Citizenship and Identity

Enrollment geographical citizenship, identity and cultural affiliation. Citizenship affiliation to a particular territory, and identity affiliation to the beliefs and values ​​and specific criteria. What is the relationship between them? Recall the following are examples of the relations between them, and the problems posed by these relations, we say: - Identity crisis of citizenship; because citizens do not need their political system, and economic and social relations, and laws regulate these relations. But all this is built on the beliefs, values ​​and standards; to any particular identity. - Not home, which belongs to the citizens is determined by the type of identity that they belong to. The homeland is one alternate may be regulated by different and even contradictory. The Russians were citizens Rosa, when they belonged to the Soviet Union, when he was a socialist economic system, and their regime was a dictatorship, they are now citizens of Russia after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and after the place of capitalism socialism and democracy replaced dictatorship. - Identity, therefore, is seen from the glass by which the citizens what is appropriate or inappropriate, valid or invalid to their homeland. If different glasses differed calendar viewers to see him, but agreed on the facts sensual. - If this is true, the citizens regardless of their devotion to their homeland and keen interest can not look to that interest as citizens, but must consider them according to their identities. But some people can imagine that the citizens of a country to solve their problems as soon as their national affiliation. They say, for example: Why do not you sit As a Sudanese, Syrian, or only just, or Yemenis, or Gulf, or the Egyptians, and forget the religious and ideological affiliations to solve the problem of our economic problems? Yes, there are problems can be resolved by the people, even as human beings, let alone to be citizens of the State, but all the problems as well, but what people already belong to a culture of cultures, but looked at every problem as human beings is not. Take the example of a problem (AIDS): The people will agree and as human beings regardless of national affiliation as something harmful; because the risk of their lives and the lives of their children, as human beings and they are keen to life. Do you agree on the method of treatment? Not necessarily; might say they were religious Muslims or Jews or Christians, but that the treatment will be crucial to refrain from any sexual activity before marriage. The Muslim goes on to say: This calls for separation of men from women, and Ilzamhn Bazzi not be very specific to men. However, people from non-religious people may see in such proposals end of freedom, which in their view, the need for chastity is essential that religious sought; therefore see sufficiency to search for medical treatment, not behavioral. Take another issue faced by all human beings: (How to be a sexual relationship between them?) Are pornography provides each individual with the needs of the willing, how willing? Do you marry? Will be married to one or more? Is there an end to this most? These issues are not resolved by the people as soon as their national affiliation; because it does not belong in that guide them to what of these options, or imposed on them. Must be citizens of the permission of the identity of the culture of the telescope, which is seen by the fact, and the standard by proposing solutions to problems. But what if the citizens in one country divided into cultures, different identities? There are several possibilities: - The best case in terms of stability and not to conflict: is to be one of the identities of these is predominant in terms of the number of members. Hassan restricted political stability, lack of conflict was less scientific development, or economic, or military; because the identity has stabilized ordered them may not be inherently help to do so. - If there were not dominant identity in this sense may be belonging to one of the identities are stronger than others; cracking down on the country's identity, and ordered him to organize on that basis. This of course will be at the expense of some freedoms, but this Alodljp imposed by force may be help on the development of the country economically, scientifically and militarily, as was the case in the Soviet Union, and as it is now in China, and North Korea. - If this does not happen neither, and the multiple identities and cultures equal in strength In the face of its citizens options: - Either to solve their conflict by dividing their homeland, as happened to India when Pakistan came out of them, and then went out Bangladesh from Pakistan, also came from Eritrea, Ethiopia, and also split Cikulovakia, and is about to be split now Ukraine. - Or to look for a formula for living in spite of their differences; What do you think this could be the formula? Some of them that the best way to coexistence of such different identities: choose a system that is neutral between secular, democratic and give each one of them the right of access to power, if chosen by the majority. But the problem is that there is no system of a neutral arbiter between different identities is a fundamental difference, and impossible to reason that there is. Can not be the economic system in the country one capitalist and socialist, and can not be a market economy capitalist permits usury, and Islamic forbidden and imposes Zakat, the system can be a political Islamist is committed to the laws of God, as the legislative provision to Him, and democratically gives this right to humans begin what they want; Secularism is the same, then the identity of the identities, so how are neutral between them? It is agreed between the theorists of Western democracy, and to say nothing of ordinary politicians such as Bush: that democracy does not work shall not be a cause for stability only within the framework agreed upon by most citizens, then their differences are cultural differences within the subset of this general framework of the Whole. But if the fundamental differences, and about the same framework, democracy will not solve the problematic, and will not achieve stable; because it is not one of the disputants will accept a solution just to disagree with the majority that said it. What is the solution? The solution in this case: He is to meet different and begin the report of the principle on which they agree upon: it is their own interest to stay in one home, then look at how they achieve this goal, it is charged a former democracy, and secularism, and is not other systems and ideologies common, but they say: This is our situation, and these differences; Flanbges for a solution to a genuine her and proportionate with her, a solution requires must be some concessions and compromises, and may be something new to benefit from religion and the democratic experience, or secular, or others, does not take any of them as a whole. This is what he attempted to do the drafters of the U.S. Constitution; Although the United States is today an example of democracy; but who