Warfare, Welfare and Citizenship - Essay Example

Introduction Over a long period, nations have been fighting to obtain freedom and democracy. Whether these fights have been internal or external, their main aim has been to obtain the rule of law that is favourable to the majority. Traditionally, few people who inflicted their policies for the majority to follow, dictated politics. This led to a series of warfare as people struggled to improve their welfare. Citizens of a particular country felt oppressed by the policies governing them, and the fact that they had little influence on what was happening around them. However, these trends have changed over time. People are more loyal to their nations than before because of improved political environment. Governments on the other hand have struggled to empower their citizens either politically, socially, intellectually and religiously. In the modern society, there is a general notion that people are all pluralist. This paper will therefore discuss warfare, welfare, pluralism and citizenship from both the historical and modern perspective. Warfare welfare and citizenship The three terms warfare, welfare and citizenship largely influence each other, making it hard to analyse one without discussing the others. From a political perspective, scholars regard warfare as an ideological struggle in which people try to dominate their ideas over others. More often, many people refer to this struggle as propaganda or psychological contest to implement conditions in the political arena. Warfare is a broad field that encompasses various components, ranging from military operations, through morale warfare to psychological wellbeing of the citizens. The military struggle seems to harbour all the other aspects in a war such as propaganda and publicity. Nations for example, were eager to demonstrate their military prowess during World War I and II. It involved the use of military machines, political influence, religion and social integration among nations (Richards 2005). Welfare on the other hand entails the effort of a particular government to provide its citizens with economic security. As a result, a government guarantees its citizens with the fundamental necessities such as food, health care, shelter, security, as well as protection in the old age (Light n.d). The government fulfils this role using two methods. First is direct assistance, where it provides the citizens with their needs on a one-on-one basis. The other method is indirect assistance, where a particular administration implements programs that reduce problems faced by the citizens. Such programs include offering clean water to minimise diseases and better roads to reduce cases of accidents. Welfare in a social context is as old as human race as people used to offer support to members of the society who were not able. In this regard, welfare took a larger dimension as it not only dealt with the economic needs, but also the psychological and moral needs. This process is still in practice, as members of the society join hands to demand for a more correctly run government (Katz 2008). Citizenship on the other hand entails the legal status of a person. The civil, political and social rights enjoyed by that person define this status. In this regard, a citizen must belong to a political setting, be able to participate in social-political activities and have the right to claim legal protection from a particular legal setup (Leydet 2011). However, different philosophers have varying views on those who qualify to be citizens of a particular nation. According a particular French scholar, citizenship is akin to education. Thus, citizenship belongs to those who master education through formal and liberal learning, and later practice the same in opposing oppressive political regimes (Taithe 2001). Others assert that citizenship is a set of rights enjoyed by the virtue of one’s birthplace or nationality (Katz 2008). The two types of citizenships, social and civil clearly demonstrate the integration between warfare, welfare and citizenship. In a civil relationship, individuals have the power to join independent units in the struggle for economic progress. Most of these individuals are denied the social protection on the grounds that they are equipped with the means of protecting themselves. As a result, this gives rise to warfare as these individuals struggle to dominate the economy that guarantees their welfare. On the other hand, social welfare provides a universal right to individuals regardless of their economic, social and political advancement. This eliminates extreme warfare as the society tries every citizen equally. A good example of a situation in which such practices are applied is during the general election. Although some individuals have political influence, majority citizens have the mandate to choose which policies are to govern the nation (Katz 2008). Pluralism Many people believe that political authority is coercive and that the law is there to enforce political decisions in a certain jurisdiction. This is regardless of whether citizens within that jurisdiction agree with the decisions or not. It thus becomes problematic as it is wrong to force people to adhere to certain regulations and practices, which they may have fundamental disagreements. In a pluralistic society, people accept their differences and respect the choice of other individuals (Machin n.d). Muslims for example must accept the permissibility of eating pork as non-Muslims have a different view on the same issue. Over the past few years due to social-political change and the empowerment of citizens, most people have come to believe that we are all pluralists now. This is because the masses are the ones exercising the power, other than a small group of elite people (Trueman 2011). In a political context, pluralism concerning leadership can describe government as a government of the people, by the people and for the people (AllAboutReligion.org 2011). Pluralism takes all the ideas and opinions of the citizens into consideration. The society thus develops the ability to tolerate the divergent views