PDA

View Full Version : Test for Citizenship, what should i include?



Blackhawk748
2016-08-22, 06:32 PM
So im designing a setting based off of Rome and their Senate works like Greece's, meaning if you're a Citizen you can vote. The only way to be a Citizen is to take a test and pass. Now there are multiple ways to be able to take the test for free (Graduate from a university, military service, perform a great act of heroism (though sometimes they'll just give it to you on that one), but you always have to take it, no freebies. Now the problem: What should it have in it?

I've already decided that some basic Philosophy should be in it, as well as a basic understanding of mathematics, and perhaps some basic economics, but what else? Should there be anything else?

Koo Rehtorb
2016-08-22, 06:52 PM
National history.

ExLibrisMortis
2016-08-22, 06:56 PM
Ideological purity? It's not easy to test, but sometimes it's not the difficulty of the question that matters - it's just an expression of what you are expected to support in public ("You answered question 6 with c) Valor - and now you talk of retreat?").

Blackhawk748
2016-08-22, 07:23 PM
National history.

No idea how i forgot that.


Ideological purity? It's not easy to test, but sometimes it's not the difficulty of the question that matters - it's just an expression of what you are expected to support in public ("You answered question 6 with c) Valor - and now you talk of retreat?").

Im not sure if i like this one. I mean, even brave people will speak of retreat if it makes sense.

veti
2016-08-22, 09:19 PM
I think that with the other subjects listed, "ideological purity" would be a work of supererogation. Someone who can get the "correct" answers to philosophy and national history - is going to be quite ideologically pure enough to participate in the debates.

I would suggest:

logic
rhetoric (so you can interpret what you're being told)
metaphysics (without which nobody can really be said to "know" anything)
politics (how the system works, what the citizen's rights and duties are, and why it works that way)


And I'd take out "economics", that's not a worthy subject for "citizens". Too sordid. Even if anyone could agree on what it should cover.

tomandtish
2016-08-22, 09:19 PM
No idea how i forgot that.



Im not sure if i like this one. I mean, even brave people will speak of retreat if it makes sense.

I think ExLibrisMortis is trying to show that if the culture has a particular ideology, that may be tested for. For example, if you have a fight to the death warrior culture, valor might be a trait they admire, and retreat would be a bad answer to a question.

Look at the more general concept. What traits does the culture value, and do they value them enough that they would test for them? Note that this might also include NEGATIVE traits (racism, sexism, etc.).

Along that line certain traits might be emphasized at the expense of others. For example, anyone can take the test if they pay enough money (or take it for free under certain circumstances), but if the educational questions are strict enough only the upper class may pass the test anyway, since they (for the most part) may be the only ones who had access to the education to pass it in the first place.

Blackhawk748
2016-08-22, 09:37 PM
I think that with the other subjects listed, "ideological purity" would be a work of supererogation. Someone who can get the "correct" answers to philosophy and national history - is going to be quite ideologically pure enough to participate in the debates.

I would suggest:

logic
rhetoric (so you can interpret what you're being told)
metaphysics (without which nobody can really be said to "know" anything)
politics (how the system works, what the citizen's rights and duties are, and why it works that way)


And I'd take out "economics", that's not a worthy subject for "citizens". Too sordid. Even if anyone could agree on what it should cover.

Logic is a weird one, i took a Logic course in college and im still not sure how the hell you're supposed to grade that. Rhetoric is fine, as it helps make you a better speaker. Metaphysics is getting past the point id like. Politics (as you state them) is fine.

Economics was more of understanding their Economic system and why they use that, also having a basic understanding of why taxes are a thing and what they are used for.


I think ExLibrisMortis is trying to show that if the culture has a particular ideology, that may be tested for. For example, if you have a fight to the death warrior culture, valor might be a trait they admire, and retreat would be a bad answer to a question.

Look at the more general concept. What traits does the culture value, and do they value them enough that they would test for them? Note that this might also include NEGATIVE traits (racism, sexism, etc.).

Along that line certain traits might be emphasized at the expense of others. For example, anyone can take the test if they pay enough money (or take it for free under certain circumstances), but if the educational questions are strict enough only the upper class may pass the test anyway, since they (for the most part) may be the only ones who had access to the education to pass it in the first place.

In that case a respect for differing opinions with a healthy dose of stubborness.

