Citizenship and urban republicanism: solving challenges of democracy?

Abstract

Globalization and economic development have caused a change in the compositions of society. An increasing number of individuals choose to dwell in urban areas in search of work and good facilities. It has loosened the bond between individuals referred to as citizenship. Citizens nowadays are passive, occupied with private-interest, and displeased with political decision-making. Therefore, cities are important because an increasing amount of individuals dwell in them, but also because cities seem to facilitate the eroding social-ties with a community. Thus one could question if cities deserve increased political influence. More than half of the world population lives in a city, and because cities have an increasing amount of inhabitants, cities seem feasible institutions to bring democracy closer to city-dwellers. A republican conception of citizenship sets out to strengthen community bonds and even realizing citizens' self-government. Although the idea of republican citizenship is, among others, based on city-life, republican citizenship seems hostile to the size and diversity in contemporary cities. I turn to the positions of Barber, Dagger, and Young on citizenship and city-life to find out if contemporary city-life and republican citizenship are compatible. I will argue for urban republican citizenship as a republican conception of citizenship that promotes participation in public decision-making and is compatible with the diversity and size of contemporary major cities.