Reconstructing Democracy and Citizenship Education

Lessons from Central and Eastern Europe

Beata Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, Kerry J Kennedy, Beata Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, Kerry J. Kennedy

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000614336
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Bildung
• Thema: Sekundarschulbildung

This book compares the current status of democracy in selected Eastern European countries. The focus is on young people's attitudes towards and experiences of democracy, including active political engagement. In many of these countries, democracy has been hard-won and may well need to be defended again in the future. The contributors collectively reflect on young adults exercising their civic rights and how they can influence the political system at both formal and informal levels.

The chapters present different issues that arise in unique contexts but overall reflect the changing status of democracy and its effects on young people's citizenship activity and education. The volume compares perspectives of three groups of Eastern European countries with different traditions and past histories of democracy and citizenship: Central European countries (Poland, Czech, Hungary); Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia); and post-soviet republics (Ukraine, Moldova). These countries differ in the status given to democracy, citizenship action traditions and education. At the same time, many countries have experienced recent turbulence related to democracy and different kinds of actions by young people. Comparing them leads to conclusions about omissions made in current citizenship education provision and what needs to be done for a better understanding of the needs of citizenship education in these difficult times.

This volume will be of interest to students and scholars in citizenship and civic education, sociology, political science and Eastern European Studies.

1 De-Europeanization, populism and illiberalism Young people and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe

Beata Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz and Kerry J. Kennedy

DOI: 10.4324/9781003140528-1

De-Europeanization – the retreat from democracy

The post-communist transition of many Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries from authoritarianism to democracy toward the end of the 20th century was treated enthusiastically, especially under the influence of the European Union. Yet over time, there has been a question as to whether such enthusiasm has been justified. Szymański (2017) has referred to the process of de-Europeanization by which he meant “the reversal of reforms or conducting them without reference to the EU standards of liberal democracy” (p. 189). He goes on to point out that this process of “de-democratization” reflected in a number of CEE countries is not confined to the region but is a global process whereby democracy is being undermined on multiple fronts. The CEE case, therefore, is a special case of what has been noted even in mature democracies such as the United States under Donald Trump and the United Kingdom under Boris Johnson. This process has been referred to in different ways: “democracy’s decline” (Plattner, 2015), “democracy in retreat” (Kurlantzick, 2014), “deconsolidation of democracy” (Foa & Mounk, 2016). The focus of this book is on young people in CCE societies and their capacity to confront, in their respective contexts, what amounts to both “de-Europeanization” and “de-democracy”.

Democracy in context

Bauman (2003) identified several phenomena that explain why modern countries and their citizens need democracy. One of these phenomena is the widening dissonance between power and politics. In stable societies of the previous centuries, power was wielded mainly by politicians whose decisions and initiatives influenced the political system of the state. Decisions concerning military operations, trade alliances, property laws and unions between nations made a real impact on people’s lives. At present, power is being transferred to the supranational level. Systems of global connections and mutual economic dependencies influence political decisions and state laws. The economic crisis of 2008/2009 and the authorities’ inability to deal with its consequences clearly show that politicians are being gradually deprived of influence over global affairs. In his political biography, A Promised Land (2012), former American president Barack Obama discussed the American government’s failure to manage economic processes despite the fact that members of his political party had the majority in Congress.

New media are yet another influential phenomenon. The development of the Internet and the wide availability of modern technologies have prompted all generations to establish an online presence (although various age groups use the Internet for different purposes). This trend has fundamentally changed the concept of space which, in its traditional form, was equivalent to the concept of a nation state. At present, people join communities with which they identify and where they are active. A growing number of people work for foreign companies. They are exposed to foreign culture and mentality, and some are expected to quickly identify with foreign values. Communities are no longer bound by geographic barriers, and they are being transformed into a loose network of entities. This implicates two important phenomena, namely diversity and variation. Cultural and personal diversity drives growth. Governments and businesses alike draw upon diversity to promote innovation and progress. The management of diversity, however, poses a challenge. Democracy is a system that offers a viable solution to this problem.

Democracy promotes cooperation between citizens who can influence the functioning of communities through joint action. This concept extends beyond the formal definition of democracy, and it demonstrates that democracy is not only a political system or a system of principles or rules, but also a cultural project and a social contract (Stevick & Levinson, 2008). In this sense, democracy is linked with citizen engagement and civic activity. Democratic procedures constitute a framework that facilitates and supports civic activity. Procedural democracy, namely a set of systemic solutions, differs from essential democracy which relies on civic activity (Brettschneider, 2007). A democratic system can also exist in countries whose citizens are passive and withdrawn. A true democracy, however, can evolve only through civic activity. Democracy and citizenship are complementary and inseparable, and the links between these concepts should be monitored to gain a better understanding of social rules and the mechanisms underlying human behaviors. This book analyzes these associations in relation to young people. The social development trends identified by Bauman (2003) underscore the importance of democratic values, particularly in the context of the widening dissonance between power and politics and the recognition of diversity and variation.

Democracy is a system that prevents the abuse of power, both in the psychological and the formal dimension. Citizens share power, which limits abuse of power and prevents violence. Universal suffrage, the freedom of expression and other democratic procedures oblige the government to respect the voters’ opinions. In consequence, democratic procedures minimize the risk of political infallibility and absolute power that leads to censorship, control and terror. Democracy is a civilizational tool that reduces the tension associated with the exercise of power. It also guarantees a peaceful transfer of power (Shapiro, 2010). Democracy supports diversity and harnesses the strength of diversity. Multiple opinions, often contrary, enrich public discourse in democratic societies. Different interests can be freely expressed and confronted with other points of view in a civilized manner (Shapiro, 2010). Lastly, democracy is a system that prepares successive generations for leadership and governance by creating space for civic participation.