Also they don't want only the upper class to be citizens. It was like that for 100 years and it sucked, so they made the questions more inclusive. Basically if you graduated the University its pretty well a guarantee that you can pass, most soldiers can as well. Even with that being the case only about 20% of people are Citizens because you have responsibilities you need to live up to (such as going to the assembly at least 1 per month) , not to mention having to update your Citizenry every 5 years. So most people think its to much effort and dont bother, so what you are left with are the people who care.

Thus the test has to be passable by a layperson, but it has to show that they arent an idiot and that they can actually contribute to the debates.

TheYell
2016-08-22, 10:30 PM
Get that you dont like idelogical purity, but you are trying to create a cooperative group, so some ethical questions would be in line. sometimes the right answer can be "this question cant be answered with the information given."

hymer
2016-08-23, 03:23 AM
Speaking from a point of view the Romans and Greeks would be likely to recognize:
Economical prowess and physical fitness could be considered. A citizen gets the vote because he (and it's usually 'he') pays taxes and when required fights to protect his state. Even if he's too old to fight, physical fitness could be viewed as a sign of a strong character, and the ability to have strong sons who could fight later.
There may also be some racial purity thing there. You can't be a citizen of you're even partially descended from the evil barbarians/orcs/rival empire, even if you never knew any of them. It'll be in your blood. So you'll have to swear to your ancestry, maybe get witnesses.

Logosloki
2016-08-23, 09:01 AM
Specifically under ideological purity would be a grasp on the theological aspects of the main culture. Knowing the correct rituals (prayers, offerings, days of worship, etc) would be key in a Greek/Roman style citizenship.

Knaight
2016-08-23, 09:20 AM
More than anything this sounds like a Greco-Roman version of the Imperial examination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination) that was so prevalent in China for a fairly long time. I'd recommend doing some research into that, as it's a reasonably good real world analog.

tomandtish
2016-08-23, 10:32 AM
Logic is a weird one, i took a Logic course in college and im still not sure how the hell you're supposed to grade that. Rhetoric is fine, as it helps make you a better speaker. Metaphysics is getting past the point id like. Politics (as you state them) is fine.

Economics was more of understanding their Economic system and why they use that, also having a basic understanding of why taxes are a thing and what they are used for.



In that case a respect for differing opinions with a healthy dose of stubborness.

Also they don't want only the upper class to be citizens. It was like that for 100 years and it sucked, so they made the questions more inclusive. Basically if you graduated the University its pretty well a guarantee that you can pass, most soldiers can as well. Even with that being the case only about 20% of people are Citizens because you have responsibilities you need to live up to (such as going to the assembly at least 1 per month) , not to mention having to update your Citizenry every 5 years. So most people think its to much effort and dont bother, so what you are left with are the people who care.

Thus the test has to be passable by a layperson, but it has to show that they aren't an idiot and that they can actually contribute to the debates.


Good to know. more information always helps.

But you've opened up more questions. The 20% who are citizens. What is the motivation for the majority of them? Why do they care about being citizens? Unless you have a truly good society, the majority of them probably have done so because it has some tangible benefit for them. You may have some who do it because they truly care about the benefit it brings society, and some who do it because they can use the benefit to game the system.

Let's be clear, when I say a good society I don't just mean one where the professed ideals of the society are good or the leaders are good. I mean one where the actual alignments of the majority of the society are good. That's actually pretty rare.

In short, will the professed ideals of the society match up with the reasons why the majority of people are becoming citizens? If it does, great. If not, also great (you have a LOT of room for political intrigue). But the test may or may not reflect the professed ideals of the society.

Your responses about who can easily pass are telling. The well-educated (graduated university, and unless University is free that probably means wealthy), and the military. You say only 20% of the total population becomes citizens, but in the U.S.A. today only @32% have a Bachelors degree or higher, and only @7% of current U.S.A. population has served in military. Even if there's no overlap at all between the two groups, that's only 40% total in this country today.

Heck, only two countries in the world go above 50% tertiary education at all (and in this case tertiary means any formal education after high school, including trade schools, etc.). Only 35 countries go above 20%.

Again, if the ideals and the reality match up, that's fine. But since you seem to be making citizenship an important part of the game (or else you wouldn't be worrying about it), do they actually match up?