of all its members. All the ideas are valid thus eliminating the notion of right or wrong opinions. As a result, the society is able to achieve stable democratic principles, which are necessary for its growth and development. In most societies, majority of the people present their opinion during the general elections. As a result, the representative must act in a way that meets the welfare of all citizens (Trueman 2011). Equally, the society is able to set standards of life and work hard to achieve it. The welfare of every citizen is put into consideration thus reducing chances of warfare. In addition, the society is able to maintain consistent directives as well as practical democratic norms. This is vital in maintaining a sense of citizenship. Lastly, effective political pluralism enables the society to maintain a particular culture and tradition. Such uniqueness is important in establishing the identity of a particular political setting (AllAboutReligion.org 2011). On the other hand, pluralism has its drawbacks, both to the individuals and the society. People view things differently and have varying opinions pertaining a particular issue. If people’s ideas and values were the same, then there would be no reason for justifying some political decisions. It is thus unfair to conclude that the opinion of the majority is the best. In most instances particularly in the political arena, the opinion of the masses is dictated by political wave thus making people ignorant of particular policies presented by the politicians. This makes it common to find people voting in poor leadership at the expense of visionary leaders due to their political affiliation and sometimes their ethnical background (Machin n.d). Religious pluralism In a social-political environment, it is important to understand the role of religion in shaping the warfare, welfare and citizenship of a country. Although many people view religion as just a belief, it plays a major role in life regardless of religious affiliation. In some countries, there is no separation between religion and the government. As a result, the government must first adhere to the teachings of the religion before making any decision that affects the welfare of its citizens. Where for example the government and the church is the same thing, an Islam believer may feel vulnerable and unprotected by the laws passed by the government. Such laws as worshiping on the Sabbath may interfere with the welfare of the Muslims, who may initiate war to demand their religious rights. Likewise, in an Islamic government, the Christians may feel oppressed if the government for example bans the sale of pork. This may similarly foster the Christians to demand for their rights, resulting into war (Scott 2009). Due to its social-political contribution, there is a need to view religion on a much wider phenomenon. Religion has seized to be simply a theological believe comparable to gender and socio-economic wellbeing of individuals. Instead, religion is an umbrella, holding people with different ideology together. It tries to focus on the fundamental impact on people’s thought on the sole purpose of life. In addition, it tries to make people understand their real interests and answer questions that science is unable to solve. Religious pluralism thus requires people to respect the ideologies of other members of the society. In case of conflict, it is the role of the supreme power of the land such as the constitution, to solve the differences (Ihalainen 1999). Conflict between warfare welfare and citizenship It is hard to achieve stability, welfare and citizenship, all at the same time. This is because of the cost involved in maintaining the stability of a particular nation. Warfare and welfare are for example inversely proportional, although there are particular exemptions to the theory. An increase in a nation’s security will have a direct impact on the general welfare of its citizens. This is because the resources used to maintain and upgrade the security system of a country may come from those meant to improve the welfare of the citizens. Every nation has limited resources, and it is the duty of the government to divide them among numerous sectors in the economy. In the United States for example, the citizens always complain of the vast resources employed by the government in its military. They argue that, such resources could largely improve the welfare of the public (Paul 2011). On June 2008, the House of Representative in the United States passed the war-funding bill. This law gave the mandate to the president to use more money as he deemed fit in the war against terrorism. As the representatives viewed terrorist as a hindrance to the welfare of the American citizens, the public had another view. They considered it as a waste of public fund on an innocent nation, which would generate nothing in return. Due to this concern, the public pressured their representative to strike a deal with the Congress to increase money spent on social welfare. For every increase in military spending, the social fund was also to receive incremental amount. This move was able to check the government spending, as there were limited resources to achieve these two goals at the same time. Unable to control its warfare, the government landed the country into an economic crisis, which largely affected the welfare of the citizens (Raimondo 2008). During the World War I and II as well as the cold war, nations spent large-scale investments on their defense and problem-solving techniques. From the acquisition of warheads to training of the military, billions of dollars were directed at the military, which were later destroyed as the wars intensified. Congruently, the nation spent vast amount of resources in trying to cater for its citizens during the war. These two scenarios were in conflict, as various governments had to decide which project to take and in the same time maintain its political prowess (Light n.d). However, citizenship and welfare seem to complement one another. In the struggle for human rights in the United States, various lobby groups fought for their