the
state’s inward-looking face, its relations with the individuals
and groups that live within its borders, and its ability to
maintain domestic order, the international view deals with the
state’s outward-looking face, its relations with other states
and, therefore, its ability to provide protection against external
attack.

The classic definition of the state in international law is found
in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of the
State (1933).

According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, the
state has four features: a defined territory, permanent
population, an effective government and sovereignty. Let us
now discuss details of the above-mentioned attributes as
follows:

Population: Since state is a human association, the first
essential element that constitutes it is the people. How
much people constitute state? No exact number can be
given to such a question.

The fact is that the states of the world vary in terms of
demographic strength. There are states with a population of
greater than 1 billion like that of China and India, and with a
constituency of few thousand people like Vatican and San
Marino.
 Another question that comes up at this stage is
whether the population of a state should be
homogenous. Homogeneity is determined by any
factor like commonness of religion, or blood, or
language or culture and the like. It is good that
population of a state is homogeneous, because it
makes the task of national integration easy. But it is not
must, because most of the states have a population
marked by diversity in respect of race, religion,
language, culture, etc. All problems of nation building
are solved and people of a state, irrespective of their
differences, become a nation. It signifies the situation
of ‘unity in diversity’.

In short, it is to be noted that without population there can be no
state, ‘it goes without saying that an uninhabited portion of the
earth, take in itself, cannot form a state.

Defined Territory: There can be no state without a territory of its
own. The territory of a state includes land, water, and airspace; it
has maritime jurisdiction extending up to a distance of three
miles, though some states contend for a distance of up to 20
miles.

The territorial authority of a state also extends to ships on high
seas under its flag as well as its embassies and
legations/diplomat’s residence in foreign lands.

As seen in the case of the factor of population, so here it should
be emphasized that the size of a state’s territory cannot be fixed.

There are as large states as China and Russia and as small states
of Fiji and Mauritius in respect of their territorial make-up.
 It also possible that states may be in the form of
islands as Indonesia, Philippines, and Japan. It is,
however, certain that the boundary lines of a state
must be well marked out. This can be done either by
the geographical make up in the form of division by the
seas, rivers, mountains, thick forests, deserts, etc., or it
may be done by creating artificial divisions in the form
of digging trenches or fixing pointed wire fencing.
 Government: Government is said to be the soul of the
state. It implements the will of the community. It
protects the people against conditions of insecurity. If
state is regarded as the first condition of a civilized life,
it is due to the existence of a government that
maintain law and order and makes ‘good life’ possible.
 The government is the machinery that terminates the
condition of anarchy. It is universally recognized that as
long as there are diverse interests in society, some
mechanism is needed to bring about and maintain a
workable arrangement to keep the people together.
 The government of a state should be so organized that
it enforces law so as to maintain the conditions of
peace and security. The form of government may be
monarchical, aristocratic, oligarchic, democratic, or
dictatorial and the like, what really needed is that if
there is no government, there is anarchy and the state
is at an end.
 Sovereignty: As already pointed out, sovereignty is the
fourth essential attribute of the concept state.
 It is the highest power of the state that distinguishes it
from all other associations of human beings.
Sovereignty, in its simplest sense, is the principle of
absolute and unlimited power.
 It has two aspects - Internal and External. Internal
Sovereignty implies that inside the state there can be
no other authority that may claim equality with it. The
state is the final source of all laws internally.
 On the other hand, External sovereignty implies that
the state should be free from foreign control of any
kind.
 It is, however, a different matter that a state willingly
accepts some international obligations in the form of
membership to some international intergovernmental
and other organizations such as the United Nations
 Conceptually, the existence of sovereign authority
appears in the form of law. It is for this reason that the
law of the state is binding on all and its violation is
resulted with suitable punishment. It is universally
accepted that a sovereign state is legally competent to
issue any command that is binding on all citizens and
their associations.
 In addition to the essential attributes of the state
agreed in the 1933, the contemporary political
theorists and the UN considered recognition as the
fifth essential attribute of the state. This is because, for
a political unit to be accepted as a state with an
‘international personality’ of its own, it must be
recognized as such by a significant portion of the
international community.
 It is to mean that, for a state to be legal actor in the
international stage; other actors (such as other states,
international-intergovernmental and non-
governmental organizations… etc.) must recognize it as
a state.
 Thus, recognition implies both approaching of the
necessary facts and the desire of coming in to effect of
the legal and political results of recognition.
 Likewise, for a government of a state to be formally to
act on its behalf, the government must be recognized
as legitimate government of the state by other
governments.
 Rival Theories of State 
 There are various rival theories of the state, each of
which offers a different account of its origins,
development and impact on society.
 Indeed, controversy about the nature of state power
has increasingly dominated modern political analysis
and goes to the heart of ideological and theoretical
disagreements in the discipline.
The Pluralist State
 The pluralist theory of the state has a very clear liberal
lineage. It stems from the belief that the state acts as
an ‘umpire’ or ‘referee’ in society.
 This view has also dominated mainstream political
analysis, accounting for a tendency, at least within
Anglo-American thought, to discount the state and
state organizations and focus instead on ‘government’.
 Indeed, it is not uncommon in this tradition for ‘the
state’ to be dismissed as an abstraction, with
institutions such as the courts, the civil service and the
military being seen as independent actors in their own
right, rather than as elements of a broader state
machine.
 Nevertheless, this approach is possible only because it
is based on underlying, and often unacknowledged,
assumptions about state neutrality.
 The state can be ignored only because it is seen as an
impartial arbiter or referee that can be bent to the will
of the government of the day.
 The origins of this view of the state can be traced back
to the social-contract theories of thinkers such as
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. The principal concern
of such thinkers was to examine the grounds of
political obligation, the grounds on which the
individual is obliged to obey and respect the state.
They argued that the state had arisen out of a
voluntary agreement, or social contract, made by
individuals who recognized that only the establishment
of a sovereign power could safeguard them from the
insecurity, disorder and brutality of the state of nature
 Without a state, individuals abuse, exploit and enslave
one another; with a state, order and civilized existence
are guaranteed and liberty is protected. As Locke put
it, where there is no law there is no freedom.
 In liberal theory, the state is thus seen as a neutral
arbiter amongst the competing groups and individuals
in society; it is an ‘umpire’ or ‘referee’ that is capable
of protecting each citizen from the encroachments of
fellow citizens.
 The neutrality of the state reflects the fact that the
state acts in the interests of all citizens, and therefore
represents the common good or public interest.
 In Hobbes’ view, stability and order could be secured
only through the establishment of an absolute and
unlimited state, with power that could be neither
challenged, nor questioned.
 In other words, he held that citizens are confronted by
a stark choice between absolutism and anarchy. Locke,
on the other hand, developed a more typically liberal
defense of the limited state.
 In his view, the purpose of the state is very specific: it
is restricted to the defense of a set of ‘natural’ or God-
given individual rights; namely, life, liberty and
property.
 In Hobbes’ view, stability and order could be secured
only through the establishment of an absolute and
unlimited state, with power that could be neither
challenged, nor questioned.
 In other words, he held that citizens are confronted by
a stark choice between absolutism and anarchy. Locke,
on the other hand, developed a more typically liberal
defense of the limited state.
 In his view, the purpose of the state is very specific: it
is restricted to the defense of a set of ‘natural’ or God-
given individual rights; namely, life, liberty and
property.
 Moreover, since the state may threaten natural rights
as easily as it may uphold them, citizens must enjoy
some form of protection against the state, which Locke
believed could be delivered only through the
mechanisms of constitutional and representative
government.
 As a theory of the state, pluralism holds that the state
is neutral, insofar as it is susceptible to the influence of
various groups and interests, and all social classes.
 The state is not biased in favor of any particular
interest or group, and it does not have an interest of its
own that is separate from those of society.
 Two key assumptions underlie this view. The first is
that the state is effectively subordinate to
government.
 Non-elected state bodies (the civil service, the
judiciary, the police, the military and so on) are strictly
impartial and are subject to the authority of their
political masters.
 The state apparatus is therefore thought to conform to
the principles of public service and political
accountability.
 The second assumption is that the democratic process
is meaningful and effective. In other words, party
competition and interest-group activity ensure that
the government of the day remains sensitive and
responsive to public opinion.
 Ultimately, therefore, the state is only a weather vane
that is blown in whichever direction the public-at-large
dictates.
 Modern pluralists, however, have often adopted a
more critical view of the state, termed the neo-
pluralist theory of the state.
 Theorists such as Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom
(1953) have come to accept that modern industrialized
states are both more complex and less responsive to
popular pressures than classical pluralism suggested.
 Neo-pluralists, for instance, have acknowledged that
business enjoys a ‘privileged position’ in relation to
government that other groups clearly cannot rival.
 Ultimately, therefore, the state is only a weather vane
that is blown in whichever direction the public-at-large
dictates.
 Modern pluralists, however, have often adopted a
more critical view of the state, termed the neo-
pluralist theory of the state.
 Theorists such as Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom
(1953) have come to accept that modern industrialized
states are both more complex and less responsive to
popular pressures than classical pluralism suggested.
 Neo-pluralists, for instance, have acknowledged that
business enjoys a ‘privileged position’ in relation to
government that other groups clearly cannot rival.
 Neo-pluralists have accepted that the state can, and
does, forge its own sectional interests.
 In this way, a state elite, composed of senior civil
servants, judges, police chiefs, military leaders and so
on, may be seen to pursue either the bureaucratic
interests of their sector of the state, or the interests of
client groups.
 Indeed, if the state is regarded as a political actor in its
own right, it can be viewed as a powerful (perhaps the
most powerful) interest group in society.
The Capitalist State
Marxists have typically argued that the state cannot be
understood separately from the economic structure of
society.
 This view has usually been understood in terms of the
classic formulation that the state is nothing but an
instrument of class oppression: the state emerges out
of, and in a sense reflects, the class system.
 The scope to revise Marxist attitudes towards the state
stems from ambiguities that can be found in Marx’s
own writings.
 Marx did not develop a systematic or coherent theory
of the state.
 In a general sense, he believed that the state is part of
a ‘superstructure’ that is determined or conditioned by
the economic ‘base’, which can be seen as the real
foundation of social life.
 However, the precise relationship between the base
and the superstructure, and in this case that between
the state and the capitalist mode of production, is
unclear.
 Two theories of the state can be identified in Marx’s
writings. The first is expressed in his often-quoted
dictum from The Communist Manifesto (1848): ‘The
executive of the modern state is but a committee for
managing the common affairs of the whole
bourgeoisie’.
 From this perspective, the state is clearly dependent
on society and entirely dependent on its economically
dominant class, which in capitalism is the bourgeoisie.
Lenin thus described the state starkly as an instrument
for the oppression of the exploited class.
 Marx suggested that the state could enjoy what has
come to be seen as ‘relative autonomy’ from the class
system, the Napoleonic state being capable of
imposing its will upon society, acting as an ‘appalling
parasitic body’.
 Marxist theorizing about the state has been dominated
by rival instrumentalist and structuralist views of the
state
 The Leviathan State
The image of the state as a ‘leviathan’ (in effect, a self-
serving monster intent on expansion and aggrandizement)
is one associated in modern politics with the New Right
 Such a view is rooted in early or classical liberalism
and, in particular, a commitment to a radical form of
individualism.
 The New Right, or at least its neoliberal wing, is
distinguished by a strong antipathy towards state
intervention in economic and social life, born out of
the belief that the state is parasitic growth that
threatens both individual liberty and economic
security.
 In this view, the state, instead of being, as pluralists
suggest, an impartial umpire or arbiter, is an
overbearing ‘nanny’, desperate to interfere or meddle
in every aspect of human existence.
 The central feature of this view is that the state
pursues interests that are separate from those of
society (setting it apart from Marxism), and that those
interests demand an unrelenting growth in the role or
responsibilities of the state itself.
 New Right thinkers therefore argue that the twentieth
century tendency towards state intervention reflected
not popular pressure for economic and social security,
or the need to stabilize capitalism by ameliorating class
tensions but, rather, the internal dynamics of the state.
 New Right theorists explain the expansionist dynamics
of state power by reference to both demand-side and
supply-side pressures.
 Demand-side pressures are those that emanate from
society itself, usually through the mechanism of
electoral democracy.
 The New Right argue that electoral competition
encourages politicians to ‘outbid’ one another by
making promises of increased spending and more
generous government programs, regardless of the
long-term damage that such policies inflict on the
economy in the form of increased taxes, higher
inflation and the ‘crowding out’ of investment.
 Supply-side pressures, on the other hand, are those
that are internal to the state.
 These can therefore be explained in terms of the
institutions and personnel of the state apparatus. In its
most influential form, this argument is known as the
government oversupply thesis. The oversupply thesis
has usually been associated with public-choice
theorists, who examine how public decisions are made
on the assumption that the individuals involved act in a
rationally self-interested fashion.
 While Marxists argue that the state reflects broader
class and other social interests, the New Right portrays
the state as an independent or autonomous entity that
pursues its own interests.
 In this view, bureaucratic self-interest invariably
supports ‘big’ government and state intervention,
because this leads to an enlargement of the
bureaucracy itself, which helps to ensure job security,
improve pay, open up promotion prospects and
enhance the status of public officials.
 This image of self-seeking bureaucrats is plainly at odds
with the pluralist notion of a state machine imbued
with an ethic of public service and firmly subject to
political control.
 The Patriarchal State
Modern thinking about the state must, finally, take
account of the implications of feminist theory.
 However, this is not to say that there is a systematic
feminist theory of the state.
 Feminist theory encompasses a range of traditions and
perspectives, and has thus generated a range of very
different attitudes towards state power.
 Moreover, feminists have usually not regarded the
nature of state power as a central political issue,
preferring instead to concentrate on the deeper
structure of male power centered on institutions such
as the family and the economic system.
 Some feminists, indeed, may question conventional
definitions of the state, arguing, for instance, that the
idea that the state exercises a monopoly of legitimate
violence is compromised by the routine use of violence
and intimidation in family and domestic life.
Nevertheless, sometimes implicitly and sometimes
explicitly, feminists have helped to enrich the state debate
by developing novel and challenging perspectives on state
power
Liberal feminists, who believe that sexual or gender
equality can be brought about through incremental
reform, have tended to accept an essentially pluralist view
of the state.
They recognize that, if women are denied legal and
political equality, and especially the right to vote, the state
is biased in favor of men.
However, their faith in the state’s basic neutrality is
reflected in the belief that any such bias can, and will, be
overcome by a process of reform.
 In this sense, liberal feminists believe that all groups
(including women) have potentially equal access to
state power, and that this can be used impartially to
promote justice and the common good.
 Liberal feminists have therefore usually viewed the
state in positive terms, seeing state intervention as a
means of redressing gender inequality and enhancing
the role of women.
 This can be seen in campaigns for equal-pay legislation,
the legalization of abortion, the provision of child-care
facilities, the extension of welfare benefits, and so on.
 Nevertheless, a more critical and negative view of the
state has been developed by radical feminists, who
argue that state power reflects a deeper structure of
oppression in the form of patriarchy.
 Whereas Marxists place the state in an economic
context, radical feminists place it in a context of gender
inequality, and insist that it is essentially an institution
of male power.
 In common with Marxism, distinctive instrumentalist
and structuralist versions of this feminist position have
been developed.
 The instrumentalist argument views the state as little
more than an agent or ‘tool’ used by men to defend
their own interests and uphold the structures of
patriarchy.
 This line of argument draws on the core feminist belief
that patriarchy is rooted in the division of society into
distinct ‘public’ and ‘private’ spheres of life,
 Men dominating the former while women are confined
to the later. Quite simply, in this view, the state is run
by men, and for men.
 Whereas instrumentalist arguments focus on the
personnel of the state, and particularly the state elite,
structuralist arguments tend to emphasize the degree
to which state institutions are embedded in a wider
patriarchal system.
 Modern radical feminists have paid particular attention
to the emergence of the welfare state, seeing it as the
expression of a new kind of patriarchal power.
 The Role of the State
there is profound disagreement about the exact
role the state should play, and therefore about the
proper balance between the state and civil society.
Among the different state forms that have
developed are the following:
 Minimal states
 Developmental states
 Social-democratic states
 Collectivized states
 Totalitarian states
 Religious states
 The minimal state is the ideal of classical liberals,
whose aim is to ensure that individuals enjoy the
widest possible realm of freedom.
 This view is rooted in social-contract theory, but it
nevertheless advances an essentially ‘negative’ view
of the state.
 From this perspective, the value of the state is that
it has the capacity to constrain human behavior and
thus to prevent individuals encroaching on the
rights and liberties of others.
 The state is merely a protective body, its core
function being to provide a framework of peace and
social order within which citizens can conduct their
lives as they think best.
 In Locke’s famous simile, the state acts as a night
watchman, whose services are called upon only
when orderly existence is threatened? This
nevertheless leaves the ‘minimal’ or ‘night
watchman’ state with three core functions.
 First and foremost, the state exists to maintain
domestic order. Second, it ensures that contracts or
voluntary agreements made between private
citizens are enforced, and third it provides
protection against external attack.
 The institutional apparatus of a minimal state is
thus limited to a police force, a court system and a
military of some kind.
  Economic, social, cultural, moral and other
responsibilities belong to the individual, and are
therefore firmly part of civil society.
Developmental States
The best historical examples of minimal states were
those in countries such as the UK and the USA
during the period of early industrialization in the
nineteenth century. As a general rule, however, the
later a country industrializes, the more extensive
will be its state’s economic role. In Japan and
Germany, for instance, the state assumed a more
active ‘developmental’ role from the outset.
 A developmental state is one that intervenes in
economic life with the specific purpose of
promoting industrial growth and economic
development.
 This does not amount to an attempt to replace
the market with a ‘socialist’ system of planning
and control but, rather, to an attempt to
construct a partnership between the state and
major economic interests, often underpinned by
conservative and nationalist priorities.
 The classic example of a developmental state is Japan.
 A similar model of developmental intervention
has existed in France, where governments of
both left and right have tended to recognize the
need for economic planning, and the state
bureaucracy has seen itself as the custodian of
the national interest.
 In countries such as Austria and, to some extent,
Germany, economic development has been
achieved through the construction of a
‘partnership state’, in which an emphasis is
placed on the maintenance of a close relationship
between the state and major economic interests.
More recently, economic globalization has fostered
the emergence of ‘competition states’, examples of
which are found amongst the tiger economies of
East Asia.
Competition states are distinguished by their
recognition of the need to strengthen education and
training as the principal guaranteeing economic
success in a context of intensifying transnational
competition.