ExLibrisMortis
2016-08-23, 10:43 AM
More than anything this sounds like a Greco-Roman version of the Imperial examination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination) that was so prevalent in China for a fairly long time. I'd recommend doing some research into that, as it's a reasonably good real world analog.
I'm going to be stuck reading that now, and I was going to take a nap with my cat. Just to let you know what you did!

It's a great analogue, though. From that article: "Since the exams were based on knowledge of the classics and literary style, not technical expertise, successful candidates were generalists who shared a common language and culture, one shared even by those who failed". Very interesting, and important to note: these tests are all about demarcating the 'in-crowd' and the 'peripherals'.


I think ExLibrisMortis is trying to show that if the culture has a particular ideology, that may be tested for. For example, if you have a fight to the death warrior culture, valor might be a trait they admire, and retreat would be a bad answer to a question.
Exactly this. I didn't mean that you'd never retreat because you answer C. Your opponent in the Senate, however, may use your answer ("valor is the greatest good") to pressure you into war/stepping down/anything else that's relevant, because going back on your answer is bad. If the candidates have to deliver a short argument - perhaps as part of the rhetoric exam - you can be sure that the exact argument you pick can be a big statement, because again: you can't go back on your word. As a result, anyone who's passed the test is committed to the 'correct' answers in all ethical questions.

Telonius
2016-08-23, 11:12 AM
Basic geographical knowledge of the realm. (We're bordered by this river, mountains to the west, our farms generally grow wheat, basic stuff like that).
Symbols of the kingdom, the royal house, and possibly major houses. Know the mottoes, flags, coats of arms.
Working knowledge of who the major allies and rivals are.
Depending on the nature of the kingdom, ability to ride a horse, swim, or sail a ship might be required.
Again, depending on the kingdom, but the ability to speak more than one language. (The kingdom might be a mashup of two cultures; or maybe the educated have to know your game-world equivalent of Latin)

Vinyadan
2016-08-23, 11:21 AM
AFAIK, neither Ancient Greece nor Rome ever designed something of this sort. You could be naturalized if you did a lot of good things for that city (Atticus in Athens) or if you were a very very important person (very rare, it almost never happened). Rome would occasionally expand citizenship through laws.

Nowadays, you need to take a oath and you sometimes need to know how to speak and read the language of that country, and you need to have the means to sustain yourself and your family, if you have one (= a job). These are the most required things, beside having resided for a certain time and having a clean record.

I know of countries that, in their final test, add mandatory questions like "why is socialism the best possible form?".

This reminds me of the test from Fallout 2.

Knaight
2016-08-23, 12:26 PM
I'm going to be stuck reading that now, and I was going to take a nap with my cat. Just to let you know what you did!

It's a great analogue, though. From that article: "Since the exams were based on knowledge of the classics and literary style, not technical expertise, successful candidates were generalists who shared a common language and culture, one shared even by those who failed". Very interesting, and important to note: these tests are all about demarcating the 'in-crowd' and the 'peripherals'.

The Wikipedia page is a pretty broad overview, but it's not a bad starting point. Tracking down an actual example of the test that has been translated would be pretty ideal, but short of that there are genuine scholarly works to look into.

Slipperychicken
2016-08-23, 04:03 PM
Administrative divisions of the place (states, provinces, etc). As well as general facts about each one, such as major cities and important geographical feature.

Know the law. Mostly penalties for crimes such as murder, theft, and treason.

Know the general structure of the government and its principles.

Knowing the name of the current leader, and those of very important leaders in history.

Speak, read, and write the official language to a reasonable degree of proficiency.

Pay a citizenship application fee and provide documents (proof of residence, birth certificate, etc) that most of the poor can't afford to access.




But you've opened up more questions. The 20% who are citizens. What is the motivation for the majority of them? Why do they care about being citizens? Unless you have a truly good society, the majority of them probably have done so because it has some tangible benefit for them. You may have some who do it because they truly care about the benefit it brings society, and some who do it because they can use the benefit to game the system.

I'd like to think citizens would have special rights over non-citizens, such as preferential treatment. A citizen's testimony in court might hold more weight than a non-citizen (i.e. if it comes to a he-said-she-said between a citizen and a non-citizen, then the citizen wins by default), a citizen could have higher priority for public services (welfare programs like pensions could prioritize paying citizens), citizens could have extra rights like the ability to sue the government, many important jobs might be explicitly closed to non-citizens,

Citizens might be granted rights such as fair trial, free speech, while non-citizens are subject to arbitrary whims and abuse from law-enforcement and government officials. Basically, non-citizens are a mistreated underclass.

