Basically: In some countries, the pledge is with the constitution or the people, but in others (like constitutional monarchies), its a pledge to the (constitutional) monarch and their successors.
What is your opinion on this loyalty pledge? Do you believe it’s a reasonable request?
(For context: My mother and older brother had to do the pledge to gain [US] citizenship so the idea of deportation isn’t looming over our heads. I didn’t have do it because I was under 18 and my mother’s citizenship status automatically carried over to me according to the law.)
You said most countries but then only mention the USA. May I surmise you’re from the USA aka the world? :P
So I got curious, but it’s also 7am and I need to sleep. I looked it up for my own country: we don’t exactly have this
The Netherlands basically requires you to acknowledge that its laws apply to you (they do when you set foot here anyway) and that you’ll fulfill the duties that come with citizenship.
When opening the included FAQ item “what duties?” it says two things: you abide by the laws (duh) and that you should consider that you’re part of this society and that “you’ll do what is needed to really be part of this society.” Handwavey and not about choosing a side in a war or something, just focused on integration and community. Seems okay to me and distinct from blind allegiance. There’s some more details but the FAQs all circle back to respecting the other citizens (no discrimination) and the like
Source: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/nederlandse-nationaliteit/vraag-en-antwoord/verklaring-van-verbondenheid
Why does the netherlands do so many things well and seem completly bored talking about lol
That seems like a great implentation to me. Basically an explicit acknowledgement of the sociol contract
I’m really curious about this also! What makes some nations be, ehm, in a “sensible” state (in my eyes) and others not, given similar situations and options? We’re by no means as cool as Iceland or Finland for example, eyeing metrics like happiness index and development index, but why not?
Being a small population and/or region seems to be a part of the success mix (my theory is that this makes the government be closer to the people as well as forcing trade since you’re clearly better off working together than trying to navigate international politics alone), but there’s plenty of counter-examples so it’s clearly either not the only requirement or flat-out wrong. I tried reading a book on the topic but then the book doesn’t adequately explain it either ^^ It seems to be an unsolved problem as of yet
Either way, despite the current government I guess I’m proud of the place I’m from. You get to decide your own life (factors including: people are multilingual, relatively low inequality, euthanasia available (not that I’d currently want to, but self-determination just seems like a good principle that a crazy number of countries don’t yet have)), though iirc the rich are getting richer and both rich and poor citizens are currently voting to widen that gap (as well as other short- and long-term issues, strawman problems… the usual). We’ll see where we stand in 100 years. Maybe I shouldn’t be proud, since all that I’m proud of was built by my forebears (particularly before privatisation, which has its pros but maybe not for every aspect of society) and it’s my generation that has yet to stand the test of time 😅
aanyway, I didn’t get this part:
Could you elaborate or rephrase?