UNIT 3

CITIZEN SHIP
In ordinary parlance, a citizen is one who lives in a city. As a political concept, however,
the term is not used in this sense. According to Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, a citizen
is a person who takes a direct and active part in the administration of the state.
Each one of us is a citizen of a state. Each one of us has either inherited the citizenship of
the state of his parents or has got the citizenship of his birth place or has specially acquired the
citizenship of a state. No one is or can be without a citizenship of a state. No one can have
citizenships of two states. Some persons without citizenships are there due an accident of fate.
Citizenship of a state is a natural and essential condition for each human being.

DEFINITIONS
“Citizenship is the status of an individual due to which he enjoys civil and political rights
in the state and is ready to fulfill his obligations.” -Gettell
“Citizenship is the contribution of one’s instructed judgment to public good.” -Laski
“Citizen is one who owes allegiance to the State, has access to the civil and political rights
and is inspired with a spirit of service to humanity” —A K Siu
"Citizen is one who is a member of a State and tries to fulfill and realize himself within it
with an intelligent appreciation of what should conduce to the highest moral welfare of the
community” -Shastri
Different methods of acquiring citizenship-
Citizenship may be acquired according to two methods—
(i) by birth, or
(ii) by naturalization.
Birth:
There are two practices which are observed regarding the acquisition of citizenship by birth
—Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli.
Jus Sanguinis:
According to Jus Sanguinis, a child acquires the citizenship of parents irrespective of the
place of birth, e.g., child born of Indian parents is an Indian citizen whether it is born on Indian
soil or abroad. The practice of Jus Sanguinis was very popular in ancient times.
Even now, it is observed by most of the states in the world. This practice is natural as well
as logical. It is exclusively observed in Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway etc.
Jus Soly:
According to this practice, citizenship is determined by the place of birth and not by
parentage. This practice is now not popular. It was, of course, popular in the middle ages when
citizenship was associated with land. At present, however, this practice is exclusively observed
in Argentina.
In England, U.S.A. and France, both the above practices are employed simultaneously.
Observance of both the practices sometimes gives rise to duplication of citizenship. A child born
of English parents in America, for example, becomes the citizen of America according to the
practice of Jus Soli.
The same child becomes a citizen of England also according to the practice of Jus
Sanguinis. The problem is solved by giving an option to the child to accept the citizenship of
either state it likes when it comes of age.
Naturalization:
Citizenship can also be acquired through naturalization. According to this method, an alien
can become a citizen after fulfilling certain conditions. Though these conditions vary from state
to state, yet some of the general principles which are observed may be summed up as follows:
1. Residence:
A certain period of residence in the state is essential before an alien can be granted
citizenship. This period varies from state to state.In England and U.S.A. this period is 5 years. In
France, it is 10 years.
2. Oath of Allegiance:
An alien must take an oath of allegiance before he can become a citizen of another state.
3. Purchase of Real Estate:
An alien, who buys real estate in a foreign land, can get the rights of citizenship if he so
desires.
4. Service (Civil or Military):
An alien my be given rights of citizenship if he renders meritorious service in another state.
5. Marriage:
Women acquire the citizenship of their alien husbands e.g., an English lady will acquire the
citizenship of India if she marries an Indian.
The condition of marriage in Japan, however, is quite different. Japanese women do not
lose their citizenship even if they marry alien husbands. The alien husband, on the other hand,
acquires the citizenship of Japan if he marries a Japanese lady.

LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP:
Citizenship may be lost under the following conditions.
1. Renunciation:
One may renounce the citizenship of one’s original state and may become the citizen of a
foreign state by naturalization.
2. Marriage:
Women lose the citizenship of their original state if they marry aliens. In England, there is
a move to retain English citizenship for women marrying foreigners.
3. Acceptance of Service, Decoration or Title from a Foreign State:
Some states deprive their citizens of citizenship, if they accept service, honor or title in a
foreign state.
4. Long Absence:
In some state, like France and Germany, citizens who absent themselves from their states
for more than ten years may lose their citizenship.
5. Treason or Felony:
A person, who is charged with treasonable activities, may be deprived of his citizenship.
ESSENTIAL QUALITIES OF A GOOD CITIZEN
A typical good citizen possesses the following qualities:
1. Sound Health:
A good citizen is robust and healthy. He is careful about the rules of health and observes
them scrupulously. Only a sound body has a sound mind.
2. Intelligence and Education:
A good citizen is intelligent enough to shift good from bad and takes a dispassionate view
of everything. He is educated. His education enables him to play his part in the society more
successfully and usefully.
3. Self control and Self confidence:
A good citizen is sober in temperament and exercises self-control in his public dealings. He
possesses a disciplined character. He does not indulge in vicious habits. He is self confident
without being vain.
4. Public Spirit:
A good citizen is ready to take a living interest in all public affairs. He is prepared to fight
for the rights of others and takes an active part in all public activities.
5. Self-sacrifice:
A good citizen subordinates his self-interest to the interest of the community. He is imbued
with the spirit of service and devotion to the common good.
6. Honest exercise of Franchise:
A good citizen is supposed to be honest in the exercise of his vote. Self interest or sectional
interest of the state, class, religion or community does not prejudice his judgment.
7. Sincere performance of Duties:
A good citizen performs his duties sincerely and faithfully. He co-operates with the state
officials in the discharge of their duties and makes due payment of taxes.
8. Right ordering of Loyalties:
Good citizenship exists in the right ordering of loyalties. A citizen is the member of
various social groups, i.e., family, locality, city, state and the world.
A citizen must sacrifice his narrower interest for the sake of wider interests. If there is a
conflict between the interests of the family and the locality, one must sacrifice the interests of the
family for the sake of the locality because the latter represents larger interests.

HINDRANCES TO GOOD CITIZENSHIP:

There are various hindrances which do not allow the growth of good citizenship. Lord
Bryce considers indolence, narrow self interest and party spirit as the main hindrances. In our
country, ignorance, poverty, disease, communalism, caste system and social distinctions are
equally great obstacles. These arc discussed as follows:
1. Indolence:
 Indolence, indifference, apathy and inactivity are great enemies of good citizenship. Active
interest in public affairs is the foundation stone of good citizenship.
2. Ignorance and Illiteracy:
According to Laski, citizenship consists in the contribution of one's instructed judgment to
the public good. An ignorant and illiterate person is unable to make any such contribution. A
citizen cannot have an enlightened interest in public affairs in the absence of education.
Democracy degenerates into a mob rule in the hands of ignorant and illiterate people.
3. Poverty:
Poverty is the root cause of all evils. Good citizenship cannot develop in a country where
gross inequalities of wealth exist. Poverty stems the growth of personality and develops apathy
and indifference towards public life. For building up the character of a nation, poverty must be
rooted out and some economic minimum must be guaranteed to all.
4. Disease:
Ill health is a great weakness in a good citizen. Society expects the contribution of one's
mite to the public good. No contribution of any nature is possible if the citizens are unhealthy.
5. Party Spirit:
Political parties and democracy go hand in hand. But political parties create rivalries and
hostilities among the people. Sometimes the interests of the community are sacrificed for the
sake of the party.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A CITIZEN AND AN ALIEN

Citizen is one who is a permanent resident of a state, owes allegiance to the state, and
enjoys certain civil and political rights. The main points of difference between a citizen and alien
are:
(a) A citizen is a permanent resident of a state, while an alien is a temporary resident, who
comes for a specific duration of time as a tourist or on diplomatic assignment.
(b) Citizens enjoy political rights and participate in the functioning of government, i.e.,
exercise their right to vote, right to contest elections and right to hold public office. Aliens
do not possess such rights in the state where they reside temporarily. They however enjoy
certain civil rights, i.e., the rights to life, personal property and religion.
(c) Citizenship is the legal bond between the citizen and the state. It is a two way relationship
between them. On one hand, the state maintains certain rights and privileges for the
individuals, i.e., the citizens. On the other hand, the citizen owes allegiance to the state and
performs a number of duties.
Natural citizenship is determined by two principles (a) by blood or descent (b) by the place
of birth. Natural citizenship is automatically gained by birth while naturalized citizenship is
acquired after fulfilling certain conditions laid down by the country. Rules of acquiring
citizenship vary from country to country.

DUTIES OF A CITIZEN TOWARDS HIS STATE

(a) Allegiance:
 Every citizen is expected to be loyal to the state. His or her loyalty should, in no case, be
divided. The state expects unstinted allegiance from its citizens.
(b) Obedience:
All the citizens should willingly and habitually obey the laws of the state. A democratic
government is a government of the people themselves. Laws reflect their own will. There should
not be, therefore, any hesitation in the obedience of laws.
(c) Payment of Taxes:
The administration of a country involves a certain amount of expenditure. This expenditure
cannot be met without raising certain taxes. Citizens in their own interest, should, therefore
willingly and honestly make payment of their taxes.
(d) Public Spirit:
Every citizen should be public spirited. He should not seek his self-interest and should
always be ready to contribute his mite to the welfare of society.
(e) Honest exercise of Franchise:
Vote is a sacred trust in the hands of the citizens. It should always be used judiciously.
Suitable representatives should be sent to the legislatures. A wrong use of vote may result in a
bad government.
(J) Help to Public Officials in the maintenance of Law and Order:
It is the duty of every citizen to lend a hand of co-operation to public officials in the
discharge of their duties. Every citizen should try to remove evils and crimes from society by
rendering help to the officials concerned.
(g) Work:
Every able-bodied citizen should work and try to add something to the social fund. Idlers
are a parasite on the society. Work brings in wealth and prosperity in the country. In countries
like Russia work is considered to be a legal duty.
(h) Toleration:
Every citizen is expected to be tolerant towards others. Their religions beliefs “Do unto
others what you wish to be done by,” should be the motto before every citizen.
(j) Resistance:
It is more or less a moral duty. It is the duty of a good citizen to resist injustice from any
quarter. If the government is unjust, it may also be resisted.