Blackhawk748
2016-08-23, 04:50 PM
Thanks for all the help guys


I'd like to think citizens would have special rights over non-citizens, such as preferential treatment. A citizen's testimony in court might hold more weight than a non-citizen (i.e. if it comes to a he-said-she-said between a citizen and a non-citizen, then the citizen wins by default), a citizen could have higher priority for public services (welfare programs like pensions could prioritize paying citizens), citizens could have extra rights like the ability to sue the government, many important jobs might be explicitly closed to non-citizens,

Citizens might be granted rights such as fair trial, free speech, while non-citizens are subject to arbitrary whims and abuse from law-enforcement and government officials. Basically, non-citizens are a mistreated underclass.

Something i need to point out. They truly, truly want a diverse group of people in the Citizenry. The goal of the test is to weed out ideological nutbags, idiots, and people who just plan refuse to entertain proper discourse. The reason most people dont take the test is, is that they'd rather keep the gold coin than go vote.

The primary benefit of being a Citizen is prestige. You get better seats in theaters and restaurants and it helps that you know people from many walks of life, so that helps you if you need to, say, build a house or something. And while not a specific benefit, a Citizen's word tends to have more weight than a non Citizen's, though they try to keep that in check.

tomandtish
2016-08-23, 11:23 PM
Thanks for all the help guys



Something i need to point out. They truly, truly want a diverse group of people in the Citizenry. The goal of the test is to weed out ideological nutbags, idiots, and people who just plan refuse to entertain proper discourse. The reason most people dont take the test is, is that they'd rather keep the gold coin than go vote.

The primary benefit of being a Citizen is prestige. You get better seats in theaters and restaurants and it helps that you know people from many walks of life, so that helps you if you need to, say, build a house or something. And while not a specific benefit, a Citizen's word tends to have more weight than a non Citizen's, though they try to keep that in check.

But remember, these are players. If you make something have qualifications and they have to go through steps to achieve it, them they are going to assume it is plot relevant.

What's on the Citizenship test is actually irrelevant UNLESS it is going to be relevant in some other form. I assume you aren't going to have your PLAYERS actually try and pass the test, so it's going to come down to some dice roles with maybe some roleplaying for modifiers (can I persuade this person to give me a crash course in X?, Can I cheat at Y?).

And it is only relevant if being a citizen is relevant in some plot important way.

Note that the examples you provided as to the benefits for citizenship don't lend themselves to people becoming citizens for the greater good. What you listed seem to indicate that those who can do so become citizens for the perks. Which begs the question: WHY is this plot relevant?

EX: Read The Codex of Aleria by Jim Butcher. It's a prime example at the start of an example of a system of citizenship where whatever ideals it once had have become been corrupted (even though they may still be listed on paper) and one of the things the protagonist does in the end is start the process of changing them. The ideals SOUND noble. The reality was anything but.

And remember, to players relevance is everything. Why is becoming a citizen (or not) relevant? How does it tie into whatever plot you are forming? If it isn't going to make a substantial difference, then don't worry about it. You can just have it be a feat, or a profession (to steal D20 Modern terms). It can just be something players do that give you X bonuses and has X responsibilities.

Don't get me wrong, it's good that you are thinking in detail. But thinking about WHAT is on the test is only relevant if the test is important, which is only relevant if not only being a citizen but HOW you become a citizen is important.

EX 1: Citizenship is not important at all to the overall plot. Citizenship can be a feat they buy with X bonuses, or it can just be a status everyone chooses to start or not start in that has X bonuses and Y responsibilities (to counter the bonuses. For example, if it isn't a feat Citizens get +2 on interactions with all citizens and -1 on interactions with non-citizens, while non-citizens get +2 on interactions with non-citizens and -1 with interactions with citizens. Note that this puts citizens at advantage in courts, with the law, etc., while non-citizens are at an advantage in the market, etc.

EX 2: Citizenship is somewhat important to the plot. The party may need to be able to move in the upper areas of citizenship. You can kind of define the test. it requires a Knowledge: History check with modifiers based on X skills. Passing gets you Citizenship and these rewards. it cost X GP. "The test covers history, government, math, language, philosophy, and logic", is probably all the players need to know.

