Dual nationals cannot be loyal to either country

Dual nationals occupying important political positions can be doubly accountable.

Haider Nizamani June 13, 2012

Association with the US has landed Dr Shakil Afridi a prison sentence of 33 years. It could also cost Ms Farahnaz Ispahani her seat in the National Assembly. Rehman Malik is groping for papers to prove that he has renounced British citizenship, something that the Supreme Court has so far refused to accept.

Duality in a puritan country, especially in times of heightened sensitivity about sovereignty, can lead to the end of an individual’s membership in the national parliament. However, it presents a good opportunity to flesh out a few layers about the many dimensions of citizenship in a globalised world.

What learned judges in Pakistan are doing through their judgments on dual citizenship is rehearsing script from, what Benedict Anderson, a leading American theorist of nationalism and author of the seminal book Imagined Communities (1983), terms the “classical nineteenth-century nationalist project — which aimed for the fullest alignment of habitus, culture, attachment, and exclusive political participation”. The second part of the 20th century saw the globe neatly carved into nation states and the two documents, birth certificate and passport, came to denote citizenship. Anderson considers the modern passport “counterfeit” in the sense that passports are “less and less attestations of citizenship, let alone of loyalty to a protective nation-state, than claims to participate in labour markets”.

For rich Pakistanis — who pretty much can buy American or Canadian passports — acquiring citizenship of a Western country is purchasing the right to flee Pakistan in case things do not turn out in their planned ways. Pakistanis who can afford this expensive insurance policy, through money or skills, of the right coloured passport avoid long lines at airports and other such inconveniences that a holder of the green passport is subjected to when travelling or living in the West.

This particular class of the rich and privileged from the Third World in the age of globalised capital operates armed with the iPhone, credit cards and electronic air tickets for transcontinental flights. How else does one explain a boy from a small town in India joining his brother in Karachi, marrying a Dutch woman and working in a Dutch lab, developing nuclear weapons in Pakistan, and exporting their parts to North Korea. Toryalai Wesa left Kandahar in 1991 became a Canadian national and returned to Kandahar as governor in 2009. Asma al-Assad, wife of the embattled Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, was born and raised as a British national but now happens to be the first lady of the country that may be bombarded by British fighter jets.

Looking at dual citizenship as a sign of dual loyalty may be correct legally but says little about an individual’s relations with either the country of his birth or with the one he chose to become a naturalised citizen of. Such individuals are loyal to neither in the traditional sense of the word since in the law of any country loyalty means faithful allegiance to one’s lawful sovereign or government. Rich globetrotters from the third world carrying multiple passports are primarily concerned about their interests, and in this, citizenships and passports are merely a means of achieving convenience. Expecting complete loyalty from them to their country of birth or to the adopted land is an illusionary demand. Ms Ispahani, if she indeed withheld the information of her US citizenship, was not telling the inconvenient truth.

The Pakistani state allows, even encourages and lures, multiple citizenship holder Pakistanis residing in affluent countries to participate in Pakistani society as economic investors, and to be proverbial ambassadors of Pakistan in the country of their residence. All leading parties have their external wings where misaligned citizens have heated discussions on Pakistani politics in cosy living rooms in suburban America.

Oaths of citizenship in countries like the US and Canada have the imprint of the 19th century nationalist model demanding new entrants into the nation to abjure their past. But the reality is different. The Supreme Court of Pakistan is well within its rights to stick to the literal stipulations of oaths, whether that of US citizenship or of becoming a member of Pakistan’s parliament. But, we, analysts are interested in political and social practices where those who take the oath seldom remember what the contents of that oath were. Assembled in the halls where oath of citizenship are administered in the US, the new Americans are less interested in taking up arms for America and more in getting the passport that will allow them visa-free travel to destinations they have been wanting to visit. The Supreme Court has construed the wording in the oath of US citizenship as renouncing citizenship of Pakistan by someone born in Pakistan. The US Department of State website is more in tune with today’s labyrinth of dual nationality issue than the archaic oath of citizenship. It says: “The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time ... US law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another ... The US Government recognises that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it.”

Dual nationals occupying important political positions can be doubly accountable. Having the passport of an advanced industrial country is always a useful escape route when the going gets tough in one’s country of birth. When caught on the wrong foot, the privilege of dual citizenship can draw excessive and exacting demands of oath that ordinarily are violated in spirit by most members of parliament. Ms Ispahani made the choice of withholding information of her US citizenship for which she might pay a legal and political price in Pakistan. Thanks to her US passport, she can safely stay in the US as her lawyers sort the legal mess she has landed herself in. Few Pakistanis have that luxury.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 14th, 2012.

Facebook Conversations

COMMENTS (38)

Maulana Diesel | 8 years ago | Reply | Recommend

Someone much more intelligent than me rightly said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". After all the damage that NON-dual nationals of Pakistan have left behind the esteemed supreme court has decided that the problems of Pakistan can be solved by going after the few people (well only ones with PPP affiliation, to be exact) in the parliament with dual nationality. I am sure when this is done and dusted, they will go after people who they perceive to be bad Muslims and it will continue until there is no one left.

Tanner | 8 years ago | Reply | Recommend

Just for the information: a.Green Card Holder "enjoy all rights (as citizen does) accept he/she cannot vote; b.Naturalized Citizen can vote but cannot be President (their children if born in USA) can; c.Ones loyalty is a subjective matter, born in a country does not make one holly cow (they can be dis-loyal to their mothr or father land); d.We can see (almost in any country court of law) people swearing on Al-Quran, Holly Bible n other faith books BUT lieing by tooth/nails. Taking an Oath is like accepting a new reality BUT that does not mean that you transformed into another being. e.Please keep in mind not everyone who holds duel nationality means he or she bought the duel nationalities. There are thousands who manage to get based on their education, expertise, served in respective country forces n list can go on. There is a big mis-perception that anyone can just buy other countries citizenship, you have to earn it, it's not a commodity. Yes, in some cases people use this facility for undesirable reason or purpose but they are in minority. Hope above info would be helpful for our friends.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Load Next Story