Significance of Citizenship in Political Theory

The growing significance of citizenship has not put to rest the theoretical ambiguity
associated with this notion. The importance of the concept of citizenship to engage with a
series of political processes and values and therefore, as a major normative and explanatory
variable has undergone significant changes over time. T.H. Marshal employed it initially to
explain the striving for legal, political and social rights among the excluded social groups with
particular reference to the working class. He traced the development of citizen rights and
connected this development to the situation of the bourgeois on one hand, and the working
classes on the other. Citizenship concerns, however, are much larger and ethnic groups and
minorities of all sorts have resorted to it as a sheet-anchor. Bryan Turner explores the link
between social movements and conflicts and citizenship identity. There are some writers who
argue that citizenship rights in their origin are closely linked to elite structures. Antony Giddens
and Ramesh Misra draw our attention to the deep ambiguity surrounding citizenship rights.
Janoski regrets the missing link between citizenship rights and obligations and the absence of
micro studies relating the two. In recent years, there have been major attempts to link
citizenship with group identity and to defend a group differentiated conception of citizenship
against a conception of citizenship based on individual rights. Sociologically, there are few
studies to demonstrate how marginalised people are brought within the vortex of citizenship
rights and how nations integrate strangers from other countries and cultures. Further, we know
little about the causes that drive people towards the ideals of citizenship. There are wide
differences in this regard from Marshall’s attribution of the same to class to Maslow’s hierarchy
of needs. Further ideological predilections deeply qualify understanding and significance of
citizenship. These are just a few highlights and concerns of the growing literature on citizenship
in our times.
There was no significant discussion on citizenship in social science literature in the
recent past. However, in the last decade and a half, citizenship has suddenly emerged as a
central theme in social science literature, both as a normative consideration and social
phenomenon.
Certain recent trends in the world and in India have increasingly suggested citizenship as
a nodal concern. Increasing voter apathy and long-term welfare dependency in the Western
World; the nationalist and mass movements which brought down bureaucratic socialist regions
in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union; the backlash against welfare regimes in the West and
centralized, often, one-party regimes in the Third World and the demographic shift in the
Western World towards multicultural and multiracial social composition have increasingly
drawn attention to the significance of citizenship. While the decline of authoritarian regimes
which curbed citizen agency greatly highlighted the importance of the latter, governmental
attack on welfare state brought to the fore threats to social rights so central to the inclusionary
practices of citizenship.
Critics of the welfare, socialist and authoritarian regimes have brought to the fore the
importance of the non-state arena constituted of citizenship-agency. Philosophically the decline
of positivism, which provided little scope for the free-play of citizenship-agency, has greatly
heightened the significance of the choices that citizens make discretely and collectively. In
India, an active citizenship is suggested as the need of the hour for the prevalent
authoritarianism, lack of accountability of public offices, widespread corruption, intolerance of
dissent, violation of fundamental rights, lack of citizens’ grievance ventilation and redressal,
lack of public spiritedness and work culture, transparency in administration and intolerance
towards other citizens.
Overall, there is greater appreciation today of the qualities and attitudes of citizens for
the health and stability of modern democracy. Their sense of identity and their relationship to
regional, ethnic, religious and national identities is very important to ensure political stability in
complex and plural democracies. Certain qualities like the ability to tolerate and work together
with others who are different are important ingredients of successful democracy. Galston
suggests that together with these qualities, the desire of the citizens to participate in the
political process in order to promote the public good and hold political authorities accountable;
their willingness to show self restraint and exercise personal responsibility in their economic
demands and in personal choices which affect their health and their environment and their
sense of justice and
commitment to a fair distribution of resources are called for in any healthy democracy. He says
that in their absence “the ability of liberal societies to function successfully progressively
diminishes”.
Today, there is a greater consensus than ever before that mere institutional and
procedural devices such as separation of powers, a bicameral legislature and federalism will not
ensure the health and probity of a polity. Civic virtue and public spiritedness which are integral
to citizenship are required for the purpose.
Nature of Citizenship
Definitions of citizenship are galore. It has also been approached from different
perspectives. Tentatively, we can consider citizenship as membership of a political community
with certain rights and obligations broadly acknowledged and shared in common. The
membership that citizens enjoy is both passive and active. Considered passively, citizens are
entitled to certain rights and obligations without their conscious involvement in shaping them.
But citizenship also involves active engagement in the civic and political life of communities and
this is reflected in the rights and obligations related to it.
While increasingly certain rights are conceded to all human beings in normal times by
states, citizens have certain specific rights which non-citizens do not possess. Most states do
not grant the right to vote and to stand for public office to aliens. The same can be said about
obligations too. What we regard as rights of citizens today were initially a preserve of the elite.
However, eventually the great democratising processes led the large masses of residents – the
marginalised, the ethnic groups, minorities, women and the disabled persons to the benefits
and burdens of citizenship.
Just the fact that one is a citizen gives access to many rights which aliens do not enjoy.
Aliens become naturalised as citizens with attendant rights and obligations. Passive
membership often is associated with limited legal rights and extensive social rights expressing
redistributive arrangements. The state plays a major role in devising and sustaining them.
Active membership highlights citizen-agency and is closely linked with democracy and citizen
participation. Most political communities of which citizens are members today are nation-
states. Therefore, when we talk about membership of political communities, we primarily refer
to membership of nation states.
Citizenship rights are universal in the sense that they pertain to all citizens and in all
relevant respects. They are sought to be implemented accordingly. Universality of rights need
not preclude enjoyment of group-related rights and to the extent that citizens belong to
relevant groups, they are increasingly conceded such rights. Minorities and disadvantaged
groups in many societies do enjoy certain special rights. However, often equal rights of citizens
are seen as running into conflict with group-rights and cultural belonging of subgroups.
Citizenship invokes a specific equality. It may admit a wide range of quantitative or economic
inequalities and cultural differences, but does not admit qualitative inequality wherein one man
or woman is marked off from another with respect to their basic claims and obligations. If they
are marked off for special consideration, it is on account of the disadvantages they suffer
relative to others or due to their distinct collective identity. Citizenship invites persons to a
share in the social heritage, which in turn means a claim to be accepted as full members of the
society in which they have a claim. Therefore, it provides for equal access to and participation
in the public fora and institutions which arbitrate on social heritage. Citizenship is supposed to
be insulated from class and status considerations. However, to the extent that citizens have
equal access and participation in public life, they collectively decide to a great extent the
framework and criteria that determines public life. Therefore, undoubtedly it has a levelling
impact. In this context, one of the most important questions that comes to the fore is whether
basic equality can be created and preserved without invading the freedom of the competitive
market. However, in spite of the role of the market there has been an undeniable sociological
tendency wherein citizenship in recent years has been inevitably striving towards social equality
and it has been a significant social tendency for over 300 years now.
Dimensions of Citizenship
There is a profound subjective dimension to citizenship. It involves a conscious agency,
reflective and deliberative, qualifying his or her pursuits with public interests. It is a way of life
growing within a person and not something given from outside. Legal perspectives on
citizenship, therefore, have their necessary limitations. Citizenship involves duties as well as
rights. Over the years, an array of rights have been associated with it. The same cannot be said
about the duties associated with citizenship. It has had long term consequences in terms of
increasing the role of the state and shrinking citizen initiative.
Citizenship can be divided into three dimensions:
(i) Civil
(ii) Political and
(iii) Social
i) The civil dimension is composed of the rights necessary for individual freedom such as
liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own personal property
and to conclude valid contracts and the right to strive for a just order. The last are the rights to
defend and assert all one’s claims in terms of equality with others under rule of law. Courts of
justice are primarily associated with civil rights. In the economic field, the basic civil right is the
right to work i.e., the right to follow the occupation of one’s choice and in the place of one’s
choice subject to limits posed by other rights.
ii) The political dimension consists of the rights to participate in the exercise of political
power as a member of the body that embodies political authority; to vote; to seek and support
political leadership; to marshal support to political authority upholding justice and equality and
to struggle against an unfair political authority.
iii) The social dimension consists of a whole range of claims involving a degree of
economic welfare and security; the right to share in full the social heritage and to live the life
due to one as per the standards prevailing in one’s society. The social dimension also involves
the right to culture which entitles one to pursue a way of life distinctive to oneself.
In feudal society that prevailed in large parts of the world prior to the onset of
modernity, status was the mark of class and was embedded in inequality. There were no
uniform standards of rights and duties with which men and women were endowed by virtue of
their membership of society. Equality of citizens did not qualify inequality of classes. The caste
system in India too ranked castes unequally in terms of rights and obligations, although the
nature of inequality prevalent here differed in significant respects from that of the feudal
society. These ineqalitarian orders were progressively displaced by a system based on the civil
rights of the individual, not on the basis of local custom, but the common law of the land. The
evolution of different institutions representing and embodying different dimensions of rights
was uneven. In Europe, the trajectory of the evolution of these rights can be marked as civil
rights in the eighteenth century, political rights in the 19th century and social rights in the 20th
century. However, in the
colonies, particularly in India, we find the national movement and the independent regime that
followed it invoked all these threefold dimensions together.
Methods of acquisition of Citizenship
Citizenship may be acquired according to two methods—(i) by birth, or (ii) by
naturalization.
Acquisition of Citizenship by Birth:
The acquisition of citizenship by birth may be studied under two heads, namely jus
sanguinis and jus soli.
 Jus Sanguinis:
It literally means law of blood. This system says that the child gets the citizenship of his
father irrespective of the place of birth. Thus the child of a German parent will become the
citizen of Germany, no matter whether the birth of the child took place in Italy, Sweden,
Norway, etc. This system was very common and popular in the ancient times. Even now most of
the states of the world adopt this method, because it is both natural and logical. Germany, Italy,
Sweden, Norway do not know any system except jus sanguinis.
 Jus Soli:
This literally means law of place. This system says that the place of the birth of the child
will be the deciding factor of his citizenship. It also implies that citizenship has got nothing to do
with the parentage of the child. During the medieval period this system of linking citizenship
with the land was very popular. In modern states of today these practices are in vogue, this may
lead to confusion and duplicity of citizenship. This difficulty is overcome by leaving the choice
to the
child on his attaining majority.
2. Acquisition of Citizenship by Naturalization:
This method implies that an alien can become a citizen on completion of certain
formalities. These methods are not the same in all the states.
But the conditions which are very common are given below:
 Residence:
There is an insistence on residence in the state for a certain period which varies from state
to state. While this period of residence is five years in England and the USA, in France it is ten
years.
 Oath of Allegiance:
An alien cannot be admitted as a citizen of the state unless he takes an oath of allegiance
to the state of adoption.
 Purchase of Real Estate:
The third condition is that the alien in order to become a citizen will have to purchase real
estate in the state of adoption.
 Civil or Military Service:
 Citizenship can be conferred on an alien in recognition of some services to the state, civil
or military.
 Marriage:
When a woman marries a citizen of another state, the woman becomes a citizen of the
state, of which her husband is a citizen. Thus if a British lady marries a citizen of India, that lady
will become a citizen of India.
Methods of loss of Citizenship:
1. Renunciations:
A citizen of a state may give up his citizenship of that state and become the citizen of any
other state by naturalisation.
2. Marriage:
When a woman marries a citizen of another state that woman will become the citizen of
the state of which her husband is a citizen. When she becomes the citizen of a new state, she
loses the citizenship of the original state. Thus when a British lady marries a citizen of India, she
will become a citizen of India and cease to be a citizen of England.
3. Acceptance of Service, Decoration or Title from a Foreign State:
Sometimes citizenship is conferred on an alien in recognition of his brilliant services
under that state. When such an alien is admitted as a citizen of the state, he will lose his original
citizenship, because one cannot be citizen of two countries at the same time.
4. Long Absence:
When a citizen is absent from the state for a very long period, he may lose citizenship of
that country. For example there is a provision in both France and Germany that if a citizen is
absent from the country for more than ten years he will lose his citizenship.
5. Treason or Felony:
A citizen may be deprived of his citizenship if he is found guilty of treason or felony.
These are very serious offences for a citizen and he will be treated as an enemy of the state.  
Qualities for good Citizenship
In political science good citizenship implies a man’s capacity to serve the state. There are
differences of opinion about the qualities of good citizenship. According to Lord James Bryce,
there are three qualities which every citizen must possess. These are intelligence, self-control and
conscience. Conscience stands for responsibility to the community. But Leonard Dupee White
considered commonsense, knowledge and devotion as the three basic qualities of good
citizenship.

