Reading time: approx. 3 minutes – read, like, comment!

The original article appeared in the Journal für politische Bildung [Journal of Citizenship Education]. 

With the establishment of a democratic political system in the Federal Republic after 1945, political and conceptual ideas for citizenship education (CE) outside the schoolroom were a consideration from the outset. This included the establishment and promotion of state and social institutions. Today, this public state infrastructure for CE encompasses the agencies for citizenship education. The public social institutions include the associations of providers operating across the country under the umbrella of the Bundesausschuss für politische Bildung (bap) [Federal Committee for Citizenship Education] with its subdivision, the Gemeinsame Initiative der Träger der politischen Jugendbildung (GEMINI) [Joint Initiative by Providers of Citizenship Education for Young People].

In legal terms, the associations and their members are deemed to be “independent providers” as set out in the Eighth Book of the German Social Code (SGB VIII). In sociopolitical terms, they are intended to reflect the plurality of structures and the traditional milieu of society (churches, labour movement, adult education, etc.). In this context, they enjoy freedom in terms of their world view and the content of their work (as undertakings serving ideological purposes) provided they ensure “work to promote one of the constitutional aims” (Section 75, SGB VIII). In the course of the rapid pluralisation of society, the decline in the importance of traditional milieu and high immigration, the view of structures expanded – as is exemplified by the development of the post-migrant umbrella association Neue deutsche Organisationen (NDO) [New German Organisations]. The idea is that the providers of citizenship education for young people and adults operate in a subsidiary role, which means that the state should not assume any duties that social institutions can fulfil independently and under their own responsibility (Section 4, SGB VIII). The principle of subsidiarity logically presupposes that the providers must supply a certain amount of tangible and intangible contributions to ensure that the freedom of these civil society/social non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is not threatened by excessive state control.

This also explains why funding programmes such as the Citizenship Education programme in the federal government’s plan for children and young people or the bpb funding programme for citizenship education for adults generally allow only for a subsidy (fixed-amount financing), which means the providers need to supply a not inconsiderable contribution themselves. In most new programmes that are likewise closely linked to CE (e.g. the federal programme Demokratie leben! [Live Democracy!]), as a rule all costs for staffing and measures are covered by state funding bodies, often co-financed from funding from the federal government and the federal states. This has resulted in a disquieting imbalance and – as yet largely unproductive – competition to secure content and state resources for the further development of an efficient public infrastructure for CE.

The goals of CE are to impart political knowledge, to strengthen political judgement among participants and to motivate and enable them to take political action (see – judge – act). In view of increasing internationalisation and the mounting political complexity associated with it, this is highly ambitious. Without an illustrative selection of topics and a reduction in the political complexity geared towards the target groups, CE can hardly be pursued properly. It is no coincidence that CE has become highly differentiated in terms of the range of topics it covers. Fields have emerged that could be assigned to CE but that have specific emphases in terms of their content (“hyphen pedagogies”). These include, for instance, environmental education, peace education and education for girls and women – these fields having arisen from the new social movements of the 1970s. Later additions include intercultural learning, education for sustainable development and global learning. Today we also find the increasingly differentiated fields of pedagogy for democracy and education for democracy. As long as this diverse practice keeps returning to politics and the political sphere and the standards described here are adhered to, this practice can be called CE. That being said, the professional understanding of CE has become increasingly loose and fluid since the 1990s. In the programmes of both the federal government and the individual states, the funding programmes aligned with the aims of CE since the 1970s have become depoliticised and aligned with general educational aims of strengthening (resources) and (lifeworld) orientation for young people.

The role of CE is to present topics in such a way that the participants can form their own judgement. The pedagogical consequence of this is that points of view and assessments of political topics that are generally controversial in a plural society should also be conveyed in CE. The Beutelsbach Consensus of 1976 has therefore become accepted as the appropriate principle in professional ethics (Widmaier/Zorn 2016). According to this consensus, topics that are controversial in academic and political spheres should also be treated as accordingly controversial in CE (imperative to present controversy).

This is the only way to prevent one-sided political indoctrination and the pedagogical overwhelming of participants (prohibition against overwhelming students). The foremost goal of CE is empowerment to political participation: according to the third principle of the Beutelsbach Consensus, participants should be able to identify their own interests and to develop competencies and “operational capabilities” so that they can make use of them in political processes (prioritising participants’ interests).

Alongside the long-term regular funding programmes mentioned above, current political topics are being addressed in pilot programmes. Here, CE has rapidly been instrumentalised as a “firefighting service”, with its free choice of topics being significantly restricted in some cases. A current example is extremismuspräventive Demokratieförderung [democracy promotion to prevent extremism], which has been set up with the above-mentioned federal programme Live Democracy! since 2016.

In spite of its humble size, CE is a productive profession. This is in part due to the above-described well-developed infrastructure of state and independent providers. With the Journal für politische Bildung published by bap, CE has its own professional journal, as well as its own publication series in Non-formale politische Bildung [Informal Citizenship Education].

Further reading

Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte [Politics and Contemporary History], issue. 48/2022, Politische Bildung [Citizenship Education] (in particular the articles by Helle Becker and by Marlon Barbehön/Alexander Wohnig), https://t1p.de/c75fe (last retrieved: 4 April 2023).

Bap/GEMINI (2022): “Stellungnahme zum Koalitionsvertrag” [Position Statement on the Coalition Agreement], https://t1p.de/1irdc (last retrieved: 4 April 2023).

Widmaier, Benedikt (2021): “Politische Bildung” [Citizenship Education]. In: Amthor, Ralph-Christian et al. (eds.): Kreft/Mielenz – Wörterbuch Soziale Arbeit [Dictionary of Social Work], 9th edition, Weinheim/Munich, pp. 654–656.

Widmaier, Benedikt (2022): “Zwischen staatlicher Steuerung und zivilgesellschaftlicher Freiheit. Was sind Träger der politischen Bildung?” [Between State Control and Civil-Society Freedom. What are Providers of Citizenship Education?]. In: Wohnig, Alexander/Zorn, Peter (eds.): Neutralität ist keine Lösung! [Neutrality Is not a Solution!], publication series by the Federal Agency for Civic Education, Vol. 10592, Bonn, pp. 279–296.

Widmaier, Benedikt (2022): Extremismuspräventive Demokratieförderung. Eine kritische Intervention [Democracy Promotion to Prevent Extremism. A Critical Intervention]. Frankfurt am Main.

Widmaier, Benedikt/Zorn, Peter (2016) (eds.): Brauchen wir den Beutelsbacher Konsens? Eine Diskussion der politischen Bildung [Do We Need the Beutelsbach Consensus? A Discussion of Citizenship Education], publication series by the Federal Agency for Civic Education, Vol. 1793. Bonn.