The Center for the Study of Global Diasporas in Southern California sponsors
The Reconceptualization of Citizenship
With increasing globalization, citizens of one country that move to another nation, or live and work between more than one country, are facing new questions about their rights and privileges. For one, should citizens living overseas be able to vote in their home countries? How deeply is globalization affecting our notions of nationalism and citizenship? During a workshop, titled " The Reconceptualization of Citizenship," a panel of experts sponsored by the Center for the Study of Global Diasporas in Southern California at CSUDH addressed some of these issues.
Offering two unique perspectives on citizenship issues, Leticia Calderón, research professor, Instituto Mora, Mexico, spoke about the expanding definition of citizenship in Mexico, while Jung-Sun Park, assistant professor & coordinator, Asian-Pacific Studies spoke about citizenship in South Korea.
According to Calderón, Mexico's definition of nationalism changed at the end of the 1980s. The political system became less authoritarian resulting in Mexico's greater awareness of the outside world. Now, Mexicans are beginning to see politics as an important instrument to affect change and more people are choosing to vote.
Along with this new sense of nationalism, Calderón says, migrants are becoming more involved in the political process. Migration used to be considered a form of betrayal, but this is no longer so. Mexicans who move abroad now consider themselves as remaining a part of the country. Many return at some point and buy homes.
Mexico, and many other countries in Latin America, are beginning to allow those abroad to vote in their national elections. Calderón states that allowing citizens abroad to vote is a way of adapting to change as many emigrate from Mexico. It is a new way of thinking about the national state. Instead of being part of one nation, Mexico now sees itself as a part of many nations.
According to Park, South Korea offers a very different definition of citizenship. Unlike countries such as the United States, which base citizenship on heritage and territoriality, South Korea bases eligibility for citizenship on ancestry and patriarchy. A child who is born to a Korean woman and a non-Korean father is not considered to be a citizen of South Korea.
Parks adds that South Korea does not permit dual citizenship after age 18. Those with dual citizenship who work or study in Korea are compelled to choose one nationality. There have been several instances of young Korean-U.S. men, born and raised in the United States, arriving for a tourist visit in South Korea only to find themselves drafted into the army, an obligatory service for South Korean males 18 and older. Because dual citizenship is not permitted, authorities don't recognize any but Korean citizenship.
The South Korean government has recently proposed special laws for overseas Koreans, which allows quasi-dual citizenship. These persons are given rights such as the ability to own property. Yet there is a breach of universality with laws that do not apply to these emigrants, such as the obligatory military service. It is also not known which country would protect these citizens when living abroad.
"Is citizenship a new identity marker that transcends boundaries," concludes Park, "or an empty marker?"
As countries around the world expand their definitions of citizenship, there is a lot of ambiguity about what the future will hold. But one thing is for sure - with close to 100 million people living outside their national boundaries, these policies will carry great impact.
- E.E.
Experts Panel: The Only Certainty Is Uncertainty In Mexico's Political Future
On July 3, 2000, Mexico awakened to a new democracy, finding that a majority of the electorate chose Vicente Fox Quesada to be president, loosening the stranglehold of the long-ruling Partido Revolucional Institutional (PRI).
The triumph of Vicente Fox of the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) over major contenders Fransisco Labastida of the PRI and Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano of the Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) was historic: PRI had monopolized power in Mexico since its formation in 1929.
But, don't write its political obituary yet, a panel of experts cautioned at the LaCorte Hall assembly: The only certainty is uncertainty in Mexico's political future.
Those were the estimations of David Ayon, political columnist and research associate at Loyola Marymount College; Victor Alejandro Espinoza, author and secretario general academico, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte in Mexico; and Denise Dresser, professor at ITAM University in Mexico, and political columnist for the Los Angeles Times and for the Procesa and Reforma newspapers.
At the Sept. 26 program, the trio assessed the "Political Prospects for the new Presidential Administration in Mexico." Noting the results of the historic election, which resulted in the election of PAN candidate Fox to the presidency, while fracturing the Mexican legislature among the three parties, they called the national picture murky because Fox lacks a clear mandate to proceed.
Why and how did this happen in a nation where one party ruled for so long?
After all, Ayon noted, "The PRI was created in the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution for the purpose of bringing stability to Mexico, and many thought it could continue for a long time, perhaps well into the 21st Century."
He attributed part of PRI's failure to a wave of popular support for democracy - one of three that has swept the world during the 20th Century. Ayon said that the first followed World War I and lasted about 20 years; the second followed World War II and lasted into the early 1960s; and, the third started in the mid-1970s, washing across Mexico with last summer's election.
Carrying the banner for change was Vicente Fox, Ayon said. Fox is a college graduate with a business degree who worked his way from driving a truck for Coca-Cola to serving as president of Coca-Cola's Latina American operations. In 1991, he was elected governor of Guanajuato, and was re-elected in 1994. He is to be inaugurated President of Mexico on Dec. 1.
But, for all his qualifications Fox's coattails were short. In the Congress of Mexico, Espinoza said. In the 500-seat Chamber of Deputies, PRI holds onto 211 seats; PAN, 207 seats; PRP, 50 seats; and, a number of lesser parties the remainder. In the 128-member Senate, PRI elected 59 members; PAN, 45 members; PRP, 17 members; and, the remainder scattered among minority parties.
Said Dresser: "Fox will have less room to maneuver. Beyond desire for change, he does not have a forceful mandate. He will have to build one."
How is anybody's guess, she said. "It is an unprecedented situation. It is fluid. No significant party has the ability to pass legislation." Consequently, she explained, to piece together a coalition to govern will require an "unholy alliance" of the assorted parties.
If the new president is to succeed, Dresser said, "The challenge for Fox will be to govern at the center without alienating the right" or conservative ground that had been held by the PRI. 6
- T.W.
