View
223
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Civic Education via Democracy Assistance: The role of Young Donors in Supporting Youth Participation in Democratizing
Countries
Paulina Pospieszna and Aleksandra Galus Faculty of Political Science and Journalism Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznan
Workshop: Citizenship, Diversity, Participation and Education in Times of Change
ECPR Joint Sessions, 29.03-‐2.04.2015, Warsaw Abstract The main purpose of the paper is to analyse externally driven youth empowerment strategies in Eastern European countries. Specifically, the paper demonstrates the attempts of third-‐wave democracies in building and increasing the activism of young people in authoritarian and democratizing countries. Given their democratizing potential, young people become a common target group. However, whereas a role of youth engagement in political and social changes has been already widely examined, studies regarding civic education aid to support the idea of responsible citizenship, participation and activism in other countries are scarce. Thus, in our paper we aim to fill this gap. Civic education, i.e. activities aimed to teach citizens of recipient countries basic values, knowledge, and skills relating to democracy, has become a popular form of promoting democracy by Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia in countries that currently struggling with democracy. Our goal is to demonstrate these efforts and to analyse programs aimed at educating and activating young people to be more socially responsible for their local community, region, and country. In our study we take a closer look at study tours, internships, scholarships, and exchange programs organized by NGOs from young donor countries (young democracies) for young people from Ukraine; Belarus; Russia (Kaliningrad Oblast); Moldova; and Georgia. Despite an important contribution to a better understanding how youth participation is being built through civic education, this paper also reveals a potential of cross-‐border cooperation of different organizations focused on educating young people and its role in diffusing democratic ideas and behaviour. Key words: democracy assistance; civic education; youth participation; empowerment; Funding: This work was supported by National Science Centre (NCN) Poland [grant number UMO-‐2013/09/D/HS5/04381].
2
Introduction
Democracy assistance is understood as an effort of donors to spread democracy as political system worldwide (Carothers, 2009; Finkel et al., 2008; Rakner, Menocal and Fritz, 2007). The idea of democracy assistance is to boost democratic potential within target countries rather than providing external incentives or pressure for pro-‐democratic changes. Although democracy assistance is not entirely new, especially assistance coming from well-‐established Western democracies,1 the practice of supporting the development of democracy in countries struggling with democratization has become more and more popular among young democracies which not so long ago were themselves recipients of such aid.2 Young democracies perceive giving democratic aid as a chance to share their own experience with successful transformation thus creating environment for safer neighbourhood (Pospieszna 2014a).
It has been acknowledged by scholars that recent pro-‐democratic changes in post-‐communist countries have not only been driven by internal forces. For example, Bunce and Wolchik (2006) investigating the incidence of civil society upheavals in form of electoral revolutions in the post-‐communist region come to conclusion that these processes process of diffusion occurred through complex cross-‐national collaborations that included not just US democracy promoters but also regional democracy promoters. Pospieszna (2014a) exploring the involvement of Polish organizations before and during the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine finds that Pora’s engagement as well as other civil society organizations grouping young people, was to large extent motivated by long-‐term relationship established with Polish non-‐governmental organizations. Young people also become an important civil society group to work with especially in authoritarian countries, like Belarus, where cooperation with civil society organizations has been restricted (Pospieszna 2014a).
Seeing the potential especially of young people in observable democratization processes and in newly established democracies as well as the role of young democracies' efforts in influencing youth from other countries, it is important to explore the nature of support to young people. Therefore, in our study we take a closer look at some projects of Central and Eastern European countries, so-‐called young donors, directed toward youth in democratizing countries, such as Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Russia, and authoritarian country, like Belarus. We ask the following questions: Why do young donors support young people in other countries? What type of youth projects do they implement in target countries? To what extent have their own experience with both transformation and receiving aid shaped their view on how to support young people in democratizing countries?
In order to answer these questions we performed fieldworks in Poland and the Czech Republic during which we conducted interviews with the representatives 1 Alesina and Dollar (2000); Burnell (2000); Carothers (1999; 2004), Diamond(1992); Ottaway and Chung (1999), Youngs (2006;2008) 2 Drążkiewicz-‐Grodzicka (2013), Fialova, Kucharczyk and Lovitt (2008), Lexmann (2014), Lightfoot and Szent-‐Iványia (2014), Pospieszna (2010; 2014a; 2014b), Fialova (2014).
3
of ministerial aid programs that engage in democracy assistance as well as with representatives of non-‐governmental organizations. We also collected materials and analysed the content of reports and various documents. In addition to interviews and material collection we also employed participant observations methodology in order to understand better the requirements, procedures and implementation of a given youth program.
We find that many of the projects implemented by the young donors take a form of civic education programs with aim to educate for democracy. Interestingly many of these educational projects emphasize participation as the main indicator of democracy. The goal of these programs is to encourage young people to become participative citizens first in their close community, region, and then to become active at the political arena. These findings make four important contributions to theory and practice. First, by showing young democracies’ efforts to influence youth participation in other countries, we demonstrate that youth activism is and can be influenced from outside. Second, by demonstrating how young democratizes support youth participation abroad through different educational programs we learn how these countries conceptualize democracy and the importance they attach to the role of participation in building and maintaining democratic regime. Although there were attempts to examine the impact of external factors (Bunce and Wolchik 2006; Keck and Sikkink 1998; Smith, Chatfield, and Pagnucco, 1997; Tarrow 1998 and 2005) but not much attention has been devoted to the promotion of democratic values through youth programs. Third, we learn that civic education becomes an important sphere outside the school educational system. Finally, educational programs can constitute an important part of youth empowerment mechanism as well as the form of sharing other countries’ experience with democracy.
The paper proceeds as follows. First, we review the literatures on youth participation and its role for democratization, as well as on civic education for democracy. This is followed by the analysis of young donors approach to support young people in partner countries, the review of civic educational programs, and concluding remarks.
Literature Review Youth Participation and Democratization
Democracy in principles demands from the citizens to participate in establishing the governance at different levels (e.g. Dahl, 1989). In other words, it requires active civil society to maintain the checks and balances on democratic life (Putnam, 1993; Almond and Verba, 1963). The process of democratization, which is usually defined as a transition consisting on different stages, from the “authoritarian opening,” through liberalization and increased participation to final regime change (Gunther et al., 1995), highlights civil society’s participation as an important component of pro-‐democratic change. The literature abounds with studies identifying the importance of civil society in pro-‐democratic changes and transition from authoritarianism to democracy all over the world (e.g. Bernhard, 1993; Bernhard and Kaya, 2012; Diamond, 1996; Ekiert, 2003, Ekiert, Kubik, Vachudova,
4
2007; Henderson, 2003; Linz and Stepan, 1996). In general, civil society is described as a sphere of social activities and organizations based on volunteering, tolerance and pluralism, existing separately from the state, the market and the private sector (Anheier, 2004; Diamond, 1999; Salamon, Sokolowski, and List, 2003). Although there is a lot of debates on the essence of civil society which has been even named as “one of the favourite buzzwords” (Carothers, 1999) or “a bane or boon for democracies” (Tusalem, 2007), most academics agree on its significance for modern democracies and transition processes (e.g. Ishkanian et al., 2013; Linz and Stepan, 1996; Tusalem, 2007), even if we face methodological difficulties with measuring civil society (Anheier, 2004; Fioramonti and Heinrich, 2007; Fowler, 2012).
Scholars and practitioners acknowledge that youth participation plays a special role in building and developing civil society and thus democracy (UN, 2006). First, young people play important role as advocates for democratic change and contestants of non-‐democratic regimes through mobilizing protests, uprisings, and peaceful movements (e.g. Ezbawy, 2012; Hoffman and Jamal, 2012). It was clearly visible on the examples on youth involvement in protests during the Arab Spring (e.g. Honwana, 2013; Mulderig, 2013) and in Ukraine during Orange Revolution (Diuk, 2012; Diuk 2013) and during Euromaidan (Diuk, 2014). Second, young people participation is crucial in maintaining the democratic regime. In democratic states, participation as a fundamental right of citizenship refers to the process of involving people, sharing decisions which usually affect life of the community in which they live, therefore young people should also use this right (Checkoway, 2010; Hart, 1992; Utter, 2011). The participation of young people is important, because “it draws upon their expertise, enables them to exercise their rights as citizens, and contributes to a more democratic society” (Checkoway, 2010, p. 340). Young people affect positively personal and social development of entities, provide substantive knowledge, and promote democratic values and democratic society (e.g. Checkoway, 2010; Head, 2010; Rajani, 2001; UN, 2006).
Involvement of young people in political decision-‐making process and different spheres of social life builds a good foundation for their participation and overall engagement in public affairs in the adulthood (Checkoway, Tanene and Montoya, 2005; Head, 2010). Excluding adolescents from this process would mean robbing a broad group of citizens from their natural right to have their interests and to be involved in the decisions and institutions which directly affect their lives (Rajani, 2001; Utter, 2011). According to the Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation, in which particular rungs correspond to the extent of peoples’ power (Arnstein, 1969), the ladder of engagement might be applied also to young people. Eight stages of children and teenagers’ participation, from manipulation to young people-‐led activities in decision making processes, show clearly that civic engagement belongs no only to the realm of adults, and, what is more, youth could be an important or even equal partner at high levels of participation (Hart, 1992).
However, despite the merits of youth participation, young people are not always perceived as equal participants in social and political life. The decline of political participation across established Western democracies (Putnam, 2000), especially among young people (Fieldhouse, Tranmer and Russel, 2007), questioned the role of youth participation and its role in democracy (Henn, Weinstein and
5
Forrest, 2005). United Nations-‐led World Programme of Action for Youth, aimed at fostering conditions and mechanisms to increase opportunities available to young people for full and effective, constructive participation in society all over the world, concludes that “societies often do not view young people as indispensable contributors to policy formulation, evaluation and implementation” (UN, 2006, p. 80).
The problem with still insufficient acknowledgment of young people’s role may be because of little understanding of how youth themselves see and relate to politics (Banaji, 2008; O’Toole, 2003). Putnam (2000), for instance, contests a fear of youth disengagement and suggests that for young people the norms of participation have shifted from turning away from voting and involvement in political parties into volunteering and protest activities. Whatever causes difficulties with answering the questions about the nature of young people’ engagement in democracy and democratization processes; it could be certainly omitted by simply getting to know with youth better. Given more attention to young people, it can be noted that youth engages differently than previous generations, for example by using new media (Hoffman and Jamal, 2012; Olsson, 2008). Young people at first glimpse might seem to be less likely to actively participate which is determined by the lifecycle and generation effects (Quintelier, 2007). In addition to this, politically apathetic adolescents should not be demonized and compared to older voters as a group with totally different characteristics (Mycock and Tonge, 2014).
Undoubtedly, the enormous potential of youth in terms of civic engagement should not be wasted and thus its participation became a focal point on youth empowerment agenda and over last two decades.
Youth Empowerment through Civic Education
A great number of scholarly work has been devoted to how participation
should look like, and how to strengthen youth as a part of civil society (Banaji, 2008). Despite an overall agreement on the necessity of youth empowerment in terms of participation, there is no consensus in the literature on how exactly this political and social potential of young people should be boosted effectively. Usually the scientific reflections on political and social engagement of adolescents are directed towards assessing its importance.
In our study we embark on explaining how youth participation can be facilitated and increased especially in countries struggling with democracy. We argue that this participation requires a youth empowerment mechanism, which might not be created from within, but rather from outside the country. Youth empowerment is a process which builds young people’ sense of power, as well as their ability to affect power relationships in communities they belong to (Checkoway, 1997; Delgrado and Staples, 2008; Head, 2010). Successful involvement of young people would be possible only when they will perceive themselves as a group that “can create change, or when they have ideas but are unsure how to proceed” (Checkoway, 2010, p. 343) and also when participation is made accessible and relevant to them (Mycock and Tonge, 2014, p. 3). The domestic empowerment mechanisms in the authoritarian states or countries that only
6
recently began democratization process are usually insufficient to create such opportunities for young people, or they simply do not exist.
To empower youth it is necessary to understand properly how young people participate in political life nowadays, what participation and activism means to them, and on the basis of this knowledge, how to educate youth effectively. We argue that the process of empowerment that aims at encouraging young people to become active and participative citizens starts with civic education.
