Report: Citizenship and Integration Policy
Report by Dr. Alfons Fermin
November 2000
European Research Centre on Migration & Ethnic Relations (ERCOMER)
Faculty of Social Sciences,
Utrecht University.
The report presents the results of the Research project:
Perspectives on active citizenship
in relation to integration and multiculturality
A Summary of A Report by Alfons Fermin
Citizenship has been the guiding principle of Dutch integration
policy for minorities since 1994. However, it has proven difficult
to relate the highly abstract concept of citizenship to concrete
policy measures. The report deals with the conceptualisation
of citizenship in relation to integration policy. It focuses
on the question: how can the concept of citizenship function
as point of reference in the policy-making process and political
discussion on the integration of minority groups. The first
two chapters contain an overview of the academic citizenship
discussion. This is followed, in chapter three, by an exploration
of the Dutch government’s view on citizenship in relation
to integration policy, together with an alternative view from
a recent public debate. While in the fourth chapter, the theoretical
insights, given in chapters one and two are applied to some
current questions on the integration of minorities in Dutch
society.
The concept of citizenship: dimensions and perspectives
The first chapter clarifies the concept of citizenship. Citizenship
is a complex concept that can refer to all topics concerning
the vertical relation between state and citizen and the horizontal
relation between citizens within the civic community. Citizenship
is used in at least three ways, to refer to a juridical status,
a civic identity or a political practice. Citizenship as juridical
status relates to the core responsibilities of a liberal democratic
state: to warrant equal rights and security for its citizens.
Citizenship as civic identity and membership of a civic community
constitutes a basis for solidarity and trust that integrates
diverse social groups in a polity. The concept of citizenship
as political participation and – more generally – as civic
practice places the active and responsible citizen in the
foreground: the citizen as member of a self ruling democratic
community of free and equal citizens.
Citizenship is an essentially contested concept, interpreted
in diverse ways, with different normative implications. In
general three main vocabularies or perspectives on citizenship
are discernible: a social-liberal, a communitarian and a republican
one. The social-liberal or the ‘modern’ paradigm conceptualises
citizenship primarily as an equal status and a social right.
The development of the post-war welfare state reflects this
paradigm of social rights and justice. Since the 1980s the
welfare state and the modern egalitarian paradigm have been
in crises. The social-liberal paradigm was criticised from
within, by the new right or neo-liberals, and from without,
by communitarians and republicans. Communitarians challenged
liberals because of their negligence of the preconditions
for individual rights and autonomy, namely a civic identity
and membership of a specific, historical rooted community.
Republicans criticised the liberal conception of citizenship
as a social right because of its apolitical and passive nature
which obscured the political character of the welfare state.
Republicans conceptualise citizenship primarily as civic responsibility
and competent participation of citizens in public affairs.
In short, each perspective privileges one of the three dimensions
when conceptualizing citizenship. To use Hirschman’s terminology
(1970), they accentuate access and exit (liberals), loyalty
and commitment (communitarians) and voice (civic-republicans)
as aspects of citizenship.
Citizenship in relation to immigration, integration and
diversity
The second chapter relates the citizenship debate to academic
ones on immigration, integration and multiculturalism. The
modern, social-liberal paradigm is not longer tenable in the
face of developments such as globalisation, immigration and
the emancipation of citizens. These developments are transforming
the relations between state and citizens in democratic societies
in a fundamental way. Numerous alternative theories of citizenship
are advanced in academic circles, combining civic-republican,
communitarian and liberal ideas. An overview of these is given
in the second chapter.
- The gap left by the liberal paradigm’s neglect of the
topic of immigration was filled by nationalistic and republican
conceptions that defined access to formal citizenship in
ethnic or political terms. But these exclusive ideals conflict
with inclusive notions underlying the concept of democratic
citizenship and with the reality of growing numbers of ethnic
minority residents in Western countries. In the Netherlands,
as in many other Western countries, there is a tendency
to expand the rights of those legally resident and to facilitate
naturalisation. This blurring of the boundaries between
denizens and full-citizens reflects the rise of a liberal-egalitarian,
societal definition citizenship.
