Conceptus "citizen" and "subject": dynamics and prospects of development

. The study revealed the etymology, historical, legal development, the essence and content of the concepts of "citizen" and "subject", "citizenship" and "allegiance". An important influence on the content of these terms is derived from the concept of “civic spirit”, which absorbs the political will and attitude of the state towards its citizens, citizens towards the state and society. Citizenship is not static and is a dynamically developing legal and social institution from allegiance to post-national, global, supranational, ecological and digital citizenship, but not to new allegiance. For the concept “citizen”, the democratic vector of development is the enrichment of a person’s status not only with rights but also with the actual content of a citizen-state relationship: from a city dweller to a person who is subject to authority and has full democratic legal status, high index and competences of civic spirit and having a stable legal relationship with the state (as a rule, the republican form of government). In a moral sense, it is obvious that, if a citizen sees democracy in the order that best corresponds to his views, then, from the point of view of an equitable distribution of the burden, everyone should contribute to it.


Introduction
Conceptus citizen and subject, citizenship and allegiance traditionally attract the attention of researchers from various scientific fields. There is no unified approach to the use and content of the designated terms. This circumstance was caused, including the historical variability of the content of these categories, which depends on the form of government, political regime, and other factors. The relevance of the study evidenced by a need to constantly democratize the legal status of a person as a citizen of the state. The semantics and practices of implementing the categories citizen and subject, citizenship and allegiance are not quite uniform as there are many positions regarding the definition of etymology, moral and ethical and legal content, dynamics and vector of its development. The question of the relationship between citizenship and allegiance is controversial. Important areas of scientific thought are issues of responsible behavior of a citizen, his ability and possibility to participate in the government, postnational, global, supranational, digital, and ecological citizenship, etc.

Materials and methods
The purpose of the work consists in studying the dynamic development of semantics and practices of the concepts citizen and subject in the modern world. The author attempts to determine the dynamics of the further functioning of the citizenship phenomenon "from allegiance to citizenship", "from citizenship to ...." on the basis of the historical and legal development of the world community.
Work hypothesis in most cases, the category citizen, is wider than just subject, rollback to the status of a subject is not allowed. The rules of development of the state and law include dynamically occurring democratization of the relationship between the state and the individual. A person, by one's active actions as a subject of civil society, must take actions aimed not at losing his current status of a citizen as a subject of management and not at returning to a subject or a loyal subject as an object of management, but to develop oneself as full-fledged person actively involved in the events.
Conducting the research on the concepts citizen and subject, citizenship and allegiance, the author complements them and expresses his position on their use, content and development. The rationale for this point of view is given that citizenship is not static as it is a dynamically developing legal and social institution: from allegiance to postnational, global, supranational, ecological and digital citizenship, but not to new allegiance. The problems of legal statuses citizen and subject are raised, and their characteristic features are revealed. The paper attempts to provide answers to topical questions: What caused the rejection of the use of the terms subject and allegiance both in politics and in law? Does it follow from the status of a citizen that a person who possesses them should also possess additional practices and competencies (e.g. serving the Motherland and the people, taking care of the public good, actively participating in government)? How to determine the willingness and ability to be a citizen?
The fundamental methods of scientific knowledge used by the author are methods of analysis: systemic, etymological, linguistic, historical, legal, and others. The etymological analysis will determine the meaning of terms. Linguistic analysis of literary texts and the method of historicism will be indispensable in studying the development dynamics of the content of the studied concepts. The formal legal method is aimed at disclosing the regulatory component. It is also important to determine the methodology for analyzing the content of the concepts citizenship, allegiance, and civic spirit.

Results and discussion
Regarding the origin of the concept subject, linguistsetymologists believe that it goes back to the Latin adjective subditus, the loan translation of which is Polish poddany (subject), poddanstwo (allegiance) which has then become Russian [1]. Latin sub, dit, us were translated to the Polish pod, dan, y [2].
V. Dahl defines the term subject by subordination, subjection to the government, the sovereign, and allegiance as the "state of the subject" [3]. S.I. Ozhegov, adds the concept of allegiance another meaning "the belonging of a person to any state" [4]. The Complete Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian language states that "allegiance is the affiliation of a person to the population of any state with a monarchical form of government" [5]. An outdated meaning of this term denotes that this is a person who is in personal economic dependence on someone else [6], "the one who submits to the power of the master, the master in his domain" [7].