citizenship rights, which eventually promoted their welfare. Freedom of association for example ensured that everyone belonged to a certain society, while at the same time it opened an opportunity for the people to interact and learn new business ideas. Feminists and human right activists have also challenged the applicability of citizenship across the board. They argue that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and thus no one should receive special treatment at the expense of the rest. Most of their arguments arise from the common practice of treating the male species with special care than the female. In most societies, females are reduced to reproducing and executing household duties while the male engage in activities that are more professional. This has angered the feminist, who now demand for equal opportunities for all. In a wider perspective, there is also the segregation of the minority groups in the society. This has led to the emergence of separate schools for the minors, with different curriculums. As a result, the government is not able to meet the welfare of the minority fairly as it does for the rest in the society. Such people are bound to hate the rest as well as the administration system, which may culminate into warfare (Leydet 2011). Solutions to warfare, welfare and citizenship conflict Scholars have come up with various suggestions to address the issue of warfare, welfare and citizenship conflict. While it is impossible to eliminate the conflict, the government can implement certain measures to minimize the adversarial effects. One way to address the problems associated with citizenship is to device ways of determining the entitlement of citizenship. In a world coupled with intense migration, it becomes hard to determine who the real citizens of a country are by birth or naturalization. The government for example, may choose to protect only the native born of that country and accord them the rights they deserve. Congruently, it may introduce a registration system such as the green card, in which the nation picks potential citizens on a merit basis. Likewise, the government should offer a leeway to people with real and effective link to political communities, so that they can claim citizenship (Leydet 2011). At large, people need to be presented with an opportunity to be members of a political community they deem fit. While dealing with political warfare, it is important to supply the government with ideas more powerful than those of the opponent. However, these ideas must be in line with the welfare and the citizenship goals. In deciding the resources to deploy in the security department for example, the government should make sure that these resources are at the detriment of the public welfare. In addition, it must do so making sure that it respects the rights and freedom of every citizen. To effectively deal with warfare, the government must be willing to adopt three terms namely reoccupation, relief measures and long-term reconstruction. Long-term reconstruction entails planning for future eventuality that may hinder the delivery of services to the citizens. Similarly, the relief measure ensures that the government is able to solve the current problems to a point that it may not recur in the future (Richards 2005). To deal with the problem associated with welfare, scholars suggest that the government balances the resources that it directs to various sectors of the economy. A particular government may for example balance the resources that it deploys in the purchase of war machines and those allocated for social welfare. By negotiating for peace with other nations, a nation is able to save many resources that would have otherwise been used in the war. Possible use of the saved resources is allocating them to the social welfare kit for the benefit of the citizens. Another method that the government can use is to mobilize its citizens to engage in community welfare activities. Lastly, the government may set up voluntary programs, creating a leeway for the donors to assist in the welfare of the citizens (Katz, 2008). Conclusion Warfare, welfare and citizenship are issues affecting human beings in their day-to-day life. This calls for solutions to integrate them other than trying to avoid them. Change on one phenomenon has a direct impact on the others. On a larger perspective, warfare, welfare and citizenship entails the struggle of individuals members of a particular political setup to live comfortable in the changing world. One of the factors that facilitate this peaceful coexistence is the ability of people to accept that they have different ideologies, a process known as pluralism. Religion also plays a major role in the effort of the government to allocate resources to its citizens. However, on several instances, warfare, welfare and citizenship have conflicted. It is on such occasions that the government should intervene and offer solution for the same. References AllAboutReligion.org 2011, Political Pluralism. Available from: .[10 October 2011]. Ihalainen, Pasi 2011, The Discourse on Political Pluralism in Early Eighteenth-century England. Available from: .[10 October 2011]. Katz, Michael B 2008, The price of citizenship: redefining the American welfare state, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Leydet, Dominique 2011, Citizenship. Available from: .[01 August 2011]. Light, Jennifer S n.d, From Warfare to Welfare. Available from: .[10 October 2011]. Machin, Dean J n.d, Pluralism and Political Legitimacy. Available fro: .[10 October 2011]. Paul, Ron 2011, Congress Must Reject the Welfare/Warfare State. Available from: .[10 October 2011]. Raimondo, Justin 2008, The Welfare-Warfare State. Available from: .[10 October 2011]. Richards, Lee 2005, Political Warfare Executive The Meaning, Techniques and Methods of Political Warfare. Available from: .[10 October 2011]. Scott 2011, So We’re All Pluralists Now? Available from: .[10 October 2011]. Taithe, Bertrand 2001, Citizenship and wars: France in turmoil, 1870-1871, Routledge, New York. Trueman, Chris 2011, Pluralism. Available from: .[10 October 2011]. Read More