Social Democratic (Welfare) States

 Whereas developmental states practice
interventionism in order to stimulate economic
progress, social-democratic states intervene with
a view to bringing about broader social
restructuring, usually in accordance with
principles such as fairness, equality and social
justice.
 In countries such as Austria and Sweden, state
intervention has been guided by both
developmental and social democratic priorities.
Nevertheless, developmentalism and social
democracy do not always go hand-in-hand.
• The key to understanding the social-democratic state
is that there is a shift from a ‘negative’ view of the
state, which sees it as little more than a necessary
evil, to a positive view of the state, in which it is seen
as a means of enlarging liberty and promoting justice.
• The social-democratic state is thus the ideal of both
modern liberals and democratic socialists.
• Rather than merely laying down the conditions of
orderly existence, the social-democratic state is an
active participant; in particular, helping to rectify the
imbalances and injustices of a market economy.
• It therefore tends to focus less upon the generation
of wealth and more upon what is seen as the
equitable or just distribution of wealth.
• In practice, this boils down to an attempt to eradicate
poverty and reduce social inequality.
• The twin features of a social democratic state are
therefore Keynesianism and social welfare.
• The aim of Keynesian economic policies is to
‘manage’ or ‘regulate’ capitalism with a view to
promoting growth and maintaining full employment.
• Although this may entail an element of planning, the
classic Keynesian strategy involves ‘demand
management’ through adjustments in fiscal policy;
that is, in the levels of public spending and taxation.
 • The adoption of welfare policies has led to the
emergence of so called ‘welfare states’, whose
responsibilities have extended to the promotion of
social well-being amongst their citizens.
• In this sense, the social-democratic state is an
‘enabling state’, dedicated to the principle of
individual empowerment.
Collectivized States
 While developmental and social-democratic
states intervene in economic life with a view to
guiding or supporting a largely private economy,
collectivized states bring the entirety of economic
life under state control.
 The best examples of such states were in
orthodox communist countries such as the USSR
and throughout Eastern Europe.
 These sought to abolish private enterprise
altogether, and set up centrally planned
economies administered by a network of
economic ministries and planning committees.
 So-called ‘command economies’ were therefore
established that were organized through a system
of ‘directive’ planning that was ultimately
controlled by the highest organs of the
communist party.
 The justification for state collectivization stems
from a fundamental socialist preference for
common ownership over private property.
 However, the use of the state to attain this goal
suggests a more positive attitude to state power
than that outlined in the classical writings of
Marx and Engels (1820–95).
 Marx and Engels by no means ruled out
nationalization; Engels, in particular, recognized
that, during the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’,
state control would be extended to include
factories, the banks, transportation and so on.
 Nevertheless, they envisaged that the proletarian
state would be strictly temporary, and that it
would ‘wither away’ as class antagonisms abated.
In contrast, the collectivized state in the USSR
became permanent, and increasingly powerful
and bureaucratic.
 Under Stalin, socialism was effectively equated
with statism, the advance of socialism being
reflected in the widening responsibilities and
powers of the state apparatus. Indeed, after
Khrushchev announced in 1962 that the
dictatorship of the proletariat had ended, the
state was formally identified with the interests of
 Totalitarian States
The most extreme and extensive form of
interventionism is found in totalitarian states. The
essence of totalitarianism is the construction of an
all-embracing state, the influence of which
penetrates every aspect of human existence.
The state brings not only the economy, but also
education, culture, religion, family life and so on
under direct state control.
The best examples of totalitarian states are Hitler’s
Germany and Stalin’s USSR, although modern
regimes such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq arguably
have similar characteristics.
The central pillars of such regimes are a comprehensive
process of surveillance and terroristic policing, and a
pervasive system of ideological manipulation and control.
In this sense, totalitarian states effectively extinguish civil
society and abolish the private sphere of life altogether.
This is a goal that only fascists, who wish to dissolve
individual identity within the social whole, are prepared
openly to endorse.
It is sometimes argued that Mussolini’s notion of a
totalitarian state was derived from Hegel’s belief in the
state as an ‘ethical community’ reflecting the altruism and
mutual sympathy of its members.
From this perspective, the advance of human civilization
can clearly be linked to the aggrandizement of the state and
the widening of its responsibilities.
Religious States
On the face of it, a religious state is a contradiction
in terms. The modern state emerged largely through
the triumph of civil authority over religious
authority, religion increasingly being confined to the
private sphere, through a separation between
church and state. The advance of state sovereignty
thus usually went hand in hand with the forward
march of secularization.
 In the USA, the secular nature of the state was enshrined
in the First Amendment of the constitution, which
guarantees that freedom of worship shall not be
abridged, while in France the separation of church and
state has been maintained through a strict emphasis on
the principle of laïcité. In countries such as Norway,
Denmark and the UK, ‘established’ or state religions
have developed, although the privileges these religions
enjoy stop well short of theocratic rule, and their
political influence has generally been restricted by a high
level of social secularization.
 In the USA, the secular nature of the state was enshrined
in the First Amendment of the constitution, which
guarantees that freedom of worship shall not be
abridged, while in France the separation of church and
state has been maintained through a strict emphasis on
the principle of laïcité. In countries such as Norway,
Denmark and the UK, ‘established’ or state religions
have developed, although the privileges these religions
enjoy stop well short of theocratic rule, and their
political influence has generally been restricted by a high
level of social secularization.
 Understanding Government
What is Government?
 In its broadest sense, to govern means to rule or control
others. Government can therefore be taken to include
any mechanism through which ordered rule is
maintained, its central features being the ability to make
collective decisions and the capacity to enforce them.
 A form of government can thus be identified in almost
all social institutions like families, school, businesses,
trade unions and so on.
 However, government in our context, is to refer to the
formal and institutional processes that operate at the
national level to maintain public order and facilitate
collective action.
 It is a body or organ that administers a country and main
organization dealing with affairs of the whole country.
 Thus, government is one of the most essential
components and also an administrative wing of the
state.
 In other words, government can also refer to political
organization comprising individuals and institutions
authorized to formulate public policies and conduct
affairs of state.
 Governments are empowered to establish and regulate
the interrelationships of the people within their
territorial confines, the relations of the people with
community as a whole, and the dealings of the
community with other political entities.