The edict of the Russian Governing Senate "On the oath promise of foreigners, who want to swear allegiance to Russia" (August 27, 1747), established the obligation to take the oath of allegiance when accepting citizenship, which said: "I want a faithful, kind and obedient slave and forever subjects ... to be and nowhere ... not to move abroad and not to join the foreign service." Thus, the obligation to be a kind and an obedient slave who does not have the right to change his allegiance was imposed on the subject of regulation. There was nothing to say about any equality in the legal statuses of subjects, the extent of the rights of a person depended on his belonging to a social group, the categories of subjects were singled out. Migration outside the state of any subject reduced the collection of taxes and the state was deprived of the opportunity to demand performing any other duties from this person.
In the Polish-German dictionary, the term poddany (subject) is translated as untertan. A subject is translated as Untertan, Untergebener, Staatsangehöriger, and allegianceas Untertänigkeit, Staatsangehörigkeit from Russian into German [1,8]. Untertan is thus a subject or a loyal subject [9].
If we turn to the study of German linguistic literature devoted to the historical development of Germany, then, we can meet another term for allegiance Untertanenschaft. D. Grieshaber points out that Untertanenschaft (allegiance) provided restrictions on the legal status of a person and his rights [10]. The Volga Germans Monthly in 1924 published documents dated to the 18th century, which also used the term Untertanenschaft (allegiance) and talked about German citizens leaving the allegiance when the move to Russia and release Germanic subject [11,12].
The reference book of the origin and etymology of words indicates such use of the term untertan: "the dependence of the subjects, as well as their broad confidence in the government, distinguished German society from other Western European states" [13]. R. Krueger, describing the development of Germany, emphasized that "... a person was endowed with a nonessential volume of rights of a subject but not a citizen" [14]. In the Complete German-Russian dictionary there are two possible translations of this word: 1) subject (obsolete); 2) dependent, bonded peasant [15]. The authors of the dictionary designated the term subject as an outdated that is clearly confirmed by regulatory legal acts of Germany.
In Prussia, before the beginning of the 19th century, the term Prussian subjects (Preußens Untertanen) was actively used in acts of legislation. For example, the Civil Code (Josephinischen Gesetzbuch (01. 11. 1786)) § 1 established that all subjects of Prussia are not only protected by the laws of the state and must comply with them [16].
But after a century the expression Prussian subject became practically offensive, its use in legislative acts was discontinued. In 1869, only because of the use of the term untertan by the Prussian Landtag, the draft law "On the Acquisition and Loss of the Title of the Prussian subject (untertan)" was rejected. The conciliation commission, in which this draft was submitted from the chamber for revision replaced the term subject in the title and in the text with the expression Prussian. The Chamber of Deputies supported the amendment. The government did not agree to the changes the bill required by the Chamber [17].
The following speech was made at the meeting of the Frankfurt National Assembly on June 2, 1848: "Own subjects ... are no longer subjects in Germany since the people ventured to win their freedom on the barricades. "Own subjects"! And it is we who choose the assemblies, prescribing sovereign laws for kings and emperors we are the subjects of His Majesty the Prussian king?" [18].
The use of the term subject untertan in relation to Prussia is found in the works Karl Marx, for example, in the article "Notes on the Newest Prussian Censorship Instructions" he indicates "the subject of the Prussian state" (der Untertan des preußischen Staates) [19]. On September 4, 1848, K. Marx sent a letter to the Interior Minister of Prussia in which he pointed out: "I consider it completely unacceptable that the local royal district office ... uses the word subject in the notice sent to me while the previous and current ministry expelled this definition from all official documents, replacing it with the name "citizens of the state" [20].
In the English translation of this work of the Marxism founder instead of the German term untertan the English term subject is used. The authors of the Polish-English dictionary refer to the word poddany (subject) as a subject, which is defined as a person under the authority of a monarch or a member of a country with a monarchical form of government. The English-Russian dictionary indicates the translation of the term subject as citizen, "the subject of the crown" ("the subject of any state").
