Is Cultural Citizenship Democratic?
An assessment of the impact of change on citizenship

Abstract
Two years into the twenty-first century, a paradigm shift not seen since the decline of Communism in 1991, changed the world dramatically. The old paradigm based itself on value assumptions of a bipolar ideological context. Nation states would pit against nation states in a contest for global supremacy. Therefore we can say that the new paradigm that is emerging is centred on a shift in thinking on political, social and cultural fronts. It seeks to develop a different worldview, in which the terrorist attack on New York, in September 2001, was pivotal. The nature of foreign affairs, hence, changed from nation-state politics to global interaction politics, which is geared to solving transnational problems. Central to this environment, is a new form of citizenship which is not based on political boundaries or nationalism. It concerns itself with the nature of the survivability of human societies in times of high environmental, socio-cultural and political change. This new citizenship has been referred to as Cultural Citizenship, as it questions nation-state value assumptions as well as the need for national boundaries. It is based on a very specific perspective, which influences the way we view the world. This essay will explore Cultural Citizenship, in its various manifestations and gauge the response of two nations in the periods 1989-2001 and 2001-2009. It will use the United States and the emerging superpower status of China to assess how these two countries respond to the challenges of Cultural Citizenship and determine if it is an appropriate term to use to describe the change in global affairs on the socio-cultural, environmental, economic and political fronts. This essay will question whether cultural citizenship lends itself to democracy. Is it anti-democratic? How important is democracy to cultural citizenship? I will explore Cultural Citizenship as boundary-less and as a strong social contract that is based on a number of platforms: moral, spiritual or ethical, environmental and the security of human settlements: of these all have a commonality, perhaps going beyond the ideology of democracy.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Keywords: Paradigm Shift, Globalization, Cultural Citizenship, Neoliberalism, Imperialism, Worldview

Is Cultural Citizenship Democratic?
An assessment of the impact of change on citizenship
Two years into the twenty-first century, a paradigm shift not seen since the decline of Communism in 1991, shifted the world dramatically. A shift in thinking on political, social and cultural issues or fronts. It implied a different kind of world, in which the terrorist attack on New York, in September 2001, was central to this new paradigm shift. The nature of foreign affairs changed from nation-state politics to global interaction politics geared to solving transnational problems. In this environment, there has been emerging a new form of citizenship not based on political [national] boundaries or nationalism. It concerns itself with the nature of the survivability of human societies in times of high environmental, socio-cultural and political change. This new citizenship can easily be referred to as Cultural Citizenship, as it questions nation-state value assumptions and questions the need for national boundaries in the lives of this new citizenship. It is based on a very specific perspective which helps change the way we can view the world. This essay will compare other terms and gauge the response of two nations in the periods 1989-2001 and 2001-2009. It will use the United States and the emerging superpower status of China to assess how these two countries respond to Cultural Citizenship. The essay will focus on plural leadership decision-making in the US and China, and focus upon the very term Cultural Citizenship, to determine if it is an appropriate term to use to describe the change in global affairs on the socio-cultural, environmental, economic and political fronts. This essay will question whether cultural citizenship lends itself to democracy. Is it anti-democratic? How important is democracy to cultural citizenship. I will argue that Cultural Citizenship is boundary-less and has a strong social contract that is based on a number of platforms: moral, spiritual or ethical, environmental and the security of human settlements – which all have a commonality. What that commonality will reveal is a process that is now beyond the ideology of democracy.

Raise your hands and step away from the hedgehog

5:00AM Sunday April 06, 2008

By Rebecca Milne: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10502292

A 27-year-old has been charged with assaulting a teenage boy – with a hedgehog.

Police allege that Whakatane resident William Singalargh picked up the creature and threw it about 5m at a 15-year-old.

“It hit the victim in the leg, causing a large, red welt and several puncture marks,” said Senior Sergeant Bruce Jenkins, of Whakatane police. “He was arrested shortly afterwards for assault with a weapon, namely the hedgehog.”

The incident is alleged to have occurred around 8pm on Saturday, February 9. Police would not confirm if the pair knew each other, or if alcohol was a contributing factor in the incident.

It is also unknown whether the hedgehog was dead or alive at the time but it was dead when it was collected as evidence.

Singalargh’s lawyer Rebecca Plunket would not comment on the case. Her client will appear in Whakatane District Court on April 17 for a defended hearing on a charge of assault with a weapon. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.” END QUOTE

1. It is an Authoritarian Socialist country-NOT Communist.

2. This new term refers to the long term plan to convert an old idea into a new one without destroying 1.5billion people all at once.

3.In order to have ‘freedom’ it must have order – look at Russia-they had freedom but no order until Putin. You cannot give a baby in nappies your AK47 sub-machine gun thank you very much.

4. Human Rights is about respect – therefore one in China must have respect – it is a collective moving towards a full democracy – it will not be done overnight – I believe it will be a further 5-10 years after the Olympics when the move towards more respect of individuals will take place.

5. 60 years of collective conscience cannot be mowed down in a day. The grass clippers would be Apocalypse Now.

6. Two thorns, no – three – Tibet, Taiwan and North Korea are ‘security issues’ for China. It needs to feel safe after the debacle Communism left itself open to. These ‘Assets’ are strategic- in time China will not have a need for these ‘buffer zones’ The protest of late signals anomalies that must be watched very closely. But to verbal protest to a Authoritarian Socialist Governance is pointless – we should be really asking “How may we may help solve this with you?” Individual rights, property rights, human rights are still foreign concepts to Chinese. They think collectively don’t forget. There are what? 1.5-1.8 billion people in China? A lot of people to control in order for some kind of order to be maintained so that they can move forward, and there be less centralized control

7. Because of this collective nature, the Government of China has to think in very long term plans and will do what is necessary to get there. The fact speaks for itself that they are a force to be reckoned with economically. They have surpassed their past and are way ahead of everyone else in nearly ten years. Look at Russia, they are just starting!

Conclusion:
I am not sure about using the brand ‘Human Rights’ -it has become too PC and abused too often. We must all look beyond the brand and ask what other way can we say we disapproved of this or that behaviour- can I help you?

This new wave of change as we enter Autumn is ironic, as we change seasons, something happens to people groups around the world in which the notion of change is apparent.

New Zealand? Ummm, apart from election year, I wonder what kind of change people are actually wanting? We live in a global connected century for one thing but how does that kind of change translate domestically? Great news about R and D fund announced recently. Competitiveness in a global economy, in foreign relations, in Human Security efforts like East Timor, Afghanistan, etc should make our place in the international and Commonwealth community a respected one as oppsoed to one that is considered offensive.

Perhaps we could look at real time salary levels to keep our graduates leaving, perhaps adopt the Southern Polytechnic model for Student Loans, adopting a kind of sponsorship arrangement. Perhaps we could see GST taken off food and critical services to lower the risk factor in lower income households from getting sick, unable to get to medicial services etc.

In the bigger picture I see a shift towards the kind of political process that will come from refining MMP; greater planning for climate change and multicultural policy development.

So, I supposed it will interesting to survey what kind of change in New Zealand are looking for?