Should Citizenship Be a Birthright?

I recently reread Robert Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers,” which, in addition to telling an engaging story about an interplanetary war between humans and a race of communist, bug-like aliens, presents some interesting ideas about duty, responsibility, public service, citizenship, and voting rights, and it’s had me thinking a lot about these concepts.  In particular, I’ve been wondering whether it would be good for American democracy if our country’s laws required us to demonstrate a commitment to public service before being eligible to vote or hold a position of power. 

Heinlein doesn’t provide many details about the political system in the novel’s world, but he’s very specific about the citizenship requirements:  one can become a citizen only by completing at least two years of military service.  This requirement is justified by references to history.  Past democracies were believed to have failed because they operated on the well-intentioned but flawed assumption that citizenship should be a birthright.  Successful military service requires one to subvert his or her individual concerns to the greater good, which is also a requirement for good citizenship.  By demonstrating the duty and responsibility demanded of a good soldier, characters in the novel thus show that they are ready for the similar demands of citizenship.

Would American democracy benefit from a similar law?  It could, but it would be more equitable if the military service requirement were broadened to include civilian public service as well.  After all, serving in America Corps or the Peace Corps, working as a teacher, police officer, or fireman, and volunteering in homeless shelters or kitchens can also demonstrate a commitment to serving the public interest.  In and of itself, experience in public service—military or civilian—doesn’t necessarily mean that one will cast a vote or promote a policy in the interest of the public good rather than individual gain, but it does at least show that one can be expected to be capable of distinguishing between the two and acting accordingly.

It could be argued, of course, that one can make this distinction and act in the public interest without any prior experience in public service, but this doesn’t make the idea any less compelling.  Demonstrations of commitment to public service could help ensure that Americans trust each other to be good citizens.  Simply having the right to vote or hold public office gives a citizen a certain degree of power, and it’s not unreasonable to ask that one who is granted this power first be asked to demonstrate that he or she can be expected to wield it responsibly.

We’re fortunate that in this election both presidential candidates devoted themselves to causes greater than themselves—Obama as a community organizer and Romney as a missionary—before seeking positions of power and thus demonstrated their commitment to public service.  Granted, Romney has spent most of his adult life making lots of money, but he does seem to believe sincerely that his plans for America would improve the country and, unlike, say, Newt Gingrich, doesn’t seem to be seeking the presidency simply for personal gain.  I’m less certain, however, that a majority of the electorate will have the country’s interests in mind when casting their votes.  To be sure, we all vote on issues that affect us most directly, and  always have personal interests in mind, but I don’t have the sense that Americans as a whole are willing to accept that some policies they may not like would benefit the country as a whole, for example, by acknowledging that although no one wants social services to be cut or taxes to be raised such measures might be necessary.  Some experience in public service could make this acceptance more likely.

A public service requirement for citizenship would pose several logistical problems, the most obvious of which is how to define “public service.”  It would also create more bureaucracy and more opportunities for corruption and thus put even more strain on public finances.  Moreover, measures would have to be taken to ensure the requirement didn’t create insurmountable obstacles to citizenship for any members of the population.  However, if public service requirements for citizenship would strengthen our democracy then all of these problems could easily be overcome.

Heinlein, of course, wasn’t the first to propose such an idea, and several others have revisited it since “Starship Troopers” was published in 1959, but it’s particularly relevant today as a potential remedy to the partisan gridlock that has rendered our elected officials incapable of governing.  Would a greater emphasis on what it means to be a citizen help prevent the kind of ideological extremism that has made compromise nearly impossible?  It’s a question worth exploring.