- The crisis of the welfare state exhibited the shortcomings
of the passive liberal view of social-citizenship as entitlement.
This crisis particularly affected the vulnerable position
of marginal groups, such as ethnic minorities. In search
of an active and responsible form of social citizenship,
suitable for a globalising world economy, neo-liberals tend
to argue for a minimal welfare state with social rights
directly tied to duties. Republicans tend to accentuate
the emancipation of citizens and plead for further democratisation:
citizens will act more responsible if they are treated as
such by the authorities and if the they have the opportunity
to make their voices heard in diverse forums and institutions.
So called ‘third way’ liberals combine liberal ideas about
social equality with neoliberal and republican ones about
incentives and civic responsibilities.
- The liberal paradigm’s departure point of state neutrality
also led it to neglect the topic of ethno-cultural diversity.
Communitarian critiques exposed this liberal neutrality
as a form of partiality in disguise. Continuing immigration
has lead to heightened attention for topics of multiculturalism
and national identity. Political liberals still see political
neutrality as a central principle, but interpret it in a
more tolerant way. They do not demand adaptation to a comprehensive
liberal doctrine, but only to liberalism as a strict political
doctrine. Communitarians and liberal-nationalists argue
that a broader public culture is an inevitable necessity
to promote solidarity and stability. This broad or ‘thick’
conception of citizenship as identity will demand much more
adaptation of immigrants than the thin, political-liberal
one. According to some liberals (who are both liberal-nationalist
and liberal-multiculturalist, such as Will Kymlicka) a policy
of nation building is necessary to guarantee stability,
solidarity and equal opportunities. However, the assimilative
effects of this on minority communities should be mitigated
with legislated recognition of these groups’ cultural identity.
The more sweeping forms of recognition and group rights
advanced by cultural pluralists, subordinate the individual
in some respects to the preservation of the group identity
and culture.
- Civic-republican-oriented positions constitute a middle-ground
between the political-liberal position of state neutrality
and individual rights and the pleas for group-rights within
liberal multiculturalism and cultural pluralism. According
to deliberative-democrats and neo-republicans, organizing
plurality is the chief civic responsibility of citizens.
Pluralism and group identities are not ‘given’ social facts,
but should be treated as the subject of political deliberation,
interaction and negation. Others point to the plural institutional
settings – in countries such as the Netherlands – that offer
ethnic minorities opportunities to combine civic participation
with development of their cultural identity. Communitarians
locate the active and virtuous citizens outside the political
sphere, within the associational life of the civil society.
Policy and public debate on integration and citizenship
in the Netherlands
The third chapter describes the Dutch policy discourse concerning
citizenship and integration. The evolution of the Dutch integration
policy in the 1980s and 1990s parallels the trend towards
active and responsible citizenship in the academic discourse
described in the second chapter. Since 1994, citizenship is
the ‘guiding principle’ of the official integration policy.
It refers to the goal of realizing full citizenship, the departure
point of equal citizenship and reciprocity of rights and duties,
and the strategy of activating citizens. Especially the last
two items constitute new elements in the policy discourse
of the 1990s. The Dutch policy theory of active citizenship
comprises the following elements:
- integration as a process of mutual adaptation in which
both immigrant and native citizens should take their responsibilities,
- an appeal to immigrants to take their responsibility
seriously and seize the chances to develop the ability to
be self-sufficient and to participate in society, and
- a change in the division of responsibilities: a facilitating
government that gives more responsibility to the society,
and no longer has to pretend to have the power to steer
the integration process.
The conception of active citizenship of the Dutch government
is in essence a social-liberal one, although with important
communitarian and republican elements. In the recent discussion
on ‘the multicultural drama’ in the Dutch media, an alternative,
liberal-nationalist position was advanced which directly challenged
the Dutch, tolerant understanding of integration as mutual
accommodation. It demanded a greater degree of adaptation
and loyalty to Dutch society and culture from ethnic minority
groups. However, it also argued for a more committed engagement
with issues of equality and integration of marginal groups
in society from the (native) Dutch intellectual elite.
