Who's the citizen?

In Kosovo's social debate, the unconscious, deliberate and incorrect confusion of status appointments has been quite pronounced since before the war, and has come to an expression especially after that. We face such thoughts in our daily and at every level. They've taken place since the process of schooling, at work, the lifestyle of life and up to so fragmented and devoid of content.

Almost everyone in this endless and often devoid of taste and value debate, instead of having a generator function aimed at emancipating to citizenship, there is actually a complete and mainly a processing function, which brings to the attention nothing else but the desired copy of it.

So it is often that even debate as such is not authentic. It is exercised as the unworthy hostage of elements of the real debate that should take place in a free political and social order that examines citizenship as a sphere and “the townman” as its constituent status.

To be clear, it's about something that's often overheard in the common spaces where people meet and face people: the difference between the <x0 cityman” and the resident living outside the city.

The difference between these “2s” in Kosovo tries to mark through complex elements, including geography, phenologic assimilation, clothing, fashion as a whole, food menu, the frequenting of individual countries, whose jointity is nothing more than consumer capacity and consumption potential. This way of dividing between “citizens and residents” highlights “citizens” that they have, but by no means “citizens” that are.

What characterizes this discurs is the fact of the kidnapping of the name-named <x0 city entity “ ” as something that is appropriate and aspired only to those who live in an urban space. In essence, living in a city, that is, living in an urban center where there is great population density, greater concentration of economic and social activity, where private space is divided into walls rather than courtyards, which at this level, nothing is linked to civil status of citizenship.

That's because the “cityman” as the concept is primarily status, not urban statistics registered in the amza book.

Imagineing urban notions as emancipation status that we face as a tendency is an expression of a genuine lack of emancipation and the non-achievement of conceptual consideration of the models corresponding to them.

It's a kind of reflection to legitimize “urban life model” like “hierarchical “and “class division” in the middle of a society, whose story generally no longer than 80 years ago, has three components in all its scope: submission to foreign rule, extreme lack of education and lack of socio-economic development codes.

One we've heard as a comparison, we've seen it from the particular spaces to the <x0 urban settings” that have taken place in politics, art, media, and different social spheres and that today are imposed as “urban sector”.

But the way of “urbanised” of urban life in Kosovo is actually nothing more than the preservation of a peace order and the embezzlement of the status conditions thought to be such.

This deviation occurs because of the deficit, not because of the potential. It was because this alleged division did not consider civic identities. She does not consider urban sociology or her anthropology. It doesn't treat the city as a cheap space but as an isolated ghetto. It only takes geography as a separate criterion. By this criterion, <x0 selector” turns out to be only those who reside, but not those who interact and cultivate civil views of the city's values. At this level, the geographical explanation mobilises a formal difference but refuses to address the original isolation between citizen and resident.

Since this is not the right separation, what constitutes the citizen, this value behind which everyone is clinging?

Citizens are status and not statistics. He is anything but a necessity of the city's inhabitants, as the possession of that name. The citizen, in fact, at least has to do with the town as a settlement. It concerns the status of the city as a community and its awareness and commitment to the city. He's a citizen even when he comes out of urban space even when he's inside. The citizen is not one that is born in the city. He becomes such when he has an idea about the city as a residence. So it's the origin of the idea and materialisation of a public order and not the common resident under the common walls of dwellings.

The citizen is actually different from the resident, because he has an awareness of his status. And his status, before it is legal property status, is civil, political and social status. So he is born neither of the city nor of the law. Born of his consciousness and of joining others who have a sense of coexistence and its widest extent. He's the founder of civil values that he sanctions by law. The law does not establish the citizen. The law merely expresses a way of life that adheres to what citizens have established.

Citizens are actively engaged in the public sphere, subsequently political. He's a political agent of a real environment, not a surreal agent definition. It is the morale behind which they stand and maintain social reports and political institutions, not political subjection to them.

Citizen is the social integration through social integration. It is marked by the value founded, not by the inheritance it possesses. That government and is subject to government. He is an active participant in government, because this enables him citizenship as status and not the submissive subject to government.

As an individual, the citizen is a private person and intends to remain such. But he is a citizen, however, of how identity, is linked together with others who share the city as location, culture, ambition and perspective.

The citizen is born from a measure of freedom as something greater than simply survival. Citizen was born not when the city was founded, but when its laws were established. The citizen before he is an expression of rule of legal law and protection is a political agency engaged in fair, equal-powered laws. The citizen before he's a “owner of cultural hegemony” is emancipation on the order of things rather than subordination to him.

Citizens make up the attributes of political action. If there is a fundamental difference between citizens and residents, this is in the fact that the first is linked to a political image, and the second is maintaining the order that exists, not becoming aware of it.

So the citizen is the one who makes the city and urban areas of value and culture, thanks to his commitment and activity. Urban area” does not produce citizen. It's the citizen with his commitment, the one who conceives and singles out the urban area.

Throughout history, our cities as far as they have been distinguished from the part of Kosovo's agrarian society have left great traces towards establishing political, cultural and educational awareness for our entire society. This is thanks to the opportunities the city provides as a community beyond organic, to develop the <x0 quality of citizenship” and the awareness of national liberation.

Such citizens in Kosovo abound. They are found both in Pristina and Prizren, as well as in Pec, Gjakova, Gjilan, Ferizaj, Mitrovica, Skenderaj, and in any other settlement. The odds of not finding them, however, are greater where the <x0-cynic “is claimed to constitute the registry only in the motherbook and consumer capacity of anything that can be bought.