As indicated earlier, there is evidence of phenomena indicating that democracy is “backsliding” (Kotler, 2016; Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018; Cianetti, Dawson, & Hanley, 2019). Independent institutes monitoring the state of democracy in the world indicate that this is a global process that affects all continents (Democracy Index, 2019; V-Dem Report by Lührmann et al., 2018, 2019, 2020). Europe has not been immune from this process, as the process of “de-Europeanization” indicates. The European Union from the beginning conferred a special status on democracy and EU values reflect this commitment (Kennedy & Brunold, 2016). Yet it is not the first time democracy has been under threat in Europe and a major issue is the extent to which current threats can be resisted and democratic values and institutions can be retained.

Central and Eastern European turbulence in democracy – between defending and retreating

Overall, the status of democracy in Europe can be viewed as positive, but there are some indicators that challenge democratic development. The democracy indexes (Lührmann et al., 2018, 2019, Democracy Index, 2019), measuring freedom of expression and access to alternative sources of information, decreased significantly in many countries, and improved in only a few countries. At the same time, indicators measuring the electoral aspects of democracy, particularly free and fair elections, have improved. These findings illustrate the nature of de-democracy in Europe. According to Lindberg (2018), Director of the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute, the ruling elites of some countries are on an undemocratic quest, but electoral institutions that are generally regarded as representative of democracy remain robust or have even improved. This latter point is important when it comes to consideration of the varieties of democracy being experienced in Europe and will be discussed later in this chapter. What needs to be noted, however, is that de-democracy is taking place in less conspicuous areas such as government censorship of the media and academia, civil society organizations and cultural institutions. This undermines freedom as a core democratic value despite the maintenance of what might be called electoral democracy.

Some governments are increasingly likely to impose self-censorship on autonomous actors such as universities and NGOs by limiting the freedom of expression and public debate. According to V-Dem report (Lührmann et al., 2018), these measures could appear inconsequential on their own, but their combined outcomes weaken institutions that guarantee free and fair elections as an effective instrument of democracy. So far, democracy has been relatively resilient, but recent trends paint a rather pessimistic picture. The number of countries where authoritarianism is on the rise, in particular large countries with strong democratic traditions, is a worrying sign not just in the CEE context but globally. Freedom House (2021) painted a dire picture of the international scene:

Over the past year, oppressive and often violent authoritarian forces tipped the international order in their favor time and again, exploiting both the advantages of nondemocratic systems and the weaknesses in ailing democracies. In a variety of environments, flickers of hope were extinguished, contributing to a new global status quo in which acts of repression went unpunished and democracy’s advocates were increasingly isolated.

In recent years, almost all CEE countries have witnessed varying levels of democratic decline (Zielonka, 2015). This is important to understand because in these same countries, democracy was hard-won almost three decades ago. For more than half a century after World War II, all CEE countries were, to varying degrees, dependent on the Soviet Union. Some of them were republics incorporated into the Soviet state while others although formally separated were politically and economically dependent.

There were popular movements in these countries to regain freedom and to establish democratic systems. It ended with the symbolic fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the gaining of autonomy from the Soviet Union by 10 countries – Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia (later separated as the Czech Republic and Slovakia), Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and later Ukraine and Moldova. This liberation from authoritarian control was associated with a wave of enthusiasm and hope. It was also a symbol of the victory of democracy as the most civilized and desirable form of political system in countries where such values as freedom, respect for diversity and responsibility for the common good are important for citizens. It led to Fukuyama’s (1989) assertion about the “end of history” and the triumph of liberalism. After 30 years, however, there is a decline in the strength of democratic indicators, which may suggest serious problems for democracy. Four of the countries mentioned – Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia – have lost their status as liberal democracies as indicated by falling indices of electoral democracies (Lührmann et al., 2018, 2019). When Szymański (2017) discusses “de-Europeanization”, he makes specific mention of events in Poland and Hungary (p. 187). Decline in democracy and de-Europeanization go together.

Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia (later separated as the Czech Republic and Slovakia), with a history of grassroots’ independence movements, were better prepared for the introduction of democracy and democratic institutions. These countries had enjoyed higher levels of national and political autonomy during Soviet rule. National governments were in place, and private ownership on a small scale was permitted. After 1989, civic movements enabled these countries to gain independence, build free markets and democratic political structures. Former Soviet bloc countries such as these were bound by a political and economic cooperation agreement signed in 1991 in Visegrad and became EU members in 2004. These V4 countries, Czechoslovakia became the Czech Republic and Slovakia, while initially committed to democratic development subsequently “(became) an area of increasing political concern and analysis, as their leaders… moved towards a more Eurosceptic stance” (Morillas & Hepford, 2016, p. 5) that was referred to earlier in this chapter as the process of de-Europeanization.

The democratization of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia began with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In these countries, democratic transformations were initiated by popular fronts, namely spontaneous social movements that organized protests. The most spectacular event was the Baltic Way of 23 August 1989, when approximately 2 million people joined hands to form a human chain spanning nearly 600 kilometers. The restoration of independence from Soviet Union, however. was not always a peaceful process. For example in Lithuania, 14 civilians were killed during protests staged in the vicinity of the television tower in Vilnius. Democratic institutions were revived after the Baltic states had regained their independence. These countries were democratic states before World War II and this facilitated the transition from the Soviet sphere of influence. They are referred to as former Soviet republics, members of the EU or, due to their geograph...