Commonly, the term citizenship education has been associated with a subject at schools (Solhaug 2013) that aims to provide knowledge about political concepts, political processes and institutions at various governmental levels, as well as to increase understanding of citizens’ engagement in decision-‐making process. Remarkable efforts to rethink civic education might be seen in last ten to fifteen years. Much attention has been paid to civic education in terms of evaluation and improvement of school-‐based education aimed at developing democratic knowledge and skills (Campbell, 2007; Campbell, 2008; Lawy and Biesta, 2009; Martens, 2012; Veugelers, 2011). After reviewing the classical literature on democratic citizenship (e.g. Almond and Verba, 1963; Biesta, Lawy, and Kelly, 2009), Print (2013) presents five dimensions of active citizen: knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and intended behaviour/dispositions, which may constitute an integrated approach to civic education. Print and Lange (2012) and Print (2013) recognize those dimensions as the basis for education and enhancing civic competences within schools through the formal but also informal school curriculum.
However, the need to improve youth' engagement in decision-‐making process through developing skills of critical thinking, debating, and undertaking civic and political activities by young people and encouraging them to actively participate and instil democratic values, challenged citizenship education as a subject at schools (Mycock and Tonge, 2014). According to Himmelmann (2013, p. 3), we can observe:
“a new and specified form of ‘democratic citizenship education’ beyond just civics’, for a new way of ‘teaching democracy’ beyond teaching institutional political settings or a new ‘education of, for and through democracy’ beyond mere teacher-‐centered instruction in politics”
Thus, citizenship education (sometimes is referred to as “civic education” or
“education for democracy”), which includes educational efforts in order to strengthen democracy and qualify citizens for participation, has become not only the domain of schools and national educational systems, but also other actors who engage in this field. The need for educating young people for being more active citizens seem to be more and more popular approach among non-‐governmental organizations both domestic and international (Schulz, 2008; UNESCO, 2014). Civic education seems to be interrelated with empowering youth and building well-‐functioning and strong civil society (Maroshek-‐Klarman 1996). It is believed that NGOs citizenship education' projects are part of youth empowerment mechanism aimed at increasing youth participation in civic life.
However, there are two important gaps in the literature that we aim to fill. First, we still have little knowledge about ways in which youth participate in social
7
and political life (van Deth, 2013) and the direct and indirect role that citizenship education plays in activating young people (Biesta, 2011; Galston, 2001; Lawy and Biesta, 2009). Second, little is known whether and how citizens can be educated about the idea of responsible citizenship and participation outside educational system and whether and how important role can play non-‐governmental organizations in this process. Therefore in our study we aim to fill this gap by studying civic education efforts of non-‐governmental organizations, especially from other countries. We believe that NGOs from young democracies have unique perspectives and approach to teach and promote democratic values. In this paper we would like to present these efforts to influence young people, analyse them in terms of their potential to stimulate activeness among youth through civic education projects. Empirical Part Young Donor Countries Supporting Youth Activism Abroad
The aim of the paper is to explore how youth participation is being built through civic education programs funded by the young donors. We focus on the young donors from the Central and Eastern Europe that twenty years ago were recipients of democracy aid themselves. These countries became active in aid provision especially after joining the European Union that requires from its members contribution to the Community’s multilateral aid provision as well as the establishment of bilateral aid. As the result, the bilateral aid of new member states from Visegrad group, is channelled through special governmental programs established under Ministries of Foreign Affairs, such as Polish Aid, Czech Transition Promotion Program, Slovak Aid, and the Department for International Development Co-‐operation. Whereas the volume of aid is conditioned by its membership in the EU, a choice of recipient countries is not, and the governments of these countries may decide which countries they want support and for what purposes they want to spend their monies. It has become obvious that foreign policy defines the choice of possible recipient countries, which for Poland for example would be her direct neighbours: Ukraine and Belarus. Also, new members have chosen to spend much of its bilateral aid for democracy assistance activities, in which they claim to have a comparative advantage.
However, the involvement in democracy assistance of these countries precedes the creation of the above-‐mentioned governmental programs. The non-‐governmental organizations in these countries already in the 1990s began democracy assistance projects in partner countries, such as in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Western Balkan countries, and continue this form of cooperation until today. In fact the realization of democracy assistance by Visegrad countries would not be possible without work of domestic NGOs. NGOs are perceived the main partners in democracy promotion, especially because of their knowledge and skills, and even more importantly because of their ability to reach target groups in partner countries, as well as because the foreign government cannot directly support civil society in other countries. In addition to governmental
8
sources, the NGOs in all Visegrad countries receive funds for democracy assistance projects from the old donor countries—the United States government-‐funded, privately run US-‐based non-‐profit organizations and private donors and/or the Western European governmental and quasi-‐governmental donor agencies—as well as from jointly established International Visegrad Fund.
Many of NGOs in Visegrad countries that are involved in democracy assistance projects in other countries, were very active during the democratization processes and contributed to important changes in their countries. They also were recipients of aid themselves. These two important experiences as well as openness of partner countries for cooperation explain the NGOs involvement in sharing transition experience. As expressed by one of the NGO activists:
“It is our added value as compared to France, for example, that we have this experience [with transition toward democracy], we have some ‘lesson learned’ about what was good, what was less successful, and this is one of the reasons why some countries are more willing to cooperate with the Czech Republic than with other countries that are far away not only from geographical but also from mental point of view.”3
The NGOs experiences undoubtedly also shaped their view on how other
countries should be assisted in their struggle to democracy. They also had a chance to learn from the mistakes of their donors, which also helped them develop a unique form of passing their experience and a good example to other countries, which also many interviewees for this project claim to be more effective. This form is called: partnership (sometimes referred to as “cross-‐border work”). Partnership means that Czech and Georgian NGOs, for example, share responsibility and tasks over implementation, and that Czech organization assists, rather than imposes upon, the Georgian partner what and how should be done. The partnership also means greater ownership of the project. The partner in the target country communicates the needs and then the project outline is agreed before applying for the grant to donors. This form of projects is also promoted by the governmental aid programs in Poland, Czech, and Slovakia, which often require from the domestic NGOs to demonstrate such partnership while applying for funding. Also many Western donors of Polish NGOs projects stress the importance of partnership. The National Endowment for Democracy, which is still one of the major US donors funding Visegrad countries’ project in the Eastern Europe, is more likely to finance projects that demonstrate incorporate partners.
If the direct participation of the partner in implementation phase is not required, the partner can be engaged in preparation phase, for example may engage in searching for possible targets or simply serve as so-‐called “local points”—offering assistance or advice if needed as well as disseminate information about the project. All representatives of governmental and non-‐governmental entity engaged in democracy assistance interviewed for this study share an opinion that partnership 3 Interview with Radomir Spok, Executive director of the EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy, Prague, February 17, 2015.