1. Sound Health:
A citizen must have a sound and healthy physique, without which he cannot discharge his
duties effectively to the state. His mind also should be free from all anxieties.
2. Intelligence and Education:
A citizen should have sufficient intelligence to distinguish the good from the bad.
Without intelligence and education man is no better than an animal. The purpose of education is
to eliminate animality and put rationality in a man. It does not mean that every citizen should be
highly educated. What is needed is that he must have some sound commonsense so that he is not
swayed by emotion or any parochial feeling.
3. Education:
In the past, government was considered the privilege of a few, but today it is almost
universally recognised as the responsibility of one and all. “Hence education for citizenship is
universal need, and the traditional methods of inculcating social responsibility need to be
adopted in all types of schools and new methods must also be worked out. Those who are
growing up into citizenship should be taught to realise their debt to those who have served them
locally and nationally so wisely in the past.”
4. Self-Control and Self-Confidence:
A good citizen must be in a position not to be impulsive or provoked by any sentiment or
anger. He should have enough capacity to control himself in the fact of linguistic or communal
provocations. He should have courage and confidence in himself.
5. Public Spirit:
Only a person with an urge for doing works for the benefit of the public can make a good
citizen. He must not indulge in anti-social activities. He should be not only dutiful to the society
but also mindful of the rights of the co-citizens.
6. Self-Sacrifice:
Self-sacrifice does not mean laying down the life and property for the nation. It means
that a citizen should rise above narrow self-interest. He should not do anything which will be
detrimental to the common good.
7. Honest Exercise of Franchise:
A citizen should not refrain from casting votes in the elections. While casting votes he
should not consider religion, caste or other narrow things. He should vote only that candidate
who will best serve the society.
8. Sincere Performance of Duties:
While driving a motor car, a citizen must abide by the traffic rules. He should willingly
pay all taxes and must not hide his real income.
9. Sincere Loyalty to the State:
A citizen must have unshaken loyalty to the state. His loyalty to the family, to his religion
or language should be subordinated to his loyalty to the state. For him, the interest of the nation
must be higher than the interest of his region, language or religion. He must rise above these
parochial affiliations.
Hindrances to good Citizenship:
In a negative way we may study the hindrances to good citizenship to get on the same
result. According to Lord James Bryce, these hindrances are only three, namely indolence,
narrow self-interest and party-spirit. But this is not a complete list of hindrances. There are in
general six hindrances to good citizenship.
1. Indolence:
While active interest in public affairs is a quality of good citizen, indolence, apathy,
indifferences, inactivity or by any name we call them are hindrances to good citizenship.
2. Selfishness:
Private selfish interest is a serious hindrance to good citizenship. To attain a little gain, a
men refuses to stand in the queue for his turn but jumps the queue without concern what loss he
was putting to others. For the same reason, a cine-goer buys cinema tickets from the black
market and a motor driver overtakes the other car. L. J. F. Brimble and F. J. May rightly pointed
out: “Many good workers and many well-meaning parents are bad citizens because they know
little and care less about the needs and claims of the community in which they live.”
3. Ignorance and Illiteracy:
Harold J. Laski’s conception of citizenship is “the contribution of one’s instructed
judgement to the public good.” Ignorance and illiteracy are anti-thesis to “instructed judgment”.
A citizen who is ignorant and illiterate cannot have a social personality. The lamp of education
can remove the darkness of ignorance and illiteracy.
4. Poverty:
If a citizen is extremely poor he cannot be a good citizen. He must have sufficient earning
to make both his ends meet. So there should be some basic economic footing for every citizen.
5. Physical and Mental Disease:
We have already noticed that a good citizen must have a strong physique and a sound
mind. An unhealthy citizen and physically crippled or mentally retarded person cannot be good
citizen.

