@phdthesis{Ssembatya2021,
  author    = {Ssembatya, Anthony},
  title     = {Dual Citizenship: A comparative study of Kenya and Uganda},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-53118},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-531186},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {x, 177},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Kenya and Uganda are amongst the countries that, for different historical, political, and economic reasons, have embarked on law reform processes as regards to citizenship. In 2009, Uganda made provisions in its laws to allow citizens to have dual citizenship while Kenya's 2010 constitution similarly introduced it, and at the same time, a general prohibition on dual citizenship was lifted, that is, a ban on state officers, including the President and Deputy President, being dual nationals (Manby, 2018). Against this background, I analysed the reasons for which these countries that previously held stringent laws and policies against dual citizenship, made a shift in a close time proximity. Given their geo-political roles, location, regional, continental, and international obligations, I conducted a comparative study on the processes, actors, impact, and effect. A specific period of 2000 to 2010 was researched, that is, from when the debates for law reforms emerged, to the processes being implemented, the actors, and the implications. According to Rubenstein (2000, p. 520), citizenship is observed in terms of "political institutions" that are free to act according to the will of, in the interests of, or with authority over, their citizenry. Institutions are emergent national or international, higher-order factors above the individual spectrum, having the interests and political involvement of their actors without requiring recurring collective mobilisation or imposing intervention to realise these regularities. Transnational institutions are organisations with authority beyond single governments. Given their International obligations, I analysed the role of the UN, AU, and EAC in influencing the citizenship debates and reforms in Kenya and Uganda. Further, non-state actors, such as civil society, were considered. Veblen, (1899) describes institutions as a set of settled habits of thought common to the generality of men. Institutions function only because the rules involved are rooted in shared habits of thought and behaviour although there is some ambiguity in the definition of the term "habit". Whereas abstracts and definitions depend on different analytical procedures, institutions restrain some forms of action and facilitate others. Transnational institutions both restrict and aid behaviour. The famous "invisible hand" is nothing else but transnational institutions. Transnational theories, as applied to politics, posit two distinct forms that are of influence over policy and political action (Veblen, 1899). This influence and durability of institutions is "a function of the degree to which they are instilled in political actors at the individual or organisational level, and the extent to which they thereby "tie up" material resources and networks. Against this background, transitional networks with connection to Kenya and Uganda were considered alongside the diaspora from these two countries and their role in the debate and reforms on Dual citizenship. Sterian (2013, p. 310) notes that Nation states may be vulnerable to institutional influence and this vulnerability can pose a threat to a nation's autonomy, political legitimacy, and to the democratic public law. Transnational institutions sometimes "collide with the sovereignty of the state when they create new structures for regulating cross-border relationships". However, Griffin (2003) disagrees that transnational institutional behaviour is premised on the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence. Transnational institutions have become the main target of the lobby groups and civil society, consequently leading to excessive politicisation. Kenya and Uganda are member states not only of the broader African union but also of the E.A.C which has adopted elements of socio-economic uniformity. Therefore, in the comparative analysis, I examine the role of the East African Community and its partners in the dual citizenship debate on the two countries. I argue in the analysis that it is not only important to be a citizen within Kenya or Uganda but also important to discover how the issue of dual citizenship is legally interpreted within the borders of each individual nation-state. In light of this discussion, I agree with Mamdani's definition of the nation-state as a unique form of power introduced in Africa by colonial powers between 1880 and 1940 whose outcomes can be viewed as "debris of a modernist postcolonial project, an attempt to create a centralised modern state as the bearer of Westphalia sovereignty against the background of indirect rule" (Mamdani, 1996, p. xxii). I argue that this project has impacted the citizenship debate through the adopted legal framework of post colonialism, built partly on a class system, ethnic definitions, and political affiliation. I, however, insist that the nation-state should still be a vital custodian of the citizenship debate, not in any way denying the individual the rights to identity and belonging. The question then that arises is which type of nation-state? Mamdani (1996, p. 298) asserts that the core agenda that African states faced at independence was threefold: deracialising civil society; detribalising the native authority; and developing the economy in the context of unequal international relations. Post-independence governments grappled with overcoming the citizen and subject dichotomy through either preserving the customary in the name of "defending tradition against alien encroachment or abolishing it in the name of overcoming backwardness and embracing triumphant modernism". Kenya and Uganda are among countries that have reformed their citizenship laws attesting to Mamdani's latter assertion. Mamdani's (1996) assertions on how African states continue to deal with the issue of citizenship through either the defence of tradition against subjects or abolishing it in the name of overcoming backwardness and acceptance of triumphant modernism are based on the colonial legal theory and the citizen-subject dichotomy within Africa communities. To further create a wider perspective on legal theory, I argue that those assertions above, point to the historical divergence between the republican model of citizenship, which places emphasis on political agency as envisioned in Rousseau´s social contract, as opposed to the liberal model of citizenship, which stresses the legal status and protection (Pocock, 1995). I, therefore, compare the contexts of both Kenya and Uganda, the actors, the implications of transnationalism and post-nationalism, on the citizens, the nation-state and the region. I conclude by highlighting the shortcomings in the law reforms that allowed for dual citizenship, further demonstrating an urgent need to address issues, such as child statelessness, gender nationality laws, and the rights of dual citizens. Ethnicity, a weak nation state, and inconsistent citizenship legal reforms are closely linked to the historical factors of both countries. I further indicate the economic and political incentives that influenced the reform. Keywords: Citizenship, dual citizenship, nation state, republicanism, liberalism, transnationalism, post-nationalism},
  language  = {en}
}