9
is the added value of democracy assistance offered by Visegrad countries. Because the partners know better how to promote the project to the local community, as well as has better knowledge about the needs of the local community, the project has a greater chance to be better tailored to the needs of the beneficiaries of the projects, which in turn may contribute to the overall success of the project (Gajowik and Skoczkowa 2011, 27).4 Second, more importantly, such relationship with partners that lasts for years may contribute to overall better way of diffusing democratic ideas and values. In case of one of the Czech organizations, People in Need, such lasting cooperation led to the creation of local offices in partner countries that employ the local people working closely with other organizations, often allowing them after some time to fully to take over the projects.
Why do the NGOs find it important to support youth activism in Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia as well as in some Western Balkan countries? Young people are perceived as an important component of civil society, the generation that is the future of these countries, therefore it is crucial to work with young people especially in age range 15-‐25, because in this age their opinions and attitudes are being formed and thus can be influenced. Moreover, the young people in these countries demonstrate some interest in being active citizens in contrast to their parents who lived in communism and have been very passive, and do not think they can change or improve anything.5 Activation of young people is about increasing the quality of citizen competencies through rising awareness and empowering them so that they can be included in the public life, especially decision-‐making process at the local level. However, there is also the other side of the coin: the support for youth is also justified for more practical reasons—to create more secure, stable and friendly neighbourhood that in turn may lead to mutually fruitful political and economic cooperation between the countries.
Believing that the active citizenship starts with education, many youth projects take a form of civic education, i.e. activities aimed to teach citizens of target countries basic values, knowledge, and skills relating to democracy. Civic education is practiced either through activities organized in the partner countries, such as providing didactic materials to schools, organizing workshops, discussions and knowledge contests, or through activities offered outside their own country: summer schools, internships, scholarships, exchange programs, and study missions programs. Unfortunately it has turned out to be very difficult to collect information about all civic education programs implemented by the Polish, Czech, Slovak and Hungarian organizations in the target countries, because during two decades of offering such projects funded through different donors and via various program schemes we will risk losing some projects and thus provide incomplete data if we decide to create such database. Thus, instead of showing some statistics, we would like to provide some examples of different types of civic education programs and to elaborate more on one of the program we were invited to participate in.
4 Ibid. 5 Interview with Pavla Štefanová, Regional coordinator for Southern Caucasus, Eastern Europe, Western Balkans, and Mongolia in non-‐governmental organization 'People In Need', Prague, February 17, 2015.
10
Civic Education Programs of NGOs from Visegrad Countries
As an example of civic education project implemented by NGOs from Visegrad countries in a partner country can serve project by Czech organization People in Need directed toward young people from Georgia. Within this project, more than 250 Georgian schools received educational toolkits consisting of documentary films and didactic materials used to teach students being an active and responsible citizen.6 The movies, which were on controversial topic not discussed enough within the society, such as human rights, exclusion of some groups, served as staring point for discussion and interactive games afterwards. The films, which were watched by over 27,000 students aimed at rising awareness, educating and thus activating these young people. People in Need proudly reports that these initiatives led to the creation of various actions, such as Children’s Rights Club by young people, also motivated them to participate in civic initiatives and to proactively solve concrete problems in their local community.
Some civic education programs implemented in the partner country may take a form of the knowledge contest. Czech organization and think tank named EUROPEUM belonging to PASOS, the association that promotes and protects open society values, including democracy, the rule of law, and respect and protection for human right’s by supporting the entities promoting the integration within the EU, has organized such contests. The program, sponsored since 2003 by the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Visegrad Fund, involved participants from all over the world with strong representation from South and Eastern European non-‐EU member countries. The contest motivated students to learn about the idea of European integration, as well as political, social, and security issues, and their knowledge was tested in two rounds: online test, and analytical essay on the topic that the organizer provided. The third round was at the same time a prize for the students because the winners (a group of third people) were invited to come to Prague for one-‐week visit during which they participated in workshops and seminars.
However, bulk of civic education programs are implemented outside the partner country. These could be for various reasons. First, more practical, events scheduled in Visegrad countries engage many experts and include activities that would be realized in partner countries. Second, especially in case of authoritarian countries like Belarus who have been subject to unusually strong indoctrination in schools and universities, bringing a group of young people to one of the Visegrad countries can be more promising because such visit exposes young people to life in the democratic country, and may encourage them to act as advocates of pro-‐democratic changes. Third, simply the idea of some educational projects does not allow for a different form, and such project are scholarships, internships, summer schools, exchange programs, and study missions programs.
6 Source of this information is “People in Need. Annual Report 2013” obtained during the meeting with Pavla Štefanová, Regional coordinator for Southern Caucasus, Eastern Europe, Western Balkans, and Mongolia.
11
The most popular scholarships are the Lane Kirkland Scholarship offered to young leaders from the Eastern European countries, the Western Balkans, and some Central Asian countries, as well as the Kalinowski Scholarship offered to Belarusian students only. The aim of these initiatives is to allow the participants learn about Polish experiences with economic, social, and political transformation either directly through education they receive when studying at Polish universities, or indirectly through holding a student status and living in Poland. The Kalinowski Scholarship is directed toward Belarusian students refused to study or expelled from Belarusian universities because of their anti-‐regime activity. These students have a chance to continue their education at Warsaw University. 7 In addition to receiving scholarships, there are some events organized outside the university in which the students participate. Kirkland scholars, however, are young leaders from public administration, academia, business, media or politics. Participants in the program take courses and do research in areas of interest, such as economics, management, public administration, business administration, law, and social sciences. Additionally, a scholarship can be supplemented with internships in governmental and private institutions creating the opportunity to the young people to work with specialists in the field and learn from them. Another example of civic education programs is summer school. EUROPEUM organizes such programs every year in order to teach universities’ students from non-‐EU countries about the European Union, political and economic integration, about the European values, what the benefits to citizens are—from the Central and Eastern European (new member states) perception.
In addition to scholarships, internships and summer schools, some NGOs from Visegrad countries chose to organize exchange programs between young people. On a larger scale than others is RAZOM project, the project implemented by the PAUCI organization and funded by the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is an exchange program with Ukrainian young people. Every year young people from both countries get together and work on common projects. Within this initiative, young people from Ukrainian and Polish partner schools are engaged in joint activities of different kinds, from soccer games to protecting the common cultural heritage. As representative of PAUCI organization said: “these are maybe not ambitious projects; but they mobilize young people to do something together and learn about each other and get teachers interested in some initiatives, as well.”8 Finally, we would like to present civic education efforts through study missions. This forms of educating young people about what democracy is for an ordinary citizen and how it functions has been chosen by Polish NGOs: the "Borussia" Foundation, and the Jan Nowak-‐Jeziorański College of Eastern Europe (KEW), as well as Education for Democracy Foundation (FED). The organizations jointly implement the project Study Tours to Poland for students, which is one of the first civic educational Polish projects directed toward young people from Eastern
7 The Center for East European Studies of Warsaw University together with the Ministry of Science and Higher Education has been implementing the program. 8 Jan Piekło, Director of Poland-‐Ukrainian Cooperation Foundation (PAUCI), interviewed by Paulina Pospieszna, Warsaw, June 30, 2008.
12
Europe. Every year over 200 students from Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine and the Russian Federation come for a two-‐week visit to Poland in order to “meet Poland,” however the main purpose of this program is to “provide an incentive for the students to actively participate in public life and become aware citizens.”9 Students meet with Polish governmental officials, local authorities, they visit various public institutions, media outlets, and Polish companies. The participants also meet with students at the Universities and with representatives of student associations, as well as with representatives of Polish non-‐governmental organizations.
The question is why study missions might be a good form of sharing Polish experience with democracy and educating the young people from partner countries about functioning of democratic state. When we asked this question we received and answer “It is better to see once than hear about it a thousand times.”10 We also learnt that the order of activities planned for students is not random, i.e. the agenda should be well-‐prepared. This means two things. First, to ensure that students can have a chance to actively participate in scheduled events, the group of hundred students, who come to Poland in a given edition (there are two editions per year: autumns and spring), is divided into smaller groups of eleven to thirteen students. Each group is led by a so-‐called STP operator, who is Polish NGO that because of its experience and proven capabilities, is selected to take care of a group of participants. Second, the role of an operator is to make sure that the students knowledge about democracy, authorities’ responsibilities, civic and political freedoms, as well as the role of a citizen in the society is introduced in the proper time and place.
It is worth elaborating about the organizational side of the project itself because it shows how the goal of this youth project is fulfilled and also how in this particular case study, the young democratic country aims to promote democracy as a political system. The mixed four to five groups that include students from Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, and Belarus are hosted by one of the Polish NGOs who are carefully selected in competition. These NGOs have to demonstrate their experience with youth projects, they have to prepare a detailed plan of the activities according to the strict guidelines provided by the organizers, which stress that it is not important what is being shown but how. It is important to practice various forms that allow for students’ engagement: discussion, workshops, presentations, and lectures.
“The perspective from inside” the democratic country that the students have a chance to get, is not random. The order of events planned for this twelve-‐day visit matters. Namely, first the students learn about Polish road toward democracy from the historical point of view, including Poland’s path toward becoming a member of the European Union. Then they visit governmental institutions like the Polish Parliament, the President’s house and hear about the functioning of these intuitions, or/and they visits local offices and meet with Presidents of the cities, voivodships, during which they can learn about the division of power between central and lower-‐
9http://www.studytours.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47:main-‐2&catid=1:latest-‐news&Itemid=54&lang=en 10 Ewa Romanowska, Member of management of non-‐governmental organization Borussia Foundation, interviewed by Paulina Pospieszna, Warsaw, February 11, 2015.
13
level units in Poland. After having a general view on how the democratic institutions in Poland were build and how they now serve the society, the students can learn about the citizens’ obligations and rights. Thus best way is familiarize them with work of non-‐governmental organizations, and media. For this purpose, they take part in meetings, workshops and discussions organized by the NGOs, as well as at radio stations or newspapers. Additionally, students meet with their student fellows at the Polish universities and have a chance to see how they build their community, socialize and organize various events. Finally to better understand the links between democracy and market economy they also have a chance to visit Polish companies.
Having the insights from how the program is run, we can also infer on how the youth participation is promoted among the participants. The idea of participation is already strongly emphasized in recruitment procedure itself of the program. First of all, the young people, aged between 18 and 21, are applying individually to the program that for the students from these countries is already unusual, because it is neither the universities’ officials nor teaching instructor are deciding whether they qualify or not.11 The recruitment procedure requires from the young people to be responsible for their application and to demonstrate competiveness skills and entrepreneurship. Second, in the call for applications the organizers stress that are looking for the young people who not only show good school performance but, more importantly, are socially active—either in a school environment or beyond. The students should fill not only standard application in which they should list any memberships in organizations, participation in various social events, but also answer in a few sentences four questions, such as: How did you find out about the STP and what did interest you the most in this program? How people view you as a person? What does civic participation mean for you? What is your association with Poland as a country? Moreover, they should ask and provide recommendation letters that confirm their activeness.
Since the goal of this youth program is to encourage and empower the young people from the post-‐communist countries to participate in a society and to be an active citizens who in the future might become political elites, the recruitment procedure is designed in the way that such predisposition among the candidates is not missed. However, it requires participation observation to understand how much the program organizers value some inclines toward participation among the candidates. Once the ranking list of students from each country is prepared, based on the evaluation in three categories: school performance (including grades and other school activity), participation (in youth, civic and other organizations), and answers to the above question, the organizers make a final decision during the recruitment committee meeting. During such a gathering, the members of the committee review again the applications of candidates who were able to secure high positions in the ranking list and as well as those were placed below the cut-‐off to make sure that that any potentially good candidates were not missed. As the result we saw that a few candidates were promoted up the list and eventually got the
11 Interview with Ewa Romanowska, Borussia Foundation,Warsaw, February 11, 2015.
14
program because although they did not have excellent grades but proved to show social activeness that distinguished them from the others.12
In order to understand better young people and their overall engagement in society, we took a closer look at the profile of participants selected to the program: thirty-‐one Belarusian students, eleven from Moldova, eighteen from Russia, and seventy from Ukraine. We found that many young people participate in various types of organizations, such as cultural organizations, human rights organizations, legal organizations, media outlets, ethnic/national minority’s organizations, entrepreneurs' organizations, political youth organizations, sport organizations, student organizations, student parliaments and councils, and disability organizations. In these organizations young people usually act as volunteers or interns and are responsible for such activities as: advertising; public relations, and overall promotion; cooperation with media; cooperation with other entities; fundraising; organization of different events, debates and discussions; translations; writing; elections observation; and work with main beneficiaries of organizations’ activities: disable people, elderlies, orphans, and socially excluded.