 Thus, government applies both to the governments of
national states, for instance the federal government of
Ethiopia and to the governments of subdivisions of
national states such as the regional states, provinces,
and municipal governments, etc. of Ethiopia.
Government has Two essential attributes:
Authority: In politics, the word authority implies the ability
to compel obedience.
• It can simply be defined as ‘legitimate power.’ While
power is the ability to influence the behavior of others,
authority is the right to do so.
• Authority is therefore, based on an acknowledged duty
to obey rather than on any form of coercion or
manipulation.
• Thus, authority is the legitimacy, justification and right to
exercise that power. Authority can be expressed as
naked force and terror as was the case in many
undemocratic governments or through a series of more
or less transparent public hearings as in the case of most
democratic states.
Legitimacy: The term legitimacy (from the Latin word
legitimare, meaning ‘to declare lawful’) broadly means
rightfulness.
• Thus, legitimacy is the attribute of government that
prompts the governed to comply willingly with its
authority. It confers on an order or commands an
authoritative or binding character, thus transforming
power in to authority.
• Thus, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a
governing regime or law as an authority.
Purposes and Functions of Government
Self-Preservation: Nearly all governments at least claim to
have as their purposes the establishment of an order that
permits predictability, which in turn promotes a sense of
security among the governed.
o This may be true whether a government is authoritarian
or democratic. Sovereign states also take as a primary
purpose the defense of the country’s territory against
external attack.
o Thus, as their first and primary purpose and function,
governments are responsible to prevail order,
predictability, internal security, and external defense.
Distribution and Regulation of Resources: All governments
invariably play the role of distributing resources in their
societies.
o In addition, governments are the only institutions that
determine whether resources are going to be controlled
by the public or private sector.
o Some governments may decide that the resources
should be controlled by the public, which commonly
known as socialist states and others may decide to be
controlled by the private sector, which are capitalist
states.
o In addition, other states may place in between, that is
the resources could be controlled by both the public and
private sector.
Management of Conflicts: Governments usually develop
and consolidate institutions and procedures for the
management of conflicts.
These may include the legislative, executive, and judicial
institutions with established procedures for the supervision
and resolution of conflicts that may arise in the society.
Fulfillment of Social or Group Aspirations:
o To fulfill the goals and interests of the society as a whole
and of various groups within the society.
o These aspirations may include the promotion of human
rights, common good, and international peace.
Protection of Rights of Citizens: Some governments,
especially those of constitutional and democratic
governments, are established for the protection of every
citizen’s human, democratic, political, social, economic and
cultural rights.
Constitutional and democratic governments are created to
serve and protect every citizen’s rights, not to dominate
them.
Protection of Property: States or governments provide
means such as police and the court systems that protect
private and public property.
As such, protection of private and public property is,
therefore, one among the major purposes and functions of
any government.
Implementations of Moral Conditions: Some governments’
attempts to improve the moral conditions of their citizens
that is why, in all countries, laws and institutions are
designed to shape citizens character in accordance with
some standard of morality.
Provision of Goods and Services: Some governments,
especially those of the poor countries, participate heavily in
the provision of goods and services for the public. Some of
the necessary common goods and services provided by
governments may include, provision of healthcare,
education, development of public works, provision of food,
shelter, clothing for the public, Developing social services,
etc.
Understanding Citizenship
, citizen is a person who is legally recognized as member of
a particular, officially sovereign political community, entitled
to whatever prerogatives and encumbered with
responsibilities.
The means by which we determine whether a person is
legal member of a particular State or otherwise is called
‘citizenship’.
At the formal level, citizenship simply denotes to the
network of relationships between the State and the citizen.
As such, citizenship refers to the rules regulating the
legal/formal relations between the State and the individual
with respect to the acquisition and loss of a given country’s
nationality.
However, from political and social perspectives and at a
substantive level, citizenship is beyond a legal status.
Though many agree that citizenship is a political and legal
artefact that creates a condition of civic equality among
those who possess it with regard to the prerogatives and
responsibilities it bestows and requires, the term citizenship
has been defined differently by scholars and practitioners.
For this reason, citizenship is a polysemy term which has
had different meanings depending on the historical
legacies, political organization of the state, ideologies and
socio-cultural context of societies.
Several countries refer to the term citizenship in their
national language as expressing merely the judicial
relationship between the citizen and the State while others
denote it with the social roles of citizens in their society.
Generally, the concept of citizenship varies from society to
society, depending on the place, the historical moment and
political organization.
Although differences may exist, there are common
elements such as rights, duties, belonging, identity and
participation one canfind in definitions of the term.
i) Citizenship as a Status of Rights: The mere fact of being a
citizen makes the person a creditor of a series of rights. In
this sense, current political discourse often tends to identify
citizenship with rights.
Liberty Right: is a freedom given for the right-holder to do
something and there are no obligations on other parties to
do or not to do anything to aid the bearer to enjoy such
rights.
The beholder got benefits from liberty rights without
obliging others. Furthermore, no one including the State
has any legitimate authority to interfere with the citizen’s
freedom except to prevent harm to others. For instance,
every citizen has the right to movement.
His/her right to movement goes to the level where
another’s claim right limits his/her freedom
b) Claim Rights: are the inverse of liberty rights since it
entails responsibility upon another person or body. rights
such as
 The duty bearer has to accomplish something that is
indispensable for right holders to enjoy the claim rights.
 That is, there must be somebody who is there to do or
refrain from doing something to/for the claim holder,
i.e., claim rights are rights enjoyed by individuals when
others discharge their obligations.
 Hence, in contrast to liberty rights, claim rights impose a
corresponding duty on others to help respect and
protect the bearers. For instance, social
 unemployment and public service benefits are claims
that directly depend on taxes paid by others. To
mention, a contract between employer and employee
confers on the employee a right to be paid his/her
wages.
c) Powers Rights: are rights regarding the modification of
first-order rights. They are cooperative controls that are
imposed on others.
The holder of a power, be it a government or a citizen, can
change or cancel other people and his/her own
entitlements. For example, Article 40(1) of the FDRE
constitution asserts that Ethiopian citizens have the rights
to the ownership of private property and to modify, sale,
donate or transfer their property to a third party.
As it is stated in Article 33(3) the FDRE constitution, every
Ethiopian citizen has the right to renounce his/her Ethiopian
citizenship/nationality which shows the power rights of the
citizens. Similarly, a government has also the power to
modify legal rights through imposing to or removing duties
from citizens.
d) Immunity Rights: allow bearers escape from controls and
thus they are the opposite of power rights. Immunity rights
entail the absence of a power in other party to alter the
right-holder’s normative situation in some way. For
instance, civil servants have a right not to be dismissed from
their job after a new government comes to power. Witness
in the court has a right not to be ordered to incriminate
himself/herself. Additionally, as it is affirmed in Article 18(3)
of the FDRE constitution, “no one shall be required to
perform forced or compulsory labour”. Immunities also
comprise compensation for rights violations that occurred
in the past and at least partially make up for past injustices
or uneven burdens.
ii) Membership and Identity: Citizenship is associated with
membership of a political community, which implies
integration into that community with a specific identity that
is common to all members who belongs to it. The criteria
for membership have been linked to shared territory,
common culture, ethnic characteristics, history, etc.
However, nowadays, we often use citizenship to signify not
just membership in some group but certain standards of
proper conduct. Some people – those who contribute to
the well-being of their community are understood to be the
‘true’ citizens. Those who free-ride are mere members who
do not seem to understand, embrace, or embody what
citizenship really means. When communities, public or
private, bestow citizenship awards to some of their
members, it is this usage they invoke.
It obviously implies that only ‘good’ citizens are genuine
citizens in the full meaning of the term.
iii) Participation: Participation occupies a key position in
citizenship. Nonetheless, individuals differ in what
approaches they find important – some people focus on
their private affairs while others actively participate in the
life of the society, including politics. There are two
approaches in this regard; minimalists and maximalists. A
minimalist approach to citizenship characterized by a kind
of basic passive compliance with the rules of a particular
community/State, while the maximalist approach imply
active, broad participation of citizens engagement in the
State.
iv) Inclusion and Exclusion: All individuals living in a
particular state do not necessary mean that all are citizens.
For instance, there are non-citizens visiting, working and
living in Ethiopia branded as foreigners/aliens.
Foreigners have the likelihood of staying in the territorial
administration of Ethiopia as far as they have authorized
visas.
The aliens, therefore, have rights just like the Ethiopian
citizens such as the right to life, movement, and protection
of the law.
Additionally, there are also responsibilities shared by both
the non-citizens and citizens domiciled in Ethiopia
particularly in respecting the laws of the country.
However, citizens are fundamentally different from aliens in
enjoying privileges and shouldering responsibilities.
There are some political and economic rights that are
reserved to and duties to be discharged by citizens only.
For instance, an Ethiopian citizen has the right to get access
to land, vote and to be elected and get Ethiopian passport.
Likewise, defending the constitution as well as Ethiopia
territory from foreign aggressors are solely the duty of
Ethiopian citizens.
Generally, citizenship as legal relationship between a person
and a State is different from the specific legal relation exist
between foreigners and the host State.
 Citizenship status, however, is not only restricted to
persons. Organizations and [endemic] animals could also
be considered as citizens.
 The term "corporate citizenship" (CC) has been used
increasingly by corporations, consultants and scholars to
echo, underscore, extend, or reorient certain aspects of
corporate social responsibility.
Theorizing Citizenship
Citizenship in Liberal Thought
Liberal theory of citizenship begins with the
individual person (the self). The self exists as the
true symbol of liberal theory.
Accordingly, it gives a strong emphasis to the individual
liberty of the citizen, and rights that adhere to each and
every person.
The self is represented as a calculating holder of
preferences and rights in a liberal society. Hence, in
liberalism the primary political unit as well as the initial
focus of all fundamental political inquiry is the individual
person.
Liberals insist that individuals should be free to decide on
their own conception of the good life, and applaud the
liberation of individuals from any ascribed or inherited
status.
Advocators of this though argue that individual citizens act
rationally, corresponding to the constitutions and laws of
the State, to advance their own interests.
There are three fundamental principles which a liberal
government must provide and protect:
(1) equality, whereby the government has to treat
individuals who are similarly situated in the same way
and afford them the same rights;
(2) (2) due process, such that the government is required to
treat individuals over whom it exercises power fairly;
and
(3) (3) mutual consent by which membership in the political
community rests on the consensual relationship
between the individual and the state. By protecting
these three values, the government ensures that it
provides protection for individuals' rights and liberties,
so they can effectively participate in the political sphere.
 Citizenship in Communitarian Thought
 Communitarianism is as an approach emphasizes on the
importance of society in articulating the good.
 The communitarian (also known as the nationalist)
model argue that the identity of citizens cannot be
understood outside the territory in which they live, their
culture and traditions, arguing that the basis of its rules
and procedures and legal policy is the shared common
good.
 The political subject, above all, belongs to a community,
a community to which he/she owes allegiance and
commitment. Thus, rather than viewing group practices
as the product of individual choices, communitarians
view individuals as the product of social practices.
 Moreover, communitarians often deny that the interests
of communities can be reduced to the interests of their
individual members. Privileging individual autonomy is
seen as destructive of communities.
 A healthy community maintains a balance between
individual choice and protection of the communal way of
life and seeks to limit the extent to which the former can
erode the latter.
 As a result, the good of the community is much above
individual rights and citizenship comes from the
community identity, enabling people to participate.
 The State must provide a policy for the common good,
according to the way of life of the community.
Communitarians examine the ways shared conceptions
of the good are formed, transmitted, justified and
 Moreover, communitarians often deny that the interests
of communities can be reduced to the interests of their
individual members. Privileging individual autonomy is
seen as destructive of communities.
 A healthy community maintains a balance between
individual choice and protection of the communal way of
life and seeks to limit the extent to which the former can
erode the latter.
 As a result, the good of the community is much above
individual rights and citizenship comes from the
community identity, enabling people to participate.
 The State must provide a policy for the common good, according
to the way of life of the community. Communitarians examine the
ways shared conceptions of the good are formed, transmitted,
justified and enforced.
Citizenship in Republican Thought
Republican citizenship theory put emphasis on both
individual and group rights. Means republican though
attempts to incorporate the liberal notion of the self-
interested individual within the communitarian framework
of egalitarian and community belonging.
Like communitarian thought, it emphasizes on what bind
citizens together in to a particular community. Citizenship
should be understood as a common civic identity, shaped by
a common public culture.
It requires citizens to bring together the facets of their
individual lives as best they can and helps them to find
unity in the midst of diversity.