Citizenship as point of reference for integration policy
The fourth chapter applies the theoretical insights of the
first two to integration policy in the context of Dutch society.
It starts with an exploration of the ways in which the concept
of citizenship can motivate and direct the development of
policies regarding the integration of immigrants. The concept
of citizenship refers to both an ideal – or a value – as well
as to a legal, institutional and social reality. The ideas,
practices, rights and institutions associated with citizenship
constitute the framework for the integration of immigrants.
However, in a society of immigration the integration process
will in turn influence the development of practices and ideas
concerning citizenship. Citizenship is a vague ideal and cannot
function as a ‘guiding principle’ for integration policy,
but it can and should function as an important point of reference
and as a motivating force in the process of policymaking and
implementation. The current popularity of the concept is connected
with the need for more active and responsible forms of citizenship
to ensure the stability and flowering of the institutions
of liberal democracy. The rest of the chapter explores how
conceptions of good citizenship – comprising the dimensions
of citizenship as practice and identity – can function as
a reference point for the development of integration policy
with regard to several issues. The section on juridical integration
is the exception; here the status dimension dominates.
Since the 1980s, the juridical integration of immigrants
in the Netherlands has been motivated by norms and principles
related to the value of equal citizenship. The concept of
citizenship is used in this section to explicate some dilemmas
within some ‘unresolved’ issues. For example, the tension
between the exclusive and the inclusive goals of immigrant
policy relates to contradictions between the conceptualisations
of citizenship as an exclusive membership and as an inclusive
and equal status. The unsatisfactory resolution of the dual
citizenship issue arises out of tensions between policy goals
of immigration control and integration and out of political
arguments and sentiments that represent a clash between a
communitarian-nationalist idea of citizenship and a liberal
notion of societal citizenship.
Equal rights do not guarantee equal treatment. The legislation
and implementation of the principle of equal treatment and
non-discrimination encounters not only practical problems,
but also principal ones, e.g. conflicts of this principle
with other fundamental principles, such as the freedom of
choice of religion. Taking the value of equal citizenship
as starting point, there is reason to give more weight to
the non-discrimination principle in such conflicts.
The balance between a citizen’s rights and duties is a hot
issue at the moment. However, as in other liberal democracies,
there are only a few legally binding, universalistic obligations
to which Dutch citizens are obliged to adhere. Conceptions
of good citizenship generally refer to rather vague obligations
and virtues of citizens; the value of equal citizenship forbids
that activities and virtues of citizens have any impact on
their legal status as equal citizen.
In the 1990s a policy of integration of new immigrants
(inburgering) was developed. The rather unsatisfying results
of this policy mean it is still much debated. Citizenship
is a central concept within the official discourse on the
integration of new immigrants. Different perspectives on citizenship
can be used to assess the goals and policy measures and to
suggest alternative elements with which to improve this policy.
Since 1998, newcomers are legally obligated to follow integration
courses. Is it possible to justify this obligation in terms
of the notion of citizenship? Some lines of justification
are explored. The value of citizenship can offer important
reasons for an obligation (civic competence; reciprocity),
but also critique of this policy The fact that many municipalities
do not enforce the sanctions coupled to the juridical obligation
is a sign that the government did not justify this law in
an adequate and persuasive manner. Renewed public and political
debate is sorely needed. For instance, is it acceptable to
oblige newcomers to follow such courses, even if they want
to stop because they have found work?
The values of justice and equal opportunity function as key
reference points for policies of societal integration,
but the concept of citizenship can play an additional role.
For example, citizenship can point to developments, such as
marginalization and discrimination, which endanger the equal
status of citizens and their opportunities to participate
as citizens in the public sphere. Moreover, policies made
to achieve income security for the unemployed without considering
the possible effects on citizenship, can have unintended,
detrimental effects on citizens’ ability to participate autonomously
in society. The current policy goal of motivating the unemployed
to become self-reliant is more in line with the idea of active
citizenship. However, policies aimed at labour market integration
of immigrants in the Netherlands are still not very effective.
