Citizenship confers legal, political and social dimensions on individuals. Access to citizenship was illustrated by how membership was determined. Ancient society witnessed the restriction of access to citizenship as some groups did not have the right to participate in activities belonging to citizens. Access to citizenship has been expanded in modern societies. It is necessary to establish that the concept of citizenship varies from time to time: ancient citizenship was more about political circles, while in most modern societies citizenship rarely involves highly participatory elements or vigorous democratic practices. The concept of citizenship, in fact, is closely linked to the political sphere since the rights and freedom of citizens vary depending on the forms of government. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Arguably, a certain political system might accommodate the protection of rights and liberties as the core of citizenship better than another. Restricting access to citizenship undermines the legal, political and social position that is part of citizens' identity and causes disparities based on class, gender or ethnicity. Underrepresentation of groups will ultimately lead to failure of state functioning and loss of stability of states. Although unequal access to citizenship was the dominant factor impacting the functioning of the state, it is an exaggeration to say that it was the sole cause of the failures of ancient societies. Other key aspects distinct from ancient or modern society also need to be assessed as specific forms of challenges. This essay examines how the state operates in the process of providing access to citizenship and how legal, political and social elements, each usually conceptually inseparable from each other, are linked to the status of citizenship in modern and modern antiquity. contemporary era. The essay will also evaluate how these elements influence the functioning of the state in a particular political system. Finally, concepts such as globalization, moral universalism, and feminism will be highlighted as they serve to gradually eradicate the limitation on access to citizenship. Being small-scale communities has allowed Greek citizens to form friendly and trusting relationships with each other. This is especially essential to building a society in which people have a social obligation to conform to the rules without the need for the government to resort to the use of force. As social bonding was fostered, citizens would be willing to cooperate with each other in collaborative activities. Small communities also had the advantage of easily instilling values ​​from generation to generation through institutions such as schools and families, which was hardly possible for large communities or the republic. As Aristotle said, adequate education will lead citizens to perform good and dutiful actions. Strong rules and laws in the large community of modern society may be able to force citizens to comply with it, but citizens may not believe that they are morally obligated to comply with it. However, the Athenian style of democratic citizenship depended on the intimacy of a community. Aristotle recognized this limitation when he pointed out that the promotion of civic virtues could only be practicable in small communities. In this way, living in a close-knit community would be the only means to achieve an objective of sharing common values ​​and interests and, ultimately, social solidarity. The modelGreek citizenship was drawn primarily from the political system of Athens and Sparta with equality as its core principle. In the communities every citizen was equal before the law and was obliged to treat each other with equal concern. The rights of the Greek citizen mainly concern political participation. This is in line with Aristotle's explanation that "human beings are political animals." According to Aristotle, political participation is the most effective means to achieve a full sense of citizenship in which the potential of citizens can be realized during the process of “sharing civic life”. The Aristotelian definition of citizen as "someone who governs and is governed in turn" makes citizenship conceptually inseparable from political spheres. Citizenship in ancient societies usually entails the right to engage in political life while non-citizens were underrepresented in the political process due to a lack of opportunities to participate in the process. Citizens of Athens enjoyed the right to directly participate in the Assembly or perform other public activities. tasks ranging from meeting for public debates to performing jury service. Fixed-term tenure in political careers served as a tool to ensure that most citizens had the opportunity to participate in political spheres and, in practice, citizens would have the opportunity to hold public office at some point. The Greek idea of ​​citizenship mainly involves the subordination of private life to public affairs or the "common good". A clear distinction between public and private life aimed to prevent citizens from seeking self-interest while carrying out public tasks. Non-citizens were at the same time responsible for the private sphere of those citizens' lives. The same could be said for citizenship in Sparta, illustrated in Plutarch's account of the Spartans: citizens "should have no desire for private life, nor knowledge of it, but rather be like bees, always attached to the community, swarming together around the their lives". leader and dedicate himself entirely to his country. The citizens of Sparta were also to be charged with protecting the country by serving in the military. Unlike modern citizenship, the Greeks' access to citizenship was not unconditional as civil duties were imposed on citizens and failure to fulfill these duties would result in the loss of citizenship. In fact, access to citizenship in ancient societies was generally conditional on meeting the requirements. Spartans, for example, had to be able to pay mess dues to be incorporated into a citizens' body and to maintain their citizen status. This shows that individuals with financial deficiencies could not become citizens of Sparta. The same could be said of the citizens of Athens: failure to meet the standards of the commons would be tantamount to their expulsion. In this way, the threat of being deprived of citizenship would force citizens, especially parliamentary ones, not to pursue their own ends. In contrast, citizenship status in modern societies often refers to a set of rights granted unconditionally. It does not necessarily follow that only rights are associated with citizenship status, however duties, as in the case of Greek citizenship, should not be preconditions of rights. Clearly, a citizenship status in Athens and Sparta was more of a duty and had no real rights aspect compared to that of modern societies. The approach adopted in Athens to exercise equal political participation could be consideredproblematic as citizens had no say in their willingness to participate in public functions. Attitudes towards access to citizenship also concern