6. Party-Spirit:
Party-spirit denies good citizenship. In a party-ridden society a citizen cannot play any
healthy role for the progress of the society. It is because of the party-spirit a citizen does not see
things with his own eyes but through the eyes of the political parties. The result is that the
citizens behave like dumb driven cattle and cannot
take a positive attitude.
7. Communalism and Caste System:
Communalism and caste systems are socio-political virus in our national life. The
communal and caste factors hamper the social solidarity and bring a discord among the citizens.
8. Insincerity:
There is a gulf of difference between what we preach and what we practise. This is called
insincerity and even dishonesty. We publicly curse apartheid and shed tears for blacks in South
Africa. Our intellectuals dash off plays with South Africa condemning racial discrimination. We
shout from housetops that colour is the least important mark of a person. Yet what we practice at
home?
In practice we love to talk of a parade relative who have been to the west, find glory in
the company of palefaces and ape the manners of white-skinned hicks. Every father seeking a
bride for his son wants only a girl with a “wheatish” complexion. The sooner we get rid of this
magnificent dishonesty, the better will be for this sun-drenched country.

Meaning and Definition of an Ideology

Ideologies were made necessary due to the challenges of the Age of

Enlightenment when people believed they could improve their conditions by
taking positive action instead of passively accepting life as it came. Prior to
the modern era, people were discouraged from seeking solutions to their
problems. Politics had not yet become democratized. Ordinary people were
not allowed to participate in the political system. Politics was reserved for the
kings heading a small ruling class. But this view changed with the
democratization of politics, and the social and economic upheavals that
accompanied the Industrial Revolution (Baradat 2000).
Political scientists do not agree on the exact definition of the term ideology.
Frederick Watkins suggests that ideology comes almost entirely from the
political extremes. Ideologies, he argues are always opposed to the status
quo. They propose an abrupt change in the existing order; thus, they are
usually militant, revolutionary and violent. In his view, most ideologies are
stated in simplistic terms, utopian in their objective and usually display great
faith in the potentiality of man for finding success and happiness.

Karl Marx argues that ideology is nothing more than a fabrication used by
ruling class to justify their rule over the masses. Therefore, the dominant
political ideas, or ideology of any society would always reflect the interests of
the ruling classes, which according to him, were based on incorrect
interpretation of the nature of politics. L.T Sarget argues, that ideologies are
based on the value systems of various societies, and provides the believer
with the picture of the world both as it is and as it should be.

Although these definitions differ in their emphasis, they all have enough in
common to allow for broader understanding of the meaning of ideology.
Ideology is primarily a political term, though it can be applied to other
contexts.

Second, ideology consists of a view of the present and a vision of the future.
The preferred future is presented as a materialistic improvement over the
present. This desirable future is often attainable, according to the ideology,
within a single lifetime. As a result, one of the outstanding features of an
ideology is its offer of hope.

Third, ideology is action oriented. It not only describes reality and offers a
better future, but most important, it gives specific directions, about steps that
must be taken to achieve this goal.

Fourth, ideology is directed at the masses (Baradat; 2000). For example, Karl Marx, Benito
Mussolini, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong and Adolf Hitler directed their ideologies to the masses in their countries. In order to appeal to the

masses, ideologies are usually couched in motivational forms. 

In a simple language, ideologies are the set of ideas from which the individual perceives himself; a set of ideas that lay down rules of correct

behavior and provides a justification for the behaviour of the citizens; the purpose and ideals of society, the direction in which the nation is

going and the norms and values to be upheld in changing circumstances within the life of the nations would be embraced in the national

ideology.

 
Meaning of Political Ideology
Political ideology is a usual of ideas, beliefs, values, and opinions, exhibiting a
recurring pattern, that competes deliberately as well as accidentally over
providing plans of action for public policy making in an attempt to justify,
explain, contest, or change the social and political arrangements and
processes of a political community.

Political ideology is an intelligible set of views on politics and the role of the
government and encompasses a wide range of issues. Eighteenth century,
Antoine Destutt de Tracy is often credited with first employing the term
ideology in the late 18th century. By ideology Tracy meant a “science of the
formation of ideas,” which, in line with prevailing enlightenment aspirations, he
believed could promote social progress and the common good. The meanings
have shifted over time and often make sense in context of the political
struggles through which they emerged. Ideology is excessively used in
interpretation, formulation and functioning of many state's political systems.

A political ideology emphases on the political system wherein societies make

decisions about their most important values or as Easton said “the
authoritative allocation of values” for a society is made.

Development of Ideology
Most ideologies owe their origin and gradual developed to some social
movements that took place in in a society. Be that modern democracy in the
seventeenth century, Marxism and anarchism in the nineteenth century, and
fascism and National Socialism, feminism, Liberation Theology in last century
and environmentalism, PanIslamism or Globalism in recent decades.
Ideologies provide the apparatus through which variety of issues are
interpreted and explained to make meanings for its adherents.

Origins of Ideology
The word first made its appearance in French as idéologie at the time of the
French Revolution, when it was introduced by a philosopher, A.-L.-
C. Destutt de Tracy, as a short name for what he called his “science of ideas,”
which he claimed to have adapted from the epistemology of the philosophers
John Locke and Étienne Bonnot de Condillac, for whom all human knowledge
was knowledge of ideas.  The fact is, however, that he owed rather more to
the English philosopher Francis Bacon, whom he revered no less than did the
earlier French philosophers of the Enlightenment.  It was Bacon who had
proclaimed that the destiny of science was not only to enlarge man's
knowledge but also to “improve the life of men on earth,” and it was this same
union of the programmatic with the intellectual that distinguished Destutt de
Tracy's idéologie from those theories, systems, or philosophies that were
essentially explanatory.  The science of ideas was a science with a mission; it
aimed at serving men, even saving them, by ridding their minds of prejudice
and preparing them for the sovereignty of reason.
Destutt de Tracy and his fellow idéologues devised a system of national
education that they believed would transform France into a rational and
scientific society.  Their teaching combined a fervent belief in individual liberty
with an elaborate program of state planning, and for a short time under the
Directory (1795) it became the official doctrine of
the French Republic.  Napoleon at first supported Destutt de Tracy and his
friends, but he soon turned against them, and in December 1812 he even
went so far as to attribute blame for France's military defeats to the influence
of the idéologues, of whom he spoke with scorn.
Thus ideology has been from its inception a word with a marked emotive
content, though Destutt de Tracy presumably had intended it to be a dry,
technical term.  Such was his own passionate attachment to the science of
ideas, and such was the high moral worth and purpose he assigned to it, that
the word idéologie was bound to possess for him a strongly laudatory
character.  And equally, when Napoleon linked the name of idéologie with
what he had come to regard as the most detestable elements in Revolutionary
thought, he invested the same word with all of his feelings of disapprobation
and mistrust.  Ideology was, from this time on, to play this double role of a
term both laudatory and abusive not only in French but also in German,
English, Italian, and all the other languages of the world into which it was
either translated or transliterated.
Some historians of philosophy have called the 19th century the age of
ideology, not because the word itself was then so widely used, but because so
much of the thought of the time can be distinguished from that prevailing in
the previous centuries by features that would now be called ideological.  Even
so, there is a limit to the extent to which one can speak today of an agreed
use of the word.  The subject of ideology is a controversial one, and it is
arguable that at least some part of this controversy derives from disagreement
as to the definition of the word ideology.  One can, however, discern both a
strict and a loose way of using it.  In the loose sense of the word, ideology
may mean any kind of action-oriented theory or any attempt to approach
politics in the light of a system of ideas.  
 

Features of Ideology
Ideology in the stricter sense stays fairly close to Destutt de Tracy's original
conception and may be identified by five characteristics:
1. It contains an explanatory theory of a more or less comprehensive kind
about human experience and the external world.
2. It sets out a program, in generalized and abstract terms, of social and
political organization.
3. It conceives the realization of this program as entailing a struggle.
4. It seeks not merely to persuade but to recruit loyal adherents, demanding
what is sometimes called commitment.
5. It addresses a wide public but may tend to confer some special role of
leadership on intellectuals.  
In this page, the noun ideology is used only in its strict sense; the adjective
ideological is used to refer to ideology as broadly defined. On the basis of the
five features above, then, one can recognize as ideologies systems as
diverse as destutt de Tracy's own science of ideas, the Positivism of the
French philosohher Auguste Comte, Communism and several other types
of Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, and kind nationalism. that all these "isms"
belong to the 19th or 20th century may suggest that ideologies are no older than the word itself, that
they belong essentially to a period in which secular belief has increasingly replace traditional religious
faith.