Although government interventions in the market sector to
promote equal opportunities for immigrants mainly raises considerations
of justice, the concept of citizenship can provide additional
arguments for policy measures: e.g. to promote the capacity
of and the (juridical) conditions for citizens and their organisation
to pressure firms to equal opportunity policies.
Education is a core institution for the formation of competent
citizens. In the Netherlands there is much discussion about
the growing number of Islamic schools. A prominent question
is: can these schools fulfil their task concerning citizenship
education? They do not seem to constitute favourable conditions
for the development of the motivation, capacities and opportunities
for their pupils to participate as citizen, but the alternatives
– ‘black’ schools with high concentrations of immigrant children
- do not constitute an attractive alternative.
Another topical issue are the programmes of family intervention
to promote children’s capacity for autonomy by modifying the
mother’s child-rearing practices. Autonomy is an essential
precondition for active citizenship, but the government should
be aware that the ideas about competencies required for autonomy
and citizenship usually are biased and reflect the dominant
‘white’ culture. A greater sensitivity for cultural differences
can lead to more effective programmes with more respect for
the cultural identity of the persons concerned.
Fears about the multicultural society are largely
motivated by concerns about unity, stability and citizenship.
Liberal democracies can accommodate much cultural diversity,
but liberal tolerance has its limits. The requirements of
a stable and blossoming liberal democracy, such as the need
for virtuous, autonomous and active citizens, can conflict
with the value of liberal tolerance. This internal tension
within the liberal order and ideology can pose problems to
the legitimacy of government intervention in a multicultural
society. Different responses to this internal tension are
discussed. A common reaction is to deny this tension and to
choose one of the two sides of the dilemma. The choice for
stability and the liberal public morality of individual rights
and autonomy sets strict limits to tolerance. Illiberal groups
are pressed to accommodate, but this conflicts with the liberal
values of authentic individuality and political neutrality.
Others emphasise the value of tolerance over the value of
autonomy and individual rights. This leaves more room for
diversity, but it can undermine the stability of the liberal
order and the principles of liberal morality itself (such
as the principle of gender equality). A third reaction is
to acknowledge the problems that result from the internal
tensions within liberal morality and to take these ‘tragic’
conflicts seriously. This requires sensitivity to both tolerance
and stability of the liberal order; there are no simple rules
for resolving such conflicts. This is a demanding position:
active and competent citizens should resolve these conflicts
in interaction and dialogue with fellow citizens.
In discussions about tensions between the liberal order and
plurality, Muslim immigrants function as a special ‘problem’
category. One question frequently posed, implicitly or explicitly,
is whether good, faithful Muslims can act as good, virtuous
citizens in a liberal democracy? The answer to this question
depends in part on the conception of democracy and citizenship
one advocates. Persons with a powerful sense of communal identity,
such as committed Muslims and Christians, will have problems
with liberal virtues and values, such as public reasonableness,
tolerance and individual autonomy. This can pose serious dilemmas
for a liberal government. The fact that people have multiple
collective identities which are developed in dynamic ways
in interaction with others, demands of citizens and public
officials that they be sensitive towards differences as well
as a readiness for dialogue.
A dynamic civil society forms an essential precondition
for a stable and flowering liberal democracy. There is a growing
interest in civil society as a mediating institution between
the state, market and private spheres, which would function
as a sphere in which citizens can act as and become virtuous
and responsible citizens. The government should advance participation
of immigrants in the civil society, because it represents
an important sphere of integration. But civil society is not
always a civilising society. Participation in associational
life will not always have the positive ‘external’ effects
attributed to it by civil society theorists, such as the generation
of civic trust, competence, engagement and solidarity. Think
of participation in fundamentalist and racist associations.
Civil society will not automatically shape immigrants into
loyal and virtuous citizens and it will not always increase
the mutual understanding and trust between immigrants and
natives. The interrelation between citizenship and civil society
is much more complex than often thought. Civil society cannot
take over the role of public institutions in the generation
of trust and loyalty, although it constitutes an important
prerequisite.