However, republicans don’t pressurize individuals to
surrender their particular identities like the communitarian
thought. Instead, it is underpinned by a concern with
individual obligation to participate in communal affairs.
It encourages people to look for the common ground on
which they stand, despite their differences, as citizens. At
this juncture, an effective balance between toleration and
obligation is required.
Toleration involves citizens participating politically as
advocates of particular interests, with their concern focused
on ‘fairness between different sections of the community
and the pursuit of common ends.
Just like liberal citizenship though, republican school
advocate self-government.
Yet, republican thought do not agree with the case that all
forms of restraints deprive people’s freedom.
Liberalism, as we have already discussed, advocates
absolute freedom of individuals and gives insignificant
consideration towards nurturing the public virtues that lead
people to do their duties as citizens.
In contrast to liberalism, individuals must overcome their
personal inclinations and set aside their private interests
when necessary to do what is best for the public.
Republicans, thus, acknowledge the value of public life.
To them, public life draws people out, and it draws them
together.
It draws out their talents and capacities, and it draws them
together into community – into connection and solidarity,
and occasionally conflict, with other members of the public.
there are two essential elements of the republican
citizenship: publicity and self-government.
Publicity basically refers to the condition of being open and
public. The public is not a mere collection of people but a
sphere of life where people joined by common concerns
that takes them beyond their private lives.
Besides, public affairs such as politics, as the common
concern of the public, must be conducted openly in the
public for reasons of convenience.
In this case, the rule of law and civic virtue are central
elements. Politics requires public debate and decisions,
which in turn require regular, established procedures – the
rule of law is the standard form republicans.
The citizens and governments in a republican State shall not
act arbitrary, impulsively, or recklessly but according to the
laws of the State.
Multicultural Citizenship
There is a need to move towards a new type of
multicultural citizenship appropriate to highly diverse
societies and contemporary economic trends.
Recognition of group difference implies departing from the
idea of all citizens as simply equal individuals and instead
seeing them simultaneously as having equal rights as
individuals and different needs and wants as members of
groups with specific characteristics and social situations
which is basically the focus of multicultural citizenship
discuss four principles of multicultural citizenship which are
presented here under.
i) Taking equality of citizenship rights as a starting point.
It is essential to ensure that all members of society are
formally included as citizens, and enjoy equal rights and
equality before the law.
ii). Recognizing that Formal equality of rights does not
necessarily lead to equality of respect, resources,
opportunities or welfare. Formal equality can mask and
legitimize disadvantage and discrimination.
It is necessary to consciously recognize group difference
and to understand its causes.
iii) Establishing mechanisms for group representation and
participation. Despite formal equality, disadvantaged
groups are often excluded from decision-making processes.
It is necessary to make arrangements to ensure the
participation of people directly affected, wherever
important decisions are made.
iv) Differential treatment for people with different
characteristics, needs and wants.
Liberalists’ universal conception of citizenship within a
stratified society results in the treatment of some groups as
second-class citizens because group rights are not
recognized and the principle of equal treatment is strictly
applied.
Modes/Ways of Acquiring and Loosing Citizenship
 Ways of Acquiring Citizenship
Citizenship from birth/of Origin: individuals can get
citizenship status of a particular State either because he/she
is born in the territorial administration of that or his/her
mother and/or father are citizens of the State in question.
That is, there are two principles of citizenship from birth
commonly known as Jus Soli (law/right of the soil) and Jus
Sanguinis (law/right of blood).
Whereas Jus Soli is a principle whereby an individual is
permitted to obtain citizenship status of a particular State
because he/she was born in the territorial administration of
that country, Jus Sanguinis is a norm where citizenship
acquired claiming one’s parents citizenship status.
However, jus soli could not apply to children born from
diplomats and refugees live in a host State. Children born
from diplomats in a host State where jus soli is allowed do
not have the right to claim citizenship status of the host
country because of two special principles (international
diplomatic immunities): extraterritoriality and inviolability
principles.
ii) Citizenship by Naturalization/Law: is the legal process by
which foreigners become citizens of another country.
The common sub-principles of acquiring citizenship
through naturalization are the following.
Political case (secession, merger and subjugation), grant on
application, marriage, legitimatization/adoption, and
reintegration/restoration. Citizenship by political case is a
process by which an individual person acquires citizenship
of a certain State following the conquest or cession of a
territory.
In case a particular territory is merged to or subjugated by
another country, people domiciled in that territory would
acquire a new citizenship.
Besides, in cases of secession option may be given to
individuals to choose either country’s citizenship. Let us
now discuss the remaining ways of acquiring citizenship vis-
à-vis to Ethiopia.
The Modes of Acquiring Ethiopian Citizenship
In 1930 Ethiopia adopted a legal document named as
“Ethiopian Nationality Law”. Recently, this nationality law
has replaced by another legal document called “Ethiopian
Nationality Proclamation NO. 378/2003”
 The following are the Modes of acquiring Ethiopian
citizenship included in the 2003 nationality
proclamation.
1) Acquisition by Descent: the 1930 Ethiopian nationality
law asserted that “any person born in Ethiopia or
abroad, whose father or mother is Ethiopian, is an
Ethiopian subject.”
 In its Article 6(1), the 1995 FDRE constitution stated that
“any person of either sex shall be an Ethiopian national
where both or either parent is Ethiopian.”
 In line with this, Article 3 of the 2003 nationality
proclamation ascribed two principles under the
acquisition of Ethiopian citizenship by decent. One, “Any
person shall be an Ethiopian national by descent where
both or either of his/her parent is Ethiopian;”
 second, “An infant who is found abandoned in Ethiopia
shall, unless proved to have a foreign nationality, be
deemed to have been born to an Ethiopian parent and
shall acquire Ethiopian nationality.”
 According to the proclamation, any person can’t acquire
Ethiopian citizenship through the principle of Jus Soli
(law of soil).
 It means that children born in the territorial
administration of Ethiopian do not have the right to
acquire Ethiopian citizenship. Birth place of a child is not
a requirement to acquire Ethiopian nationality.
Wherever a child was born, he/she has the right to attain
Ethiopian citizenship if, and only if, he/she is born from
an Ethiopian father or mother or both Ethiopian parents.