The analysis of the participants shows that young people even in an authoritarian state like Belarus, have a great potential to play important role in a society and that in order to boost their participation youth empowerment mechanism is required, which might not be created from within the country. Therefore participation in such educational program may build young people’ sense of power that they are able to make changes in their communities they belong to, region and even their country. By visiting universities having chance to talk to their Polish student fellows, as well as through visiting civil society organization and governmental institutions, they can understand better how young people participate in political life in democracies, what participation and activism means to society, and then trying to implement changes first in their lives, and their closer community.
Active young people are important for democracy, and their activity building starts with civic education. However, promoting youth participation is not only about raising awareness and knowledge but also about promoting cooperation of young people with local authorities, creation of real mechanisms of engagement, and capacity building. The young donors seem to understand that as well. People in Need, for example within one of its cyclical projects in Georgia aimed for inclusion and better engagement of young people in decision-‐making at the local level in different target districts of Georgia13, assisted in developing the concrete mechanism, such as Municipal Advisory Committees. Such committees include representatives from local government, NGOs, youth, the private sector, and the media, and are responsible for creating, implementing and monitoring the Municipal 12 Information obtained during the participation in management meeting of NGO Foundation Borussia on January 27, 2015 in Olsztyn, Poland. 13 These projects have been: 1. Youth Inclusion and Social Accountability Project, 2. Promoting Transparent and Effective Decision-‐making Processes. Information obtained during the interview with Pavla Štefanová, Regional coordinator for Southern Caucasus, Eastern Europe, Western Balkans, and Mongolia in non-‐governmental organization People In Need in Prague on February 17, 2015, as well as from the People in Need printed materials and website.
15
Action Plans. Thanks to such solutions youth is perceived an important player in the society, the role of young generation in municipal decision-‐making process is strengthened, and they become more empowered to tackle jointly with the local government issues facing their communities. Also, witnessing that their ideas turn into action make young people even more eager to actively participate in addressing local issues.
Youth capacity building is about increasing young people skills, organize and mobilize themselves, to finance their activities, and to increasing their independence. Thus, some young donor countries offer training on proposal writing, project management and reporting, but more importantly provide small grants. Small grants, like these offered by People in Need, are provided on the basis of open competition to young people for the realization of their projects. Other small grant, like those carried out by the Pontis Foundation in cooperation with Belarusian partner, were aimed at making possible the work of independent young researchers, scholars and outstanding students in Belarus (Kucharczyk and Lovitt 2008).
Conclusion
Active, aware, informed and determined citizens are important for building and maintaining democracy. In this study we have explored how citizen’s participation can be ignited among the “functionaries of democracy” (Ekiert, 2007, p. 17): the young people. Since authoritarian and democratizing countries often lack sufficient sources, programs and overall youth empowerment mechanisms, we have taken a closer look at the efforts of external forces, especially young democratic countries that engage in supporting democratic values and behaviours and sharing their democratization experience. Of course, the method of support depends on the way young democracies conceptualize democracy. We find that NGOs from Central and Eastern European countries, which are at the forefront of democracy assistance, attach a great importance to the development of local and participatory community life in which young people should play an important role.
The young democracy promoters, probably because they were recipients of democracy aid themselves, or because of their experience with transformation, perceive participation as an important factor leading to democratization. Therefore, the goal of many youth programs implemented by the NGOs from CEE is to activate young people to be more socially responsible for their local community, region, and country, because a democratic country requires such active participation. We have found that many programs targeted at these groups aim to educate them—about the citizens’ rights and role they can play in the society, and about the functioning of democratic institutions and authorities responsibilities. Civic education is practiced either through activities organized in the partner countries with aim to support schools—providing didactic materials, teachers training, organizing workshops, or through activities offered in Central and Eastern European countries: summer schools, internships, scholarships, exchange programs, and study missions programs.
Having insights from how one of the programs has been run, we could infer how civic education thorough other venues than schools can be achieved. In our
16
study we have taken a closer look as one of the programs that engage into education of students from Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and Russia with aim to activate them and make them more aware and active citizens that can serve their society. Specifically, within this program students who come to young democracy learn about the functioning of democratic state when they visit governmental institutions and administration offices; when they meet with the representatives of non-‐governmental organizations and learn how these organizations engage into solving social problems and how they serve a community; when they have a chance to talk with journalists and learn about the freedom of speech and about the functioning of free media; and finally when they meet with their student fellows at the universities and in student organizations.
Civic educational programs of NGOs from young democracies teach us that education to democracy does not mean learning to recognize the sanctity of democratic institutions. Rather, it means propagating the idea of democracy, citizens’ rights and responsibilities and preparing people to work for the benefit of democracy. Civic education programs when communicating to students the values of democracy and developing in them the habit of political activity recognize also the differences that separate youth and adults. Many of the projects practice various forms that allow for students’ engagement: discussions about fundamental principles of democracy, workshops, presentations, and lectures as way to helping them develop their opinions, judgments and to express feeling. Often, for many students from democratizing and authoritarian states this is a first opportunity to freely speak and engage in discussions, thus may lead to some inner transformation involving the desire for changing something in their lives and activating them to take a greater responsibility for their community. Such activated young people will be better prepared also to participate in democratic institutions in the future.
Conducting educational activity aimed at propagating the idea of democracy and preparing people to work for the benefit of democracy—improving young people’s understanding about their role and ability to solve problems in their close community, region or even country—is an important element of youth empowerment mechanism however not sufficient. Analysis of the participants’ profile in one of the programs allowed us to find that young people from democratizing countries or even from Belarus where civil liberties are curtailed, have a great potential to play important role in a society and that in order to boost their participation youth empowerment mechanism is required, which might not be created from within the country. Young donors seem to recognize that full participation of young people requires adequate social and political environment that allows for such participation without fear of punishment. Therefore in our future study we would like to explore these programs and evaluate their impact on young people.
17
References Alesina, Alberto, and David Dollar. 2000. Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why?
Journal of Economic Growth 5. Almond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes in
Five Western Democracies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Anheier, Helmut K. 2004. Civil Society: Measurement, Evaluation, Policy. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.
Arnstein, Sherry. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969.
Banaji, Shakuntala. 2008. The trouble with civic: a snapshot of young people’s civic and political engagements in twenty-‐first-‐century democracies. Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 11, No. 5, October 2008.
Biesta, Gary, and Robert Lawy. 2006. From teaching citizenship to learning democracy. Overcoming individualism in research, policy and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(1).
Biesta, Gert, Robert Lawy, and Narcie Kelly. 2009. Understanding young people’s citizenship learning in everyday life: The role of contexts, relationships and dispositions. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 4(1).
Biesta, Gert. 2011. Learning Democracy in School and Society. Education, Lifelong Learning, and the Politics of Citizenship. Sense Publishersh.
Bernhard, Michael. 1993. Civil Society and Democratic Transition in East Central Europe. Political Science Quarterly 108 (2).
Bernhard, Michael and Ruchan Kaya. 2012. Civil Society and Regime-‐Type in European Postcommunist Countries: The Perspective Two Decades after 1989-‐1991. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 8(2).
Bunce, Valerie J. and Sharon L. Wolchik. 2006. International Diffusion and Postcommunist Electoral Revolutions. Communist and Post-‐Communist Studies 39 (3).
Burnell, Peter. 2000. Democracy Assistance: International Co-‐operation for Democratization, London and Portland: Frank Cass Co Ltd.
Campbell, David E. 2007. Sticking together: Classroom diversity and civic education. American Politics Research, 35(1).
Campbell, David E. 2008. Voice in the Classroom: How an Open Classroom Climate Fosters Political Engagement Among Adolescents. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Carothers, Thomas. 1999. Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
18
Carothers, Thomas. 2004. Critical Mission: Essays on Democracy Promotion. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Checkoway, Barry. 1997. Core concepts for community change. Journal of Community Practice, 4.
Checkoway, Barry, Tanene Allison, and Colleen Montoya. 2005. Youth participation in public policy at the municipal level. Children and Youth Services Review 27.
Checkoway, Barry. 2010. What is youth participation? Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 340–345.
Dahl, Robert. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dalton, Russell J. 1996. Citizen: public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.
Delgrado, Melvin, and Lee Staples. 2008. Youth-‐led community organizing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Diamond, Larry. 1996. Toward Democratic Consolidation. In The Global Resurgence of Democracy, ed. Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Diuk, Nadia. 2012. The Next Generation in Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan: Youth, Politics, Identity, and Change. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Diuk, Nadia. 2013. Youth as an Agent for Change: The Next Generation in Ukraine. Demokratizatsiya, Spring 2013, Vol. 21 Issue 2.
Diuk, Nadia. 2014. Euromaidan. Ukraine’s Self-‐Organizing Revolution. World Affairs, Vol. 176 Issue 6.
Drążkiewicz-‐Grodzicka, Elżbieta. 2013. From a recipient to Donor: The Case of Polish Developmental Cooperation, Human Organization 72 (1).
Ekiert, Grzegorz. 2003. Patterns of Post-‐Communist Transformation in Central and Eastern Europe. In Capitalism and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe: Assessing the Legacy of Communist Rule, ed. Grzegorz Ekiert, and Stephen E. Hanson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ekiert, Grzegorz, Jan Kubik and Milada Anna Vachudova. 2007. Democracy in the Post-‐Communist World: An Unending Quest? East European Politics and Societies 2007 (21).
Ezbawy, Yusery Ahmed. 2012. The Role of the Youth's New Protest Movements in the January 25th Revolution. IDS Bulletin, Special Issue: The Pulse of Egypt's Revolt, Volume 43, Issue 1.
Fialová, Zuzanna. 2014. Development as Freedom? What Sustainable Solutions Can Be Offered to Developing Countries by the EU and Slovakia. In International Conference Booklet Development and Democracy. Development Ecosystems in V4: the New Role for Civil Society Organizations and Business Beyond 2015. Pontins Foundation.
19
Fieldhouse, Edward, Mark Tranmer and Andrew Russel. 2007. Something about young people or something about elections? Electoral participation of young people in Europe: Evidence from a multilevel analysis of the European Social Survey. European Journal of Political Research Volume 46, Issue 6.
Finkel, Steven E., Anibal Pérez-‐Liñán, Mitchell A. Seligson, and Neal C. Tate 2008. Deepening Our Understanding of the Effects of U.S. Foreign Assistance on Democracy Building: Final Report, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnade694.pdf.
Fioramonti, Lorenzo, and Volkhart Finn Heinrich. 2007. How Civil Society Influences Policy: A Comparative Analysis of the CIVICUS Civil Society Index in Post-‐Communist Europe. Issues of Conceptualization and Measurement. Journal of Civil Society 1 (3).
Fowler, Alan. 2012. Measuring Civil Society: Perspectives on Afro-‐Centrism. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23 (1).
Gajownik, Sylwia, and Ewa Skoczkowa. 2011. How do we organize study visits? Polish perspective [Jak organizujemy wizyty studyjne? Polska perspektywa] In: Cooperation. Effective transfer of Polish experiences. Christian Culture Foundation “Znak.”
Galston William. 1991. Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State. Cambridge University Press.
Galston, William. 2001. Political knowledge, political engagement and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4.
Galston, William. 2004. Civic education and political participation. PS: Political Science and Politics.
Gunther, Richard et al. 1995. The Politics of Democratic Consolidation. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hoffman, Michael and Amaney Jamal. 2012. The Youth and the Arab Spring: Cohort Differences and Similarities. Middle East Law and Governance 4.
Honwana, Alcinda. 2013. Youth and revolution in Tunisia. Zed Books. London.
Hart, Roger. 1992. Children’s Participation from Tokenism to Citizenship. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
Head, Brian W. 2010. Why not ask them? Mapping and promoting youth participation. Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547.
Henderson, Sarah. 2003. Building Democracy in Contemporary Russia: Western Support for Grassroots Organizations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Henn, Matt, Mark Weinstein and Sarah Forrest. 2005. Uninterested Youth? Young People’s Attitudes towards Party Politics in Britain. Political Studies, VOL 53.
20
Himmelmann, Gerhard. 2013. Competences For Teaching, Learning and Living Democratic Citizenship In Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in Democracies. Murray Print and Dirk Lange (eds.). Sense Publishers.
Ishkanian, Armine, Evelina Gyulkhandanyan, Sona Manusyan, and Arpy Manusyan. 2013. Civil Society, Development and Environmental Activism in Armenia. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Kucharczyk, Jacek and Jeff Lovitt (eds.). 2008. Democracy's New Champions. European Democracy Assistance After EU Enlagement. Policy Association for an Open Society.
