Retrogressive understanding of citizenship

“It’s a very retrogressive understanding of citizenship,” said newspaper owner Trevor Ncube, of the attempt by the Zimbabwean government to strip him of his citizenship of that country. Ncube owns two newspapers in Zim – the Zimbabwean Independent and the Standard – and the Mail & Guardian in South Africa.

He addressed a media conference today, ahead of tomorrow’s Harare High Court hearing where his lawyers will be fighting to save his citizenship rights by contesting the governments decision to strip him of his citizenship. He, unfortunately, will not be present at the hearing. As soon as he enters Zimbabwe, his passport will be impounded. He will then have just one one-way trip left on his passport – to any country willing to give him a visa. For someone with business interests outside of Zimbabwe and a family based in Johannesburg, that would be disastrous; he will be under “country arrest” in the land of his birth.

The reasons for Mugabe’s government wanting to strip Ncube of his citizenship can be debated at length: he is regarded as an enemy of the state for giving the opposition (and anyone else) a platform to express themselves; he owns the only two independent newspapers still surviving in Zim; etc. These reasons will likely be debated in court tomorrow and have been and will continue to be in the international media. But what this issue also highlights is the manner in which African governments s readily wield the citizenship stick either to bring their citizens into line or to marginalise them. Remember how then Zambian president Frederick Chiluba attempted to make former Zambian president, Kenneth Kaunda, into a Malawian in order to prevent him from running in the elections? Kaunda had to go to court to prove that he, in fact, was Zambian. What a ridiculous situation!

It is strange, as Ncube pointed out, that African leaders regularly and frequently “decry colonialism” while adhering so strongly to “colonial boundaries of the colonists”. African leaders passionately defend the boundaries of the nation states – it is one way of protecting their power. Not only do they defend these borders verbally and legally, they also go to war for them and are willing to kill or be killed for them.

No matter how patriotic one might be, as Ncube says he is, once one seeks to threaten those whose power relies on the existence of the nation state, one is enough of a threat somehow to be silenced. In December 2005, Ncube’s passport was seized. He went to court and won that one. Now it’s his citizenship.

What does a person do without citizenship of any country? Most Palestinians, of course, know about this only too well, being officially “stateless”. Being a permanent refugee, not being allowed to return to one’s homeland? This is the possibility that confronts Trevor Ncube. He has never held the citizenship of any country besides Zimbabwe. He was born in Zimbabwe and does not desire to be a citizen of any other country. But because his father was born in Zambia and moved to what was then Southern Rhodesia – before Trevor’s birth, this is being used as an excuse to strip him of his rights. In a number of countries – notably many Arab countries – the foreign birth of one’s parents means that one can never be a citizen of that country. That is why in countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar, huge proportions of their populations consist of non-citizens. Even people who have lived in these countries all their lives will be regarded as foreigners and can never become citizens!

The issue of citizenship is an important one. What does being a citizen of a country mean? What are the rights and responsibilities associated with being a citizen? Should a born citizen of a country have more rights than a naturalised citizen? Should there be impediments to people changing their citizenships if they so desire? And, as in Ncube’s case, can someone be presumed to have a citizenship of a country even if that person doesn’t, never has and has no desire to do so? It is these questions that need careful answers which should be used to force these African despots (and their Arab counterparts) to understand the meaning of human rights.

But not understanding what “citizenship” means is also a problem faced by many Muslims living in majority non-Muslim countries. Many of them who immigrated to these countries still do not understand the concept of citizenship and the responsibilities entailed by being a citizen, by having a compact with a society and a state. The responsibilities to live within the law, to contribute to the development of the society, to be part of the debates within that society, to participate in the political decision-making of that country, etc.

At the same time, as we South Africans know too well, citizenship also means struggling to build a just society. And this could imply struggling – even fighting – against an unjust state, as was the case in Apartheid South Africa.