2) Acquisition by Law (Naturalization): Article 6(2) of the
1995 FDRE constitution also avers that aliens can get
Ethiopian citizenship. Under naturalization, there are
various ways of acquiring Ethiopian citizenship in
accordance with of the amended Ethiopian nationality
proclamation of 2003 recognized by the provisions of
Articles 5 to 12 of the 2003 nationality proclamation. These
are:
a) Grant on Application (registration): happens when an
alien requests a host state to be granted citizenship
status of the country in question.
• However, host countries, including Ethiopia, do not
simply grant citizenship status to those who apply unless
they fulfill certain requirements.
The common ones are applicant’s age, length of residence
in the host country, criminal conviction, income and moral
character. But the criteria vary from country to country.
For instance, according to Article 5 of the 2003 Ethiopian
nationality proclamation, an applicant shall get Ethiopian
nationality if, and only if, he/she
(1) reach the age of majority, 18 years;
(2) lived in Ethiopia for a total of at least four years;
(3) has sufficient and lawful source of income (economically
self-reliant);
(4) is able to communicate in any of the indigenous
languages spoken in Ethiopia;
(5) has a good character;
(6) has not recorded criminal conviction;
(7) has been released from his/her previous nationality or
the possibility of obtaining such a release upon the
acquisition of Ethiopian nationality or that he/she is a
stateless person; and (8) takes the oath of allegiance
indicated in Article 12 of the proclamation:
“I-----, solemnly affirm that I will be a loyal national of the
federal democratic republic of Ethiopia and be faithful to its
constitution”.
b) Cases of Marriage: an alien who is married to an
Ethiopian citizen have the possibility of acquiring Ethiopian
citizenship. Yet, there are certain preconditions set in Article
6 of the proclamation in which the marriage and the alien
married to an Ethiopian citizen must fulfill just to allow the
foreigner acquire Ethiopian nationality by law.
One, the marriage shall be thru in accordance with the
laws of Ethiopia or the State where the marriage is
contracted; second, the marriage shall lapse at least for two
years; third, the alien married to an Ethiopian citizen have
to live in Ethiopian for at least one year preceding the
submission of the application; and fourth, the alien have to
reach the age of majority, be a morally good person, and
lastly take the oath of allegiance stated under Article 12 of
the proclamation.
c) Cases of Adoption (Legitimating): this process whereby
an illegitimate child get citizenship status of his/her
caretaker’s nationality. In this case, Article 7 of the
nationality proclamation asserts that a child adopted by and
grown under the caretaker of Ethiopian citizen has the right
to acquire Ethiopian citizenship.
But, the child could get Ethiopian citizenship if the adopted
child has not attained the age of majority; lives in Ethiopia
together with his/her adopting parent; and has been
released from his/her previous nationality or the possibility
of obtaining such a release upon the acquisition of
Ethiopian nationality or that he/she is a stateless person.
However, where one of his/her adopting parents is a
foreigner, in writing, such a parent has to express his/her
agreement that his/her adopted child gain Ethiopian
nationality.
d) Citizenship by Special Cases: an alien who has made an
outstanding contribution in the interest of Ethiopia may be
conferred with Ethiopian nationality by law without
undergoing the pre-conditions.
That is, he/she is not required to live in Ethiopia for a total
of four years and may lack the ability to communicate in
any of the languages spoken in Ethiopia.
e) Re-Admission to Ethiopian Nationality
(Reintegration/Restoration):
this is a process by which a person acquires his/her lost
citizenship.
The 2003 Ethiopian nationality proclamation acknowledges
this principle in its Article 22. That is, a person who has lost
Ethiopian citizenship status may get back Ethiopian
nationality. However, there are requirements in which the
person is expected to fulfill.
In this case, the person could be readmitted to Ethiopian
nationality if he/she applies to the Security, Immigration
and Refugee Affairs Authority for re-admission.
In addition, he/she has to return and domiciled in Ethiopia
and renounces his foreign nationality to get back Ethiopian
nationality.
Dual Citizenship
Dual citizenship is the condition of being a citizen of two
nations. Of course, a person may acquire more than two
States which is called multiple citizenship.
Duality/multiplicity arises because of the clash among the
Jus Soli, Jus Sanguini and naturalization. For example, a
baby born to a French family visiting the United States
would acquire U.S.
citizenship by Jus Soli and French citizenship by Jus
Sanguinis. A child born from a mother and father of two
different countries could acquire dual citizenship through
decent. Besides, on the one hand, a State may allow its
naturalized citizens to keep their original citizenship, an on
the other, a State may refuse its citizen to revoke his/her
citizenship for various reasons which are cause for
dual/multiple citizenship. People who declared that they no
longer were citizens of such a country and became
naturalized in another still would be claimed as citizens by
the original nation. family visiting the United States would
acquire U.S.
• Ethiopia prohibits its citizens to have dual citizenship.
• “any Ethiopian who voluntarily acquires another nationality shall
be deemed to have voluntarily renounced his Ethiopian
nationality.”
 Ways of Loosing Citizenship
Deprivation is an involuntary loss of citizenship which
arises while government authorities or court take a
decision to nullify an individual’s citizenship. It is on
the assumption that the burden of justification for
the loss of citizenship of an individual lies on the
state.
Lapse/expiration is another way of losing citizenship which
is not applicable to Ethiopia. Lapse is a mode whereby a
person loses his/her citizenship because of his/her
permanent residence or long term residence abroad
beyond the number of years permitted by the country in
question.
For example, if an Indian citizen stays outside his/her
country continuously for more than seven years, he/she
automatically loses his/her Indian nationality by the
principle of lapse.
Renunciation is the voluntary way of losing citizenship. The
UDHR (1948) guarantees the right of a person to change
his/her nationality. Loss of citizenship is voluntary only if it
is intended and initiated by the individual concerned.
Substitution: citizenship may be lost when the original
citizenship is substituted by another state, where it is
acquired through naturalization. On the other side, this may
also take place when a particular territory is annexed by
another state; the inhabitants’ citizenship within the
annexed territory will be replaced by the citizenship of the
subjugator.
 Statelessness
Statelessness is the condition of having citizenship
of any country and with no government from which
to ask protection. According to the international
law, stateless person is a person who is not
considered as a national by any state under the
operation of its law. Statelessness almost always
results when state failure leads people to flee – be it
due to invasion and conquest by another state, civil
war, famine, or an oppressive regime – from their
home country