First of all, every state has responsibilities to its citizens, for example public safety for individuals and their property. Recent riots in England aroused fear, shock and questions. The state and its institutions failed to protect many hard working, law abiding citizens. It took five days to restore order. Another responsibility of the government is enhancing well-being and prosperity of citizens by providing education, health service, places to work, etc.
Second and foremost, citizens also have responsibilities. People have to pay taxes and abide the law of the land. But menacing gangs of underclass youths on the vicious loose, looting with no restraints and no regret whatsoever, setting everything on their way on fire – where have they come from?
Surprisingly, they were joined by many so –called “normal” people; people, who usually work and do not commit crimes. But this time, in this very situation when normality disappeared from the streets and so behavioural and social constrains of so many temporally ceased to exist t – in effect so many people found themselves on the wrong side, joining mob, attacking police and opportunistically looting shops, with no dignity and no morals – for a pair of new trainers or a new telly, and I ask rhetorically – what is wrong with this picture? Some citizens failed the state and failed their co-citizens as well. But some people can be hardly called citizens – they do not contribute anything and nothing is expected of them – apart of not causing too much trouble.
The matter is clear enough when we look from the perspective of relations between state and citizens: Citizens pay taxes and expect protection and services in return. From this perspective two problems appear to be obvious:
First problem is that state requires no obligations from some of their citizens without any good reasons. Yes, some people get benefits for doing chronically nothing. In fact, they are hardly expected to do anything. They do not contribute anything. The society seems to be happy enough with keeping them out of the streets e.g. in various forms of social and support housing and they get benefits to feed their basic needs (and addictions). Young and middle aged people who have never worked and who will never be; living all their lives on state benefits and often committing petty crimes or doing drugs. Most of them poorly educated with no real perspectives or incentives or even skills to turn their lives around. They grew up in dysfunctional families and on the streets. They are not needed and they were pretty much abandoned. They have got institutionalised instead and the current system is not helping them. They are entitled but nothing is expected of them.
The second problem is that state is not able to provide work for everybody (and besides, not everybody is able to work). And that is the reality of post-industrial world in which unqualified and low skilled people do not fit well.
If those institutionalised welfare-depended people are entitled to benefits without any expectations then they are not really citizens – that is my conclusion. In fact, they are not even called “citizens” – by various social services they are called “clients”. No surprise: “clients” or “customers” have only rights but no obligations. And this is just so wrong and in so many ways. Getting something for doing nothing is very harmful – think about perpetual dependence, disconnection, low-self esteem, drugs use – and I am not talking about single mothers (who often work so hard)or other people who are in genuine need and who are not able to do anything constructive in their lives as a way of contributing to the society.
My idea is simple but fundamental and therefore revolutionary: we should treat people like citizens not consumers.
Citizens are people who have rights and obligations – people receiving benefits should have equally or to some extend their benefits balanced with some statutory obligations as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment