A critical stand
Last June, Samaras was proudly showing off his generosity. Although
Giannis Adetokounbo was already granted citizenship behind the scenes, Samaras saw his chance for a classical political
trick. While surrounded by cameras, Samaras pretended to give Giannis his desired citizenship from his
hands personally. Meanwhile, he extensively complimented Giannis for his
extraordinary basketball performances, a sport so popular throughout Greece. Samaras emphasized how proud Greeks should be to have
this new citizen in their middle and how others’ seeking citizenship can take
an example from Giannis’ formidable behavior. With an orthodox icon in his
hand, Giannis could leave the building. We can do nothing more than being happy
for Giannis, who now is enabled to pursue his ambitions and dreams. Or can we?
I think we can and should go beyond being happy for Giannis and thankful
towards Samaras. Beside the fact that we should realize the fakeness of this
act, we should try to make sense of what all this is
about. We should not recoil to criticize this theatrical performance, but
instead try to grasp the underlying contradictions in the ND approach to
citizenship, revealed by this ridiculous media circus.
A Talent-Stepladder
Before going deeper into the debate, let me be clear first: Giannis does
deserve a Greek passport, there is no doubt about that. Moreover, I am
incredibly happy that his dreams now can be realized and that his parents can
be very proud. My aim is not to put in question anything related to his
recently acquired citizenship. My aim is to challenge you to think beyond the
theatre and reflect upon the problematic and paradoxical performance of
Samaras, his emphasis on Giannis’ indisputable behavior and extraordinary
sportive performances on the basis of which Giannis, according to Samaras, ‘deserved’ his citizenship. The problem lies exactly
in this conditionality. It namely assumes that citizenship is something
accessible only for those who are talented. This immediately raises the
question what kind of talents would suffice the requirements for citizenship?
And do or should we than appreciate particular talents over others? Which one
should be linked to citizenship? Every child is blessed with a unique
combination of qualities, so how should we categorize and value these? The
irony comes in when we apply the same question to people without arbitrary
access to citizenship: do they hold talents that are linked to their legal
status? No, certainly not. Bottom line is, that children of migrant origin
often are granted citizenship when they contribute to society in a way that is
noticed and considered desirable by a wider public. Sports is the most
well-known example.
An unpopular
consequence of own standards
We should not be silent and pleased by Samaras’ apparent ‘generosity’,
but open our eyes to the contradictions underneath his symbolism. Instead of
viewing his actions towards Giannis as friendly (as the pictures in the new
papers presumed) we should try to translate Samaras’ message about citizenship
and see that he preferably and actively promotes it as a tool for inclusion while in reality it is applied
as a tool for exclusion. Samaras
confirms the ideas that so many people hold about citizenship: that it should
be something conditional. Of prime importance are the conditions such as a good
understanding of the language, absence of illegality, no criminal record and a
good (working) ethos. Preferably, the person should know the history of the host
country and apply the ethical values of society. It is often assumed that there
is a common consensus about all these conditions in host society while they are
still subject of heated debates, proving that there are different ideas about
to what extent the conditions should be met. So, the conditions themselves
would certainly deserve deeper inquiry as well. By all means, we can conclude
that the existence of a conditional idea about
citizenship, makes it a powerful tool of exclusion: those who do not
meet the requirements, are denied rights and participation in society. It
defends the country from undesired individuals who can threaten national
security or mess up imagined cohesion. Besides from the simplistic application
of these conditions, there is a striking inconsistency in Greece. On the basis
of these requirements, most second generation migrants should be granted
citizenship immediately. Obviously, given the fact that they are exposed to
Greek language, history, culture and values throughout their lives, they
automatically fulfill the conditions that so many people link to citizenship.
True, due to the endless bureaucratic procedures some have experienced a period
in limbo, but this often happened beyond the scope of their responsibility. It
thus seems as if the current government considers itself trapped in it own
standards: granting all the 200.000 children citizenship would be a very
unpopular measure, certainly given the countries’ sensitivity towards questions
of belonging now it faces its worst economic decline since WWII. Samaras thus
needed another requirement that would facilitate exclusion and please multiple
stakeholders at the same time.
An attempt to please
the public
The case of Giannis painfully offered him the perfect mask. Knowing that
the media would broadly report about this topic (given both the heated debate
surrounding citizenship and the popularity of basketball) Samaras falsely
utilized this perfect case to send two important messages. Firstly, he wanted
to clarify ‘we are not racists’, meaning ‘we are aware of the problems and
positively navigating towards a solution’. This message was meant to please the
first stakeholders: the fathers and mothers of children who face enormous
problems because they are denied citizenship. They were offered ‘hope’ and
asked to be patient again. Seriously, we are sympathetic and trying! The second
message was ‘we should be careful who to grant citizenship to’. Indeed, we can
grant Giannis this, because of his extraordinary talents that might come in
useful; someone who we can be proud of to be called ‘Greek’. Moreover, he can
be an example for all the others who are seeking citizenship. And this is
exactly the core of the problem: not every child of migrant parents is a
talented basketball player. By just adding this subtle condition, Samaras
turned citizenship in a tool of exclusion.
The combination of these two messages are deceptive and fallacious. It intents
to appease different stakeholders in the debate and therewith salve the
difficulties involved. Desperate parents and children of migrant origin are
asked to be optimistic, because ‘the impossible appeared to be possible’.
Simultaneously, Samaras satisfies that very segment of Greek society which now
is so sensitive to issues of citizenship and belonging by saying: don’t worry,
only those like Giannis acquire citizenship from my hands.
A continuation of the
battle
Obviously, thanking Samaras for his generosity will not help the other
200.000 children waiting in limbo. Those children experience the exact same
obstacles as Giannis previously did: they are obstructed in chasing their
dream, let alone live a normal life. Fortunately, Giannis can serve as
inspiration and hope to them, a feelings necessary in order to be reluctant for
a continuation of the battle. This stamina is needed in the frustrating Greek
context if we want to achieve what Samaras actually tries to impede: accessible
citizenship for every child born from migrant parents, instead of conditional
citizenship with unrealistic and blurred standards. Regardless of their
talents, their potential contribution to Greek society or whatever condition
that might be added in the future, these children should be recognized as human
beings in their own rights, worth dignity and respect. I want to thank Giannis
for unchaining this dialogue, I hope it will fiercely continue. All the best in
the NBA!!
Joan van Geel, Generation 2.0 member