V. Muller defines subject as subordinate [21]. In the English-law dictionary, the first meaning of the word "subject" is defined as subject [22]. The etymology dictionary contains information that the word subject originates from the common Slavic gordianin, formed from OTgordb (later -city). Its original meaning is "townsman". At the end of the XVIII century, it became defined as a person who is a subject of the state [2]. A. Shaposhnikov defines a subject as a person who is allegiance and indicates that in the XVI-XVII centuries the term poddanny (subject) was used. The author also points out that one cannot exclude the possibility of the formation of a word from Common Slavic under tribute [23]. In the dictionary of associations Rerayt the following synonymous adjectives are cited as synonyms for the word subject: subordinate, dependent, cognizable, dependent [24].
Summarizing the marked positions, we can conclude the following. The concept of subject, allegiance is characterized by two main features: a) the presence of subordination, subjection to the state will, and in the predemocratic period there is a significant limitation in legal status (up to identification with slavery); b) an indication of the affiliation of a person to a state with a monarchical form of government.
As synonyms for subject and allegiance referred to as citizen, citizenship. We will try to figure out how reasonable this is.
In the law encyclopedic dictionary states: "In monarchical states, as a rule, citizenship terminologically corresponds to allegiance" [25].
M. Vasmer came to the conclusion that the word citizen (Bürger) came from the Church Slavonic language. It was formed from the word townsman. Derivative is citizenship (Bürgerrecht), tracing paper Greek πολίτης [26].
V. Dal characterizes a citizen, firstly, through such concepts as city dweller, townsman, "a member of a community or people consisting of one common government";; secondly, it indicates that "citizenship is the state of a citizen; title¸ his rights and obligations" [27]. S.I. Ozhegov concludes that the concept of citizen has two meanings: 1) "a person belonging to the permanent population of a given state, enjoying its protection and endowed with a set of political and other rights and duties";; 2) an adult, as well as a form of addressing him [4].
In the Complete Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian language, the concept of citizen is characterized as a person not only belonging to the population of any state but also enjoying all the rights provided by the laws of this state and performing all the duties established by the laws of this state [5].
A more extensive interpretation of the concept of citizen can be found in the dictionary of T. Efremova, which additionally concludes that this is a person serving the homeland, the people, caring for the public good [6]. D. Diderot emphasized: "Hobbes does not make any difference between a subject and a citizen; this is true if the word subject is understood in its exact sense, and the word citizen is in its broadest meaning, and if one considers that the subject is put to the sovereign in the same attitude as a citizen to laws alone. Both are equally manageable, but one is an individual and the other is a moral entity. The name citizen is not appropriate for those living in subjection or in disunity; this implies that living in a completely natural state, as sovereigns, and completely deprived of this state, as slaves, cannot be considered as citizens at all, if we assume that a reasonable society is possible, which has an immutable moral essence that stands above the sovereign's physical personality" [28].
Involuntarily I recall the words from the poem of the Great Russian poet N. Nekrasov, "The Poet and the Citizen": "You may not be a poet, but you must be a citizen." The last line of the poem became a popular expression. This is the apotheosis of the poem. The author emphasizes in them that the citizen is the one to whom the interests of society are not alien.
Does it follow from the concept of citizen that a person who has the status of citizenship should serve the Motherland and his people, cares about the public good, and actively participate in the government? If you answer this question in the affirmative, then, of course, you can talk about the existence of a civil society in which each person respects the rights and freedoms of another.
Depending on the context, the English word citizenship can be translated as both citizenship and allegiance. In the English-American theory of the concept of citizen, which corresponds to citizen and subject is clearly distinguished. Thus, both a subject and a citizen are solely citizenship, not allegiance.
Citizen is 1) citizen, female citizen; 2) townsman, townswoman; citizenship -citizenship [21]; citizen [22,29]. The term national has become widespread, which can literally be translated as a person with a certain national identity. In the practice of the colonial states, the term citizenship was initially used only in relation to persons with political and civil rights in full. The indigenous people of the colonies were classified as persons with legal affiliation to this state (nationals, ressortissants, etc.). The collapse of colonialism led to a change in the original meaning of these terms, to the multiplicity of their use [30].
The legal status of a Great Britain subject as a citizen of the United Kingdom and the colonies was enshrined in the British Nationality Act of 1948 and was further developed under the British Nationality Act 1981. Note that in the 1948 British Nationality Act the term British citizens are used more than 100 times and the British subjects about 10 times. In the current British Nationality Act of 1981, the term (British citizens) is used more than 100 times, and (British subjects) only once (in §11) and at the same time only that British subjects become citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.
Clause "C" and "I" of Part 1 of Article 3 of the Convention between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (02/15/1994) "On avoidance of double taxation ..." defines that the term citizen means: with reference to the United Kingdom -any British citizen or any British subject who is not a citizen of any other country or territory of the British Commonwealth, provided that he has the right to reside in the United Kingdom.
The term Unionsbürgerschaft ("European Union Citizenship") is used in the Treaty on European Union ("Vertrag tiber die Europäische Union") as equivalent to citizenship. Based on the provisions of this document, it can be concluded that "European citizenship is added to national citizenship, establishing a real and effective postnational political community" [31].
In the regulations of monarchical German states (XIX-XX centuries), as well as in the current regulations of the Federal Republic of Germany, when characterizing persons with citizenship, the concepts of Bürger or Staatsbürger are used, which are translated as citizen and not Untertan -subject.
"In monarchist states," wrote V. Hessen, "the attitude of allegiance is conceived as the attitude of the individual towards the monarch; and this attitude is called allegiance. On the contrary, in the Republican states, the attitude of allegiance, as the attitude of an individual to the state, and not to the authority in the state, is called citizenship. The individual is a subject in monarchies and a citizen in the republics" [17].
G.V. Chicherin in his report on union citizenship emphasized: "Declaration of the Rights and Liberties of Man and of the Citizen in 1789 replaced the notion of a subject, i.e. the object of an imposed will, alien to him, compulsory state power by the notion of a citizen, i.e. a participant in the collective will of the people, embodied in the form of state power" [32].
Politicians renouncing the use of the term subject as a symbol of political powerlessness officially introduced the term citizen with which they associated ideas of a new life, in which a person becomes a legally free person, not only having the right to participate in political life but also actively participating in her.
Many scientists in relation to the monarchical German states also speak not about subjects, but about citizens [30,33].
At the beginning of the 19th century, Germanic states were monarchical in form of government, but officially they used the term citizen rather than subject, thus emphasizing the ongoing liberal changes in the regulation of individual status.
In the constitutions of Bavaria, Baden Württemberg and other German monarchies actively used the term citizen, citizenship The Germans saw in the use of the word citizen the danger of counter-revolutionary transformations aimed at reducing significantly increasing among citizens, in contrast to subjects, the volume of political rights.
The concept of German citizenship is closely related to the historical formation, the circumstances of the creation of the German Empire as a single state.
Up until 1934, full-fledged single German citizenship did not exist, although we can find references to it in the regulations already in 1848. Thus, the imperial law "On the basic rights of the German people" ("Reichsgesetz, betreffend die Grundrechte des deutschen Volkes" (27. 12. 1848)) used the term German imperial citizenship (deutsche Reichsbürgerrecht). The base was not the imperial allegiance/citizenship, but the allegiance/citizenship of individual states -Prussian, Bavarian, Thuringian, etc. Subjects/citizens of the German Empire were considered to be persons who were subject to the allegiance of one of the states that were part of it. Only the inhabitants of the imperial lands (Alsace, Lorraine, etc.) consisted of direct allegiance of the empire.
Even during the existence of the Weimar Republic in Germany, a citizen of a separate land was automatically considered a citizen of the empire, but the federal imperial government did not have the right to interfere in the procedure of granting land citizenship. Article 16 of the Weimar Constitution stated: "Officials entrusted with direct imperial administration in lands should, as a general rule, be citizens of this land" (Landesangehörige) (Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches (11.08.1919)). A. Hitler legally implemented his ideas, expressed in the extremist autobiographical book "Mein Kampf" ("My Struggle"), that the future populist state conducts a division of the country's inhabitants into three classes: citizens, subjects, and foreigners [Ufa of the Russian Federation (03.24.2010) the book is included in the federal list of extremist materials) [34].