The political sphere and public institutions are the
home of citizenship as equal status and as practice. Integration
of newcomers and established ethnic minority members into
the political sphere is of importance for their status as
citizens, but also for their social integration. The political
domain is an overarching sphere in which problems of integration
in the other spheres can be debated. Political integration
of ‘immigrants’ refers both to recognition of their specific
problems, needs and interests by public authorities and fellow
citizens, and to their participation in public institutions.
They can choose diverse routes of participation and integration
in the political sphere, as collectives or as individuals,
opposing or adapting to the dominant conventions and organisations.
Which forms of participation should the government promote?
There are different possible criteria for assessing the diverse
strategies possible. However, it is difficult to make general
statements about the effects of these strategies on the civic
virtues and engagement of immigrants, because of the complexity
of processes of civic integration and participation, because
of differences between institutional contexts, and because
of the diversity between and within immigrant groups. Each
case should be evaluated separately. In any case, the value
of citizenship offers reasons to promote the individual participation
of immigrants in the deliberative community and democratic
institutions, along with forms of collective participation
of immigrant groups.
Conclusion
The general conclusion recapitulates the main results of
the report. How can the concept of citizenship function as
a reference point in policy-making processes on the subject
of integration? This question is answered by discussing how
citizenship as status, as identity and as practice can give
direction to the reflection and discussion about problems
and policies of integration of immigrants.
Citizenship as point of reference for the development of
immigrant policies focuses attention primarily on the core
tasks of the liberal-democratic state: to ensure an equal
status for citizens in a formal sense. Government should guarantee
equal rights and non-discrimination to immigrants as well,
a strong legal position to legal permanent residents, and
a fair naturalisation policy. In a welfare state such as the
Netherlands equal citizenship should also be interpreted in
a more substantial sense, demanding social policies to secure
a social minimum and equal opportunities. The concept of citizenship
demands particular attention for societal developments, such
as marginalisation and social exclusion that endanger the
equal status of citizens or impedes the participation of individuals
as (competent) citizens.
Secondly, citizenship refers to the qualities of citizens
and their participation in and identification with the political
community. This concept of citizenship-as-desirable-activity
is popular in present-day political discourse on active citizenship
and the activating welfare state. But greater emphasis on
the responsibilities and virtues of citizens can conflict
with the norms of citizenship as an equal legal status and
with respect for diversity. However, a government should advance
active and responsible forms of citizenship, because it is
essential for the stability and quality of a liberal democracy.
There are different ways to promote responsible and active
citizenship. Connecting social rights to obligations and a
moral appeal to citizens are possible approaches; in general,
these will be more legitimate and effective within specific
institutional spheres. An alternative approach is to further
a sense of responsibility by giving emancipated citizens more
opportunities and rights to participate in the public sphere
and take responsibilities on themselves. Such a policy should
be complemented by one of guaranteeing equal opportunities
to acquire the competencies and resources needed for taking
on the role of citizen. The concept of citizenship-as-desirable
activity places the citizenry at the centre of attention.
It is they who determine in last instance the concrete shape
citizenship takes on. The main government tasks here are to
shape favourable conditions for competent citizenship participation,
but also to safeguard the boundaries of liberal-democratic
citizenship.
Citizenship should be a main point of reference for integration
policies, but only in combination with other values, such
as equal opportunity, fairness, respect for personal autonomy,
respect for diversity, social cohesion and economic efficiency.
To take citizenship as an encompassing leading ‘principle’
for integration policy will obscure the reflection and discussion
on integration issues. The recognition of multiple values
makes it possible to discern and discuss tensions or conflicts
between values and to evaluate policy alternatives; this forms
the basis for making considered policy decisions. Conflicts
are not only possible between different values, but also between
different (inclusive and exclusive, minimalist and demanding)
concepts of citizenship.
The full report: Burgerschap en integratiebeleid by
Dr. Alfons Fermin.has been written in Dutch 
for the ministry of Interior
( Rapport voor het
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties )
More information: a.fermin@fss.uu.nl
|