put the Constitution were not committed to the democratic experience and specific, and the principles of democracy, certain, but some of them fear what they called the dictatorship of the majority, which may lead to democracy. Hence the constitution something new can not be described as a democracy as measured by the strict principles of democracy. That it is possible, but happened to be the president the winner in the elections less votes than his opponent. , Including the idea that the electoral college does not restrict its members view their mandate, but allows each one of them to vote for those who see a viable candidate for the presidency regardless of the votes obtained in the state. But even this did not solve the problem is a complete solution; the American people are still divided on the issue of the relationship between religion and state, and continues to write the books, and published research, and issues raised, and this means that pluralism is not something good in himself, and fired. Pluralism be good if they are positive, and do not be so unless they are within the framework of cultural intercourse; any part of the identity of the University. Vtaddip different identities contradictory: the problem must be addressed and not a reality keeps it, or boast, as do many people now in the Sudan and other; because it is not easy with such diversity to achieve political stability, not easy with them, and economic development, or scientific or technical. This is expected to mind, which is evidenced by the experiences of nations old and new. One might say: But this is the United States boasts as one nation even though it consisted of people from multiple races, religions and different, and different languages, cultures and contradictory. Yes! But did not insist one nation only when these components are melted in the crucible, and removed the one thing homogeneous. Can therefore say: The pluralities of two types: multi-salad bowl, which retains each component color and taste and feel: This is tomatoes, arugula and this, and this Ajjur, and so on. And pluralistic much you put it in all the ingredients, from meat, and vegetables, salt, and spices to cook sauce and one taste one, and maybe a single color. The latter is the one who said: The United States would have done, it's as they like to say, crucible melting pot made of components one American nation. American writer says: It was a process of Americanization harmony enforced by the United States as a melting pot not a fabric colors and different pictures. Was not seen to American society as a piece of Russia; a piece of Italy, and a piece of Poland, blending with each other, both! Indeed, the various nationalities made the U.S. as clean ore to become pure gold. Americanization Nguethm and removed their wickedness. The owners of the convoy movement of the crucible were not celebrating tolerance, but to submit to the concept of a narrow nationalism of America, photographing foreigners with people in fashion weird, indulge in a large pot, and out of it or not pure Behndam beautiful, and the tone of a U.S. exclusive, and the sight of U.S.; any American Englishmen (1). How to say: that America believes in pluralism, a leader of the West, which still seeks to kill the other cultures, and culture to be dominant in the world? Read this if you like the book (Edward Said) cultural colonialism (Cultural Imperialism), but they had to prepare their culture a part of their power, which they call "soft power" or soft soft power in the new report by the advisory committee of congressional committees which evaluate the policy of the U.S. government, and criticism of her came saying: "We were talking so far on the assumption that identity is an internal affair in the homeland of homelands, but the reality is not so. The relationship between home and identity can hardly be a relationship match. This causes many problems including: - It is also that the multiplicity of identities in the same country may lead to shredded; the Federation of Identities in the homelands of many may lead to an expansion of the national borders, to include some of the country to the other, or in close cooperation between them which makes them of homeland one, as is now the case in the European Union. - But this unification or shredding does not occur often but in a violent manner. In the words of English (Louis Namiyr): «The countries do not unite or crash, and the border can not be erased or re-painted the arguments and the voice of the majority. The United liberate and unite iron or rupture and blood, not the Holy application of the principle of freedom ». - Including that the interests of citizens in a particular territory can hardly be confined within the limits of their land, especially in our time, which intertwined the interests is unprecedented in the history of the world; the concept of the national state began to wane, and replaced by alliances or associations between various countries. But these alliances do not succeed unless they are based on common identities. Good example of this (European Union), who found no problem in bringing all of Qatar with a European identity somewhat, but has delayed acceptance (Turkey) with a different identity, although it a secular state, although it has changed in many of its laws for the approval of European countries . - Including the huge development in the means of communication has made our planet what it's like one nation has increased the size of the problems that concern people as human beings, regardless of their homelands and identities. Of the clearest examples of this problem (violations), which started occurring in the ozone layer, which caused a rise in temperature of the globe. One of the results of the large increase in common problems among people abounded that many international organizations is unprecedented in human history. - But some powerful nations are trying to become subject to all human values ​​stemming from the identity, or a servant to their interests; the pretext of humanitarian issues in general it is not a cultural particular. One of the clearest examples of this so-called (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), who says many of his critics even Western: Many of the items does not meet the description of the human right, which sees some of them that much of it an expression of a particular culture is Western culture. Indeed, some actors have become exploited the United Nations itself to bind all nations resolutions stemming from its values, including the case of women. We conclude from all this that the Muslims in the country: such as Sudan that what he says does not deceive them, for example leader (SPLA) that we all have to meet Sudanese As only, and make religion a personal matter; because religions divide us and brings us home. That Garang did not speak here as Sudanese, but not as a southerner, but speaking on behalf of Western civilization and values. Abandonment of Muslims from their religion in their lives is not Astmsaka patriotism is not the identity of which also claims (SPLA), but it is a replacement of the identity of the place of the Western Muslim identity.