Constructing the demos: Citizenship, Exclusion, and Democracy in Denmark
Author
Tanem, Oda Rudi
Term
4. semester
Education
Publication year
2026
Submitted on
2026-05-28
Abstract
This thesis examines how the boundaries of the Danish political community (the demos) are set and justified through citizenship law and political debate on immigration and citizenship from 2015 to 2026. Although Denmark has a democratically elected government, many adult residents without citizenship cannot take part in national democratic processes. The study uses a social constructionist, qualitative case study and applies critical discourse analysis with a focus on argumentation. It identifies four dominant ways of talking about citizenship: citizenship must be earned through deservingness; citizenship depends on cultural and religious belonging; international obligations related to citizenship are framed as a threat to national security; and permanent temporariness, where people remain in long-term temporary status. These discourses are examined with two forms of critique: explanatory critique to clarify how and why boundaries of the political community are maintained, and normative critique to assess whether these boundaries are democratically legitimate in light of democratic theory and legal standards. The findings show that access to citizenship depends on ideas about deservingness and on political choices, rather than only on neutral, objective criteria. Law and political discourse reinforce each other and sustain an understanding of the demos as non-universal. While Danish practices on granting citizenship mostly stay within legal limits, they raise normative concerns about including all adults in democracy and about unequal access to political power. The thesis concludes that inclusion in the Danish demos could be tied to residence rather than to citizenship, but any change would need approval from current members of the political community.
Afhandlingen undersøger, hvordan grænserne for det danske politiske fællesskab (demos) fastsættes og begrundes gennem statsborgerskabslovgivning og den politiske debat om indvandring og statsborgerskab i perioden 2015–2026. Selvom Danmark har en demokratisk valgt regering, kan mange voksne beboere uden statsborgerskab ikke deltage i nationale demokratiske processer. Studiet anvender en socialkonstruktionistisk, kvalitativ casestudie-tilgang og benytter kritisk diskursanalyse med fokus på argumentation. Det identificerer fire dominerende måder at tale om statsborgerskab på: statsborgerskab betinges af fortjenthed; statsborgerskab afhænger af kulturelt og religiøst tilhørsforhold; internationale forpligtelser vedrørende statsborgerskab fremstilles som en trussel mod national sikkerhed; og permanent midlertidighed, hvor mennesker forbliver i langvarig, midlertidig status. Disse diskurser analyseres med to former for kritik: forklarende kritik, der afdækker, hvordan og hvorfor grænserne for det politiske fællesskab opretholdes, og normativ kritik, der vurderer, om disse grænser er demokratisk legitime i lyset af demokratiteori og retslige standarder. Resultaterne viser, at adgang til statsborgerskab afhænger af idéer om fortjenthed og af politiske valg frem for udelukkende neutrale, objektive kriterier. Lovgivning og politisk diskurs forstærker hinanden og fastholder en forståelse af demos som ikke-universelt. Danske praksisser for tildeling af statsborgerskab ligger for det meste inden for de juridiske rammer, men rejser normative bekymringer om inklusion af alle voksne i demokratiet og om ulige adgang til politisk magt. Afhandlingen konkluderer, at inklusion i det danske demos kan knyttes til bopæl snarere end statsborgerskab, men enhver ændring vil skulle godkendes af de nuværende medlemmer af det politiske fællesskab.
[This abstract has been rewritten with the help of AI based on the project's original abstract]
Keywords