EX 3: Citizenship is extremely important to the plot. They'll probably end up trying to support the local government against attempts to overthrow it, or support attempts to overthrow it, or try to overthrow it themselves. And this can be the case even if the ideals of the government "seem" good.

In Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series, the South won the Civil war (Note: Everything I talk about here is related to that series and NOT real life)....

However, the USA and Germany beat France, England, and the Confederacy in WW1. As a result, the CSA was hit hard in the depression and a true bigot named Jake Featherston became president of the CSA. As time went on, he called for a plebiscite to return territories (Houston, Kentucky, Sequoyah to CSA control. He also promised that he would abide by the results of the plebiscites and not ask for any territory he lost, as well as not militarize. When Sequoyah remained under USA control after the vote, it took him less than 3 weeks to break his promise, using the justification that the USA still controls CSA territory (Sequoyah).

A citizenship test administered in that CSA might ask why the CSA asked for Sequoyah back. Any answer that demonizes the USA would be correct. Any answer that even remotely implies that Featherston broke his promises would be incorrect (as far as the scorers are concerned).

And it should be noted that the things Featherston's party (the Freedom Party) CLAIM to stand for all sound like good things: a man's right to speak his own mind, freedom from "tyrannical oppression", a fair wage for a fair days work, etc. On the other hand, they use violence to break up rallies for other political parties, engage in voter intimidation and suppression, and at the end Featherson's CSA takes the place of Hitler's Germany, with Blacks in the role of the Jewish people. And they may actually be more efficient at it in some ways. It's a very disturbing read.

So to sum, two questions. Is being a citizen going to be relevant? And if it is, is it going to be significant enough that the test itself is relevant? Because if you draw attention to it, the players are going to assume it is relevant.

Mutazoia
2016-08-24, 12:16 AM
Well, I guess the first thing you need to figure out is "what tech-level are we talking about here". Obviously, the higher the tech level, the easier it is to determine citizenship. In a technolgical society, ID cards are the easiest. In a magical one, some sort of magic glyph that can be exposed during voter registration would be a good way to go.

Traditionally, however, in ancient societies, most citizens didn't vote. In Rome, the Roman Senate voted on everything, and senators were not elected into office, but were appointed by the consuls. After serving a term in the magistrate, it was common to receive an automatic promotion into the senate. Rule of the people, by the people as we know it now, didn't exist until the founding fathers in America drafted it.

Also, in a low tech society, getting even 20% of the population to vote, reliably tallying that vote, and having it actually produce varifyable, reliable results, would be virtually impossible with out some sort of secure tracking system. Which is why "voting the graveyard" and other crooked election practices were common, even in the states, until...well it still happens.

Cealocanth
2016-08-24, 09:32 AM
T raditionally, however, in ancient societies, most citizens didn't vote. In Rome, the Roman Senate voted on everything, and senators were not elected into office, but were appointed by the consuls. After serving a term in the magistrate, it was common to receive an automatic promotion into the senate. Rule of the people, by the people as we know it now, didn't exist until the founding fathers in America drafted it.

The OP did mention that it works like it did in Athens, not in Rome. That means that men, and only men, whose family had been in athens for several generations, could be citizens. Those citizens were basically forced to go to the assembly and vote on almost everything.

Now, that's not saying that they had a standardized test for citizenship. They didn't. Education was the provision for a good citizen, and if your family had been in athens for several generations, you would have an Athenian education.

But it's fun to theorize. Honestly, the boundaries for the test stated so far are a bit restricting for citizenship. If we want to have anyone besides the wealthy and powerful vote, the standards need to be lowered a bit to the level of the common educated individual. The restrictions I would put in place, for this time period, would be:

The ability to read and write
The ability to use and interpret a calendar
A test of combat ability - perhaps a spar or a tourney with a designated instructor (helps determine if they are good enough to serve in the military, should that be required)
Basic theological knowledge
Some ideological test "How do you represent each of the Aristotelean virtues?"
Understanding of the duties of the citizen
Basic knowledge of political and economic structure.

Vinyadan
2016-08-24, 10:38 AM
The OP did mention that it works like it did in Athens, not in Rome. That means that men, and only men, whose family had been in athens for several generations, could be citizens. Those citizens were basically forced to go to the assembly and vote on almost everything.

You are confounding citizenship and right to vote. Women could be citizens, as it is shown by Pericles' decision that only children of two citizens could receive citizenship.


