Democracy And Welfare

Marshall has made the initiative research on the citizenship theory, and his main contribution is not only to divide citizenship into three dimensions:the civic, the political and the social citizenship, but also to give an exquisite description of the process of citizenship achievement through describing the change of relationship between the State and the citizens for three centuries. However, Marshall’s theoretical research is mainly based on England’s circumstance. Therefore, his theoretical research has a shortage of the complicated situation of citizenship institutional change, and needs further conclusion and promotion on the intrinsic motivation and mechanism which make the citizenship system develop.This article will take the citizenship institutional change as the research object. It uses "democracy" to summarize the achievement of political citizenship and "welfare" to summarize the achievement of social citizenship. Moreover, it suggests that Marshall’s step-by-step implementation of citizenship is actually the achievement of democracy and welfare. This article will be more focused on the complex dialectical relationship and the institutionalization of the different elements of the citizenship. Thereby, it will lead to the order of chronology and priority between democracy and welfare, and the cross interaction or mutual exclusiveness between each other on the process of building citizenship. That is, this article could show the general situation on the structure and changes of citizenship system, thus outlining the differences of its structure and changes in typology, and revealing the internal principle through the process of history and politics in different countries.This article will explain the differencesin the process of institutional change of citizenship, which is the realization of democracy and welfare, through the structural factors of the state upper-middle layer-the bottom of society. Powerful land aristocracy, as the dominant class, will block the achievement of citizenship; the early bourgeoisie, as the middle class, will largely determine the development of a country’s capitalist democracy; the working class, as the social underclass, will largely promote the development of a country’s social security. For this reason, the author of this article outlines the eight typical modes of the change on system of citizenship by these three-class structural factors. Afterwards, this article focuses on the three kinds of typical modes:the England as a typical representative of the social democracy mode; Germany as a typical authoritarian mode; and the United States as a typical liberalism mode.In the social democracy mode as the England, the characteristic of the citizenship institutional change is that the premature democracy and the universal suffrage prompted the development of social welfare. The author of this article summarizes the mechanism of this mode as the democratic trigger mechanism of welfare. In the typical authoritarian mode as Germany, the characteristic of the citizenship institutional change is that the powerful Junker aristocracy firmly dominated the country for a long time. In the face of the surging labor movement, Bismarck actively launched an attack and resisted the workers’rights movement and revolution by legislating the social security, that is, resisted the demands of democratic rights by building welfare state. This article concludes its inherent mechanism as welfare bribed mechanism. While the United States as a typical liberal mode, its characteristic of the citizenship institutional change is that the premature democratic system and the universal suffrage is not only failed to promote social legislation and welfare provision, but also become a huge obstacle to the welfare establishment. To some extent, it mitigated and replaced the achievement of the social citizenship. The author summarizes its internal mechanism as the democratic replacement mechanism of the welfare.In short, these classic modes of the change on system of citizenship show that there is a huge difference in the paths of the citizenship change. At the same time, these modes are affected by their corresponding class structural factors. Finally, the author summarizes that the three mechanisms, which are corresponding to the three modes of the change on system of citizenship, have relevant defects, particularly the welfare bribed mechanism of authoritarianism in Germany. Therefore, the reason for the enduring classic mode of the citizenship institutional change, which suumarized by Marshall, is that it achieves the balanced development and mutual promotion of the different dimensions of citizenship. Therefore, it is common that the various elements of the citizenship system could replace and transform to each other, yet temporarily and partially.