how public and private life are balanced. A clear distinction between public and private life aimed to prevent citizens from seeking self-interest while carrying out public tasks. However, the roles assigned to citizens and non-citizens have been widely criticized as a form of oppression as they prohibited individuals from choosing their own identity. It appears that the characteristics of the ancient Greek model of citizenship symbolize totalitarianism rather than the democracy that the Greeks sought to establish and in that period it was not foreseen that a clear distinction would lead to such a disaster. To elaborate on this, the lack of free choice and distinction between public and private life led to corruption and conflicts of interest, demonstrating that this model of citizenship was not efficient in facilitating the process of political participation. Undoubtedly, the success of Greek democracy was short-lived due to the Greeks' incorrect view of citizenship. Political powers were placed in the hands of male citizens who could not represent the interests of all groups in communities. This would be problematic especially during the process of passing laws as there was no one to speak and act on behalf of non-citizens. The absence of checks and balances implies the assertion of unlimited authority vested in the assembly dominated by male citizens. It is fair to argue that the main cause could be attributed to the classification of citizens from the beginning. Clearly, the Greek version of citizenship was not open to all. Citizenship status in both Greece and Rome was exclusive to specific groups of people. The Greek model of citizenship was the privilege of a minority qualified as citizens: adult males born to Athenian citizen families, warriors and masters of work. The characteristic of Greek democracy is against the oppression of non-citizens, where children, slaves, foreigners and women were not included in the list. Likewise, the Romans adopted prima facie criteria for determining the eligibility of citizens, stating that Roman citizens must be native freemen who were the legitimate sons of other native freemen. Only later were the criteria abolished. This is contrary to the idea of ​​liberal democracy in modern societies that attempted to include all mature adults in the system. Despite sharing several characteristics with Athens, the Roman model of citizenship has some surprising differences compared to the Greek one. From the beginning, the Roman Republic aspired to create a classless society, and the society was the product of the struggle for the acquisition of rights against the aristocrats (patricians). The agreement between patricians and plebeians was reached when it was established that officials had to look after the interests of the people. The creation of the People's Tribunes with power in the hands of the plebeians indicates the process of checks and balances that could better ensure the political equality of citizens. The power of the plebeians included the power to veto acts or even the power to enact laws, demonstrating a move towards a society in which citizens of all classes, not just the wealthy, had political power. A concept of legal citizenship was also introduced when the Romans offered “dual citizenship” to conquered territories. Ineligibility for citizenship usually entailed the absence of the right to participate in political areas. In general, non-citizens had a duty to take care of citizens' private lives.The introduction of “dual citizenship” and “semi-citizenship” allowed foreigners to have the status of Roman citizen in addition to the status of original citizen. The citizens of Tusculum, for example, were granted full Roman citizenship while retaining their nationality of origin. At first glance, access to citizenship appears to be expanded when the status is not limited to national citizens. In practice, Roman citizenship turned out to be a legal status anyway due to the lack of real involvement in self-government. The rights that came with citizenship status simply refer to protection by the military and the judiciary. Indeed, Roman citizens had no authentic voice in political participation and lacked the political influence that was a key element in Greek citizenship. Furthermore, the bodies that allowed Roman citizens to hold offices mostly exercised judicial powers, while the ultimate political powers remained with the Senate and Consuls who were the bodies made up of wealthy landowners. Furthermore, the voting process was largely dominated by the wealthy. As a result, Roman citizens were granted only limited access to the rights associated with citizenship status. Ultimately, the state's reluctance to grant active political rights to the majority despite having citizenship status could imply that the Roman model of citizenship was not a success having been developed from the Greek model. As a result, the concept of Roman citizenship, despite having several characteristics similar to those of modern societies, still failed to promote political participation, a central element of representative democracy. This may simply represent the government's attitude that a citizen is "someone who is governed" but has no right to govern himself. Citizenship without political participation does not have much impact, meaning that the failure found in Greek societies could potentially be reproduced when political power was not in the hands of the majority and therefore could not advance its interests. As a matter of fact, the need to ensure representation is of primary importance to the stability of society. Overall, democracy in ancient society was artificial with different ranks of citizens in the system serving to undermine its long-term stability. Indeed, Athenian democracy was democratic only among those who were citizens in the full sense. Indeed, inequality has been the main cause of societal failures and has been at the origin of some political uprisings. Attitudes regarding access to citizenship could be gauged from the works of ancient philosophers. Plato divided the citizenry into three classes: the guardians, the soldiers and the producers. Although they constituted the largest component of citizens, producers were discouraged from participating in public affairs. Plato further classified citizens into certain classes with reference to their wealth. The need for resources to access citizenship has widened the gap between rich and poor. These inherent flaws in the political system could also be seen in the Roman citizenry: power was limited to a handful of elite families rather than the majority of citizens. This is linked to economic inequality which has had a huge impact on political rights. In general, ancient citizenship represents a highly restricted model of citizenship considering that it was a model of citizenship defined by gender, race and class. Although the scope of Roman citizenship was expanded, the right of citizens to participate in political affairs was diminished. Citizenship in ancient societyit barely consisted of the private lives of citizens. In fact, citizens were asked to sacrifice their entire lives in the service of the state. The Roman model of citizenship should not be confused with that of the Italian city-states (for example Florence) which represented the autonomy of political, executive and judicial powers being independent from the Romans. However, ancient citizenship lacks an aspect of active citizenship. This is different from modern active citizenship which is about the idea of ​​opposing tyranny and inspiring a modern revolution. Modern Citizenship Modern citizenship was significantly shaped by the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1989. This was the first time the idea of ​​a constitution as a social contract was introduced. In this way, people would be treated equally before the law with the right to transact – buying and selling goods and services. There would be a sovereign political authority that would have a duty to act on behalf of citizens by responding to citizens' opinions. It was also the first time that the idea of ​​the social pact was introduced with the idea that citizens' private ends could be satisfied in civil society, a new feature of the political system that promotes interests and access to goods. Citizenship is the concept of separation of powers. Placing supreme power in the hands of one body or in the hands of a minority contributed to the rise of tyrannies, as seen in ancient societies. Division of powers into different branches Representative democracy brought out some new aspects of citizenship as the limitations of considerable citizenship found in ancient communities were eliminated and others were granted citizenship status. Obviously the shortcomings concern, on the one hand, the attitude towards access to citizenship because... On the other hand, the way in which rights and duties are perceived also affects access to citizenship. Modern citizenship takes into account the private sphere of individuals' lives p.105 while ancient citizenship simply considered "the public good" as a paramount consideration. However, the laws of most modern societies still contained explicit racial, ethnic, and gender restrictions. Exclusion from citizenship was determined by discriminatory criteria ranging from gender, nationality and economic status. Modern citizenry, especially early modern philosophers, did not consider certain groups to be citizens. Indeed, women, ethnic minorities, children and the poor were marginalized. According to Hobbe, citizens should be males of high rank and in possession of considerable property. Rousseau similarly argued that women and the poor would not be eligible as citizens since citizenship should be conditioned on property requirements and the absence of dependence on others. Locke's focus was also on men who qualified as citizens. Mill proposed the thesis that the wiser should have more votes in the process of universal suffrage. It should be emphasized that although citizenship is a statement of equality, that equality may be incomplete. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that modern citizenship fails to provide access to citizenship simply because the scope of citizens' rights varies with class. This also happened in the United States and France after the revolutions. In the United States, for example, blacks and women were considered citizens; however, their citizenship status initially did not have an element of political participation. The lack of the right to participate in the political system means that their opinion will be ignored. This reinforces the thesis that theRacial and gender hierarchies had not yet been abolished and persisted for some time. However, it is not enough that everyone can access citizenship without being equal, since citizenship does not only imply the protection of the majority of people globally. at the expense of the "few". It is clear that Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke and Mill believed in the idea of ​​democracy as a way to promote the interests of all citizens. However, it is paradoxical that they deliberately established criteria that reflected nothing but inequality. Although Mill was the first male philosopher to consider women as equally mature adults as men, his proposed idea of ​​giving grades based on individuals' abilities could not be justified in a democratic context. The accounts still failed to guarantee all individuals equal rights. Modern societies have created a new model of citizenship with a social dimension. The right of social citizenship was, according to Marshall, a dimension of full citizenship status. Social aspects could be seen as a way to improve citizens' lives. Since ancient and modern citizenship can be seen to have failed to promote equality of citizens, this new model of citizenship could better bridge the inequality gap by first attempting to resolve economic inequality. The idea is that social integration and stability can be achieved provided poverty is eradicated or minimized. Ancient and Modern Citizenship: Overlapping Aspects In this sense, both ancient and modern society share more or less the same notion of citizenship with the restriction of certain groups from citizenship. It is obvious that citizenship, especially in ancient times, did not guarantee fundamental rights (e.g. the right to vote, the right to enter into contracts and the right not to be subjected to torture) for individuals nor could it guarantee fairness in society. Athens developed a form of democracy but failed to grant equal power to all individuals as only a highly exclusive group of men could have political power. Both ancient and modern citizens could not yet afford to sufficiently accommodate the representation of certain groups in society. Women, ethnic minorities, and the poor were generally excluded from citizenship during the early modern period. The requirements for wealth and knowledge in ancient societies demonstrate that not all individuals qualify for such status. The exclusion of the poor from citizenship according to Aristotle It should be emphasized that direct democracy in Athens is a separate issue from citizenship and therefore the need for educated people in the democratic process does not justify the restriction of slaves, women in that process. The works of major philosophers, including Rousseau and Locke, share a male-dominated model of citizenship. From the inception of Locke's concept of citizenship in a modern world it was noted that individuals considered citizens were men. The same male-dominated view applies to the argument of Hobbes and Rousseau. A new direction of citizenshipIndeed, the conception of citizenship is usually based on the relationship between individuals and the territorial state. Both the Athenian and Spartiate modes of citizenship were severely tested by the territory. According to Plutarch, citizens were not allowed to move away from the city for fear that the imposed norms and values ​​might be contaminated by the citizens' acquisition of foreign standards of living. The emergence of new states and transnational models represents a challenge to the concept of “citizenship.