On September 15, 1935, the German Reichstag approved the "Reich Citizenship Act" (Reichsbürgergesetz), which in § 2 stipulated that a Reich citizen (Reichsbürger) was exclusively a citizen (der Staatsangehörige) with German blood or its blood which by its behavior proves that it is ready and able to serve the German people and the Reich by faith (Reichsbürgergesetz (15.09. 1935)). Subsequently, the "First Ordinance to the Law on Citizenship of the Reich" (14.11. 1935) divided German citizens into categories: 1) belonging to German or related blood; 2) belonging to racially alien tribes, including those related to prohibited marriages (Erste Verordnung zum Reichsbürgergesetz (14.11. 1935)).
How to determine this readiness and ability to faith serve the people and the state? Where are the boundaries of this behavior? The actions of the Nazis in relation to the mentally ill, deaf-and-dumb, Jews and other categories that became non-citizens were condemned by all progressive humanity, including at the Nuremberg trial.
In the Russian Empire, the term citizen appeared after the revolutionary transformations of 1917. On November 7, 1917, the appeal of the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies "To the Citizens of Russia" was made public. The edict of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (ARCEC) (11.23.1917) "On the destruction of estates and civil officials" said: "... one common name is established for the entire population of Russia -a citizen of the Russian Republic". Some authors, with reference to all states, including modern Russia use the term subjects [35]. In our opinion, this is not reasonable.
In the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, the terms citizenship and allegiance in most cases are used as words synonyms. Note that in the legal acts of many modern monarchical states and in international treaties, instead of the concept of subject is used citizen (Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Japan). Art. VIII of the current Constitution of Japan: "A Japanese citizen loses Japanese allegiance from the moment he voluntarily accepts the citizenship of a foreign state." Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December 10, 1948) states that "everyone has the right to a nationality." The term citizen is primarily used in the "Svalbard Treaty" (02/09/1920);; "Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons" (09/28/1954); "Convention on the Nationality of Married Women" (01/29/1957); Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (August 30, 1961); "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (December 16,1966); "Declaration of human rights in relation to persons who are not citizens of the country in which they live" (12/13/1985) and others.
Only in some official texts of international normative acts in Russian, we met the use of the term subject. Thus, in the official Russian text, paragraph 3 of Article 45 of the Hague Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes (18/10/1907), is used the term subject and in the English text is national. Paragraph 1 of Annex II Potsdam Conference (08/01/1945) states that the burden of reparations and war trophies should not fall on allied subjects, in the English text is nationals. Thus, in relation to the citizens of the USSR and the United States, who were not in the form of government of monarchical states, the term subject, more typical of England, was used.
There are also cases when in one international legal act at the same time are used as different terms "citizen" and subject. So clause "B" of section 9 of article VII of the agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (12/21/1945) states that the salaries and salaries paid by the Bank ... to officials and employees of the Bank who are not local citizens, local subjects or other local residents... are not taxed.
We adhere to the point of view that "the political-legal idea of citizenship is historically closely intertwined with the ideas of equality and popular sovereignty since citizenship was associated with the destruction of the feudal estates and privileges, the right to participate in the exercise of state power. From this point, a citizen ceases to be solely an object of power, becomes a subject of power" [36].
In addition, "feudalism did not know citizenship, it was managed by the institution of allegiance, which meant the powerlessness of the individual before the allpowerful state" [37]. The conquest of the Great French Revolution should be considered the active use of the term citizen and the expulsion of references to nationality from the legal acts. The translations of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights and Liberties of Man and of the Citizen in Russian and English confirm the use of the term citizen rather than subject, although a constitutional monarchy existed in France during this period.
It seems that, on the basis of the foregoing, and taking into account the content of the rights of residents of democratic states, it is more correct to speak not of subjects, but of citizens. The thesis that the term allegiance may well be replaced by the term citizenship [36] is completely justified. Thus, in democracies, regardless of the form of government, the disappearance of the term subject and the wide use of the term citizen.
Sometimes the concept of citizen includes some shades of coldness, restraint, callousness, official formality. The thoughts of A. Solzhenitsyn involuntarily recalled, expressed by him in his work "The Gulag Archipelago": "there is not and there can be no other sentence for citizen Ouspenskaya, except for her destruction" citizen chief; citizen overseer; citizen head camp item. In the detective story of V. Pronin "Citizen Chief", the author points out that when addressing the detainee, they say: "Let's go, citizen!". These phrases emphasize the use of the term Citizen vertically, "top to bottom". Sometimes the use of the word citizen by people equal in legal status signifies readiness for conflict: "You, citizen, what do you need here?" In the continuation, we will quote from the novel "The Twelve Chairs" by I. Ilf, E. Petrov: "Listen, citizen, instead of crying, you might go to the bathhouse".