Lawy, Robert and Gert Biesta. 2009. Citizenship Learning and Democracy in the Lives of Young People. http://www.adulterc.org/Proceedings/2007/Proceedings/Lawy_Biesta.pdf
Lexmann, Miriam. 2014. Let's not talk about transition sharing, let's do it. The potential of Central and Eastern EU Member States in accelerating democracy support and transition in EU's neighborhood. In International Conference Booklet Development and Democracy. Development Ecosystems in V4: the New Role for Civil Society Organizations and Business Beyond 2015. Pontins Foundation.
Lightfoot, Simon and Balazs Szent-‐Ivantyi. 2014. Reluctant Donors? The Europeanization of International Development Policies in the New Member States. Journal of Common Market Studies.
Linz, Juan J.,and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-‐Communist Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Maroshek-‐Klarman, Uki. 1996. There is no such thing as a little democracy. About education to democracy and democracy in the school system [Nie ma czegoś takiego jak trochę demokracji. O kszałceniu ku demokracji i o demokracji w systemie oświaty] Warsaw: Foundation for Education for Democracy.
McNevin, Anne. 2011. Contesting Citizenship. Irregular Migrants and New Frontiers of the Political. Columbia University Press.
Martens, Allison M. and Jason Gainous. 2012. Civic Education and Democratic Capacity: How Do Teachers Teach and What Works? Social Science Quarterly, Volume 94, Issue 4.
Mulderig, Chloe M. 2013. An Uncertain Future. Youth Frustration and the Arab Spring. Boston University Creative Services.
21
Mycock, Andrew and Jonathan Tonge. 2014. Beyond the Youth Citizenship Commission: Young People and Politics. Political Studies Association. http://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/PSA%20Beyond%20the%20YCC%20FINAL_0.pdf
Olsson, Tobias. 2008. For activists, for potential voters, for consumers: three modes of producing the civic web. Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 11, No. 5, October 2008.
Osler, Audrey, and Hugh Starkey. 2003. Learning for Cosmopolitan Citizenship: theoretical debates and young people’s experiences. Educational Review, Vol. 55, No. 3.
O'Toole, Therese et al. 2003. Tuning out or left out? Participation and nonparticipation among young people. Contemporary Politics, Volume 9, Number 1.
Ottaway, Marina, and Theresa Chung. 1999. Debating Democracy Assistance: Toward a New Paradigm, Journal of Democracy, vol. 10, no. 4.
Pospieszna, Paulina 2010. When Recipients Become Donors: Polish Democracy Assistance in Belarus and Ukraine. Problems of Post-‐Communism 57 (4).
Pospieszna, Paulina. 2014a. Democracy Assistance from the Third Wave. Polish Engagement in Belarus in Ukraine. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Pospieszna, Paulina. 2014b. Democracy Assistance Efforts of Yoing Donors from the Visegrad Group: In Search for Better Impact Evaluation Methods. In International Conference Booklet Development and Democracy. Development Ecosystems in V4: the New Role for Civil Society Organizations and Business Beyond 2015. Pontins Foundation.
Print, Murray, and Dirk Lange (eds.). 2012. Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic Citizens. Sense Publishers.
Print, Murray. 2013. Competences for Democratic Citizenship in Europe In Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in Democracies. Murray Print and Dirk Lange (eds.). Sense Publishers.
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and schuster.
Rakner, Lise, Alina Rocha Menocal and Verena Fritz. 2007. Democratisation's Third Wave and the Challenges of Democratic Deepening: Assessing International Democracy Assistance and Lessons Learned. London: Overseas Development Institute. ODI Working Papers no. 1.
Rajani, Rakesh. 2001. The participation rights of adolescents: A strategic approach. UNICEF.
22
Rios, Francisco, and Susan Markus. 2008. Multicultural Education as a Human Right: Framing Multicultural Education for Citizenship in a Global Age. Multicultural Education Review. Vol. 3, No. 2.
Salamon, Lester M, S. Wojciech Sokolowski, and Regina List. 2003. Global Civil Society: An Overview. The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.
Schulz, Wolfram et al. 2008. International Civic and Citizenship Education Study. Assessment Framework. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
Smith, Jackie, Charles Chatfield, and Ron Pagnucco. 1997. Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Solhaug, Trond. 2013. Trends and dilemmas in citizenship education. Nordidactica: Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education. Issue 2013:1.
Tammi, Lynne. 2013. Hey, those are teenagers and they are doing stuff. Youth Participation in Community Development. University of Pittsburgh.
Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Tarrow, Sidney. 2005. The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tusalem, Rollin F. 2007. A Boon or a Bane? The Role of Civil Society in Third-‐and Fourth-‐ Wave Democracies. International Political Science Review 28 (3).
Utter, Glenn. 2011. Youth and Political Participation. A Reference Handbook. ABC-‐CLIO.
UN. 2006. Guide to the Implementation of the World Programme of Action for Youth. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/wpay_guide.pdf.
UNESCO. 2014. Global Citizenship Education. Preparing learners for the challenges of the twenty-‐first century. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002277/227729E.pdf
Quintelier, Ellen. 2007. Differences in Political Participation Between Young and Old People. Contemporary Politics, Volume 13, Number 2, June 2007.
van Deth, Jan W. 2013. Citizenship and the Civic Realities of Everyday Life In Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in Democracies. Murray Print and Dirk Lange (eds.). Sense Publishers.
Veugelers, Wiel. 2011. Theory and Practice of Citizenship Education. The Case of Policy, Science and Education in the Netherlands. Revista de Educación, número extraordinario 2011.
Végh, Zsuzsanna. 2014. Democracy support through Visegrad development aid: Tha case of Moldova and Georgia. In International Conference Booklet Development
23
and Democracy. Development Ecosystems in V4: the New Role for Civil Society Organizations and Business Beyond 2015. Pontins Foundation.
Yashar, Deborah J. 2005. Contesting Citizenship in Latin America. The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge. Cambridge University Press.
Youngs, Richards. 2006. Survey of European Democracy Promotion Policies 2000-‐2006. Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE) available at: http://www.fride.org/EuropeanDemocracy2000-‐06.
Youngs, Richards. 2008. Trends in Democracy Assistance: What Has Europe Been Doing? Journal of Democracy 19 (2).
Recommended