Now, that's not saying that they had a standardized test for citizenship. They didn't. Education was the provision for a good citizen, and if your family had been in athens for several generations, you would have an Athenian education.


Citizenship was a fact of blood and ancestry. Sometimes the assembly would choose to give citizenship to a single person or to a group of people, but that depended on what the single had done or who the group were, not their education. An example are the Plateans, with which Athens had had a special relationship for many decades, who were offered citizenship after their city had been destroyed by common enemies.

If you want a comparison, it's like saying that women weren't US citizens until 1920 because earlier they couldn't vote in the whole union. Citizenship entails various rights and duties, and voting is only one of them; and it is a concept that is only defined by the laws of the polity it refers to, even if these laws are unequal (or, to us, unjust).

KarlMarx
2016-08-24, 12:09 PM
Historically, a test like this wouldn't happen.

Citizenship would probably be a reward for services to the state, though not necessarily military service("If your town enters a trade treaty with us, your merchants get citizenship").

So I think that the test would be more like a task--you have to prove your ability and willingness to serve in some way.

Plus, this is a good adventure hook.:smallwink:

Knaight
2016-08-25, 08:48 AM
Historically, a test like this wouldn't happen.

You mean, besides the imperial examination I liked upthread, which has existed in some form for upwards of 2000 years?

KarlMarx
2016-08-25, 11:20 AM
I meant in the graeco-roman world

Cealocanth
2016-08-27, 09:28 AM
Citizenship was a fact of blood and ancestry. Sometimes the assembly would choose to give citizenship to a single person or to a group of people, but that depended on what the single had done or who the group were, not their education. An example are the Plateans, with which Athens had had a special relationship for many decades, who were offered citizenship after their city had been destroyed by common enemies.

I think we're arguing the same point from two different sides here. I did mention your family having to be in Athens for several generations in order for you to be an Athenian citizen. The thing is, while the technical requirement for being a citizen was being an ancestral Athenian, the idea behind it was that Athenians were more capable of being citizens than other people - primarily because of an education gleaned from the society they lived in.
That's why I used the word "provision" there. Education was not the requirement for citizenship, but it was the inevitable reason that that particular rule was selected.

As far as confounding being a citizen and the right to vote, you're absolutely correct. I did confuse those terms.

LudicSavant
2016-08-27, 04:09 PM
Logic is a weird one, i took a Logic course in college and im still not sure how the hell you're supposed to grade that.

Really? Geez, it must have been a pretty bad logic class if they couldn't get even that much across. Logic is about as easy to grade as mathematics, you can give problems to solve which have definitive correct and incorrect answers.

Knaight
2016-08-28, 11:37 AM
Really? Geez, it must have been a pretty bad logic class if they couldn't get even that much across. Logic is about as easy to grade as mathematics, you can give problems to solve which have definitive correct and incorrect answers.

Probably because most of it is applied mathematics.

Blackhawk748
2016-08-28, 11:58 AM
Really? Geez, it must have been a pretty bad logic class if they couldn't get even that much across. Logic is about as easy to grade as mathematics, you can give problems to solve which have definitive correct and incorrect answers.

And heres my problem. Me and Math (past basic math nowadays) arent on speaking terms.

Socratov
2016-08-29, 08:31 AM
Well, to extend your Roman/Greco theme: have the subject take a test in political and national history (knowing what has happened in policital sense and in terms of the nation goes a great deal towards being a citizen of said state.

Another area of testing will be on your rights and duties as a citizen. This will test the subject's knowledge of the constitution, the more well known laws of a certain subject (which the subject may choose, like martial law, commerce law, criminal law, etc.) and the political process of elections and decision making.

As a graduation test you are to engage in a debate with a another would be citizen, or if none can be provided, another citizen. You are expected to once defend a debate position and once to attack a debate position. The subject will be raded on its use of manners, use of civil rhetoric (the greek kind) and given points for style.

These 3 tests handle the 3 pillars of a citizen: knowing what identity a citizen of said country holds (history), knwoing what is expected of him/her and s/he can expect in return (rights and duties) and how to participate in the use of a citizen's rights in a respectful manner (debate), thus encompassing a complete citizen of said nation.

Of course, once granted citizenship can be lost if one disgraces one enough to prompt such dire action. (and this is also a great campaign hook for intrige and such, as well as simultaneously the reward the players can get enabeling them to gain options and privileges in said country)