In Bavaria, in 2018, during the celebration of the bicentennial of its own Constitution, the exhibition "From the Subject to the Citizen" ("Vom Untertan zum Staatsbürger") was organized at public transport stations and other places, which, in our opinion, shows a progressive movement forward. And what will happen next? What vector will be set for the development of citizenship in the future?
The search for an answer to the question of what the degree of political freedom of citizens is traditionally interested in many researchers [38]. An important task of democracy is the integration of citizens in the activities of the state, in the implementation of state policy [39]. Citizen participation in politics should not be reduced solely to periodic voting. The actual question is about what is the point in the voting of citizens, most of whom are ignorant and incompetent, have they a low level of political knowledge? [40]. It is important to remember that the need for any society is the responsible behavior of a citizen [41].
The phenomenon of citizenship, which arose BC "as a local phenomenon in time and space ... as a result of evolutionary transformations and revolutionary upheavals spread to the whole world as an outstanding achievement of the social, political and spiritual life of society, as one of the effective ways of positioning an individual within a self-organizing collective" [42].
Citizenship is not static; it is a dynamically developing legal and social institution. Citizenship is a dynamically developing system of relations between a person and a state, defined through practice [43,44]. Quite modern ideas are being actively developed in the scientific literature for developing responsible citizenship is postnational, global, supranational, ecological [45,46]. Some authors point to the development of global republican citizenship, whose supporters will adhere exclusively to the ideas of republicanism [47].
One of the directions of development of citizenship is digital citizenship, the study of which is also gaining popularity [48]. If we turn to the provision of public services in electronic form, we can conclude that when they are received, some kind of activity and competence of citizens is needed: you need to register, confirm your identity in the identification center. A non-initiative citizen will not be able to obtain "digital citizenship" and the benefits associated with it.
H. Mann in the novel "Der Untertan" ("The Subject") portrayed the protagonist cynical, with disgusting thoughts, a slave and fanatical monarch fan [49]. The novel was translated into Russian under the name "Loyal subject", into English "Man of Straw".
A citizen as a person must be qualitatively different from a loyal subject. This difference should, first of all, be traced in the scope of rights and freedoms, in the activity and competence of a person. Democratic rulers cannot even afford to think about returning to the institution of the powerless subject.
B. Shumatsky in the book "The New Subject: Populism, Postmodernism, Putin" [50] indicates that a person can easily become an unquestioning subject of consoling populist lies.
Our courageous and courageous ancestors in the revolutionary struggle, despite the difficulties [51], won the right to call themselves citizens. It is important not only to preserve these achievements but also to multiply them, enriching the institution of citizenship, citizen status.
In a moral sense, it is obvious that if a citizen sees the order in a democracy that is most consistent with his views, then from the point of view of an equitable distribution of burdens, everyone must contribute.
Citizenship, civic spirit is essential to ensure a sustainable and democratic environment. But how determine the level of development of these categories? It is reasonable to propose to measure the degree of citizenship by an index of citizenship consisting of certain indicators: membership in the political community; collective responsibilities and rights as a consequence of membership; participation in the social and political process [52], [53].

Conclusion
The study revealed the etymology, historical development, the essence and content of the concepts citizen and subject, citizenship and allegiance. The use and content of the concepts subject, citizen depends on the historical period of the formation of society, state.
For the concept of subject one can distinguish the following conditional direction of development: from a fully dependent person who pays taxes and is the subject (slave) of the monarch, the object of power; a person who is endowed with a non-essential volume of rights of a subject (unlike a citizen) and belongs to a state with a monarchical form of government; and further to a person belonging to a state with a monarchical form of government and endowed with legal status equal to the status and competencies of a citizen.
For the concept citizen, the democratic vector of development is the enrichment of a person's status, not only with rights, but also the content of a citizen-state relationship: from a city dweller to a person who is a subject of power and has full democratic legal status, high index and civic competence and having a stable legal relationship with the state (in which, as a rule, the republican form of government).