Citizenship Education for Contemporary Democracy: Challenges and Gaps in Six European Countries

Abstract

Contemporary democracies face profound challenges, including political polarization hollowed by voter apathy, all of which are reshaped by the surge of digital innovations. Education for democracy plays a key role in sustaining democratic values and practices. This article explores how six European countries—Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Germany, Spain, and Poland—approach democratic citizenship education (DCE) in policy and practice. Drawing on the Horizon Europe DEMOCRAT project, the article describes a multi-method design combining Living Labs, desk-based research, and fieldwork to compare national frameworks. We discuss the findings of the project, showing a convergence toward integrated and participatory approaches to DCE, but also persistent disparities in teacher training, digital literacy, and resource accessibility. We identify four key Responsible Democratic Competencies (RDC), participation, deliberation, judgment, and democratic resilience, which together define an adaptable framework for effective DCE. Strengthening these competencies requires coordinated policy support, inclusive teacher education, and integration of emotional learning and reflection. This study concludes that a more cohesive yet context-sensitive European strategy could enhance citizenship education, reinforce democratic agency, and foster resilient, informed, and responsible citizens across Europe.

1. Introduction

Contemporary democracies are under mounting pressure as the distance between citizens and democratic institutions continues to expand [1,2]. This growing disconnect is accompanied by increasingly fragmented lifestyles and deepening political polarization, both of which strain the foundations of a shared civic culture and collective engagement. Contemporary heterogeneous lifestyles and increasing political polarization make it challenging to achieve a sufficiently cohesive societal culture, political participation, and efficient, engaging democratic innovations [3]. Political participation has been declining [4] in recent decades, influenced by digitalization, depoliticization, radicalization, securitization, and crises [5,6,7].

In this article, we examine how these tensions are addressed in democratic citizenship education in six European countries: Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Germany, Spain, and Poland. As a considerable part of education is organized at the regional level in the larger participating states, we discuss Spain using the example of Catalonia and Germany using the example of North Rhine-Westphalia.

We discuss how the policy for democratic citizenship education is formulated, developed, implemented, and reflected at various levels from a multi-level and multi-actor perspective. We cover some organizational aspects but primarily focus on the ideational dimension while drawing on the competencies needed for responsible democratic citizenship. Our study is empirically based on the Horizon Europe DEMOCRAT project, and the material was collected from the project work.

We seek to establish common trends and particularities and identify gaps and developmental needs in democratic citizenship education content and governance. Our key focus is educational content, and our research questions are as follows:

• What are the key aspects to address in contemporary democratic citizenship education?
• What are the common trends and particularities in democratic citizenship education content and governance?
• What are the gaps and developmental needs in democratic citizenship education content and governance in the six countries?

First, we review the role and relevance of democratic citizenship and education, different normative and educational approaches, and ways to reconcile them. We discuss contemporary changes in the social and political settings of Western democracies and possible policy responses. We then examine the practical empirical situation of citizenship education in these six countries, outline the research design, and present the results. In the final sections, we discuss the results and make recommendations for curriculum development, organization, guidance, and teacher education.

2. Democratic Citizenship Education as Policy and Governance

In addressing the democratic challenges, a key pathway for governments is via the general mandatory education system, and especially democratic citizenship education, which can be utilized to develop a more coherent cultural space and political community [8,9,10]. Supporting democratic citizenship through education is a policy that needs to be planned, implemented, and monitored. In this sense, citizenship education is a field of public policy and governance.

Democratic citizenship education focuses on developing the capacity of individuals to act as citizens in a democracy. It can be linked with diverse expectations [11,12], involving school children or the population at large, including school courses (civics and beyond), whole curricula, school processes, school democracy and student councils, community practice, courses and activities provided by civic and government organizations, and/or diverse voluntary political and social activities [13].

There are diverse opinions on how extensive and standardized citizenship education should be and on the role that public authorities—be they national, regional, local, or international—and other actors should play in organizing it. However, there is a general consensus that citizens should obtain some basic competencies to become democratic agents [14]. Citizenship education has been shown to be a powerful tool for preparing citizens for political and broader societal and economic life [8,9,10,11]. If it is not organized properly, by omission or commission, it may result in the under-preparedness of citizens and thus, limited citizen agency in practice.

Citizenship-education politics, policy, and governance are necessarily multi-level and multi-actor [15], spanning from public and expert debates to the parliament and national government through respective ministries and agencies, often also regional and local governments, to schools and classroom practice, involving politicians, public servants, various managers, teachers, and students themselves, and likely also their parents. It is much based on human-to-human interaction and, besides the organizational dimension, the ideational dimension is relevant here. Ideations manifest in the contestation and deliberation on the meanings, goals, objectives, policy designs, and implementation choices [16]. Citizenship education is a contested political field and policy area that involves almost everyone, and thus diverse actors have their ideas, discourses, and strategies of democratic citizenship that feed into problem formulation, policy design, and implementation.

In more analytical terms, ideations include foreground and background aspects in both the normative and organizational dimensions. Howlett [17] generalizes ideations in policy content as public sentiments, symbolic frames, policy paradigms, and program ideas. We focus on policy paradigms in the background and program ideas in the foreground, which have a stronger cognitive component and influence the nature of policy means at the policy regime level. These paradigms are composed of a set of cognitive background assumptions that constrain action by limiting the range of alternatives that policymakers are likely to perceive as useful and worth considering. Program ideas represent a selection of particular solutions from a set of options designated as appropriate within a prevailing policy paradigm.

This means that it is an area of policy implementation, more broadly, governance. Citizenship-education governance can be well studied as an area of new public governance [18], where diverse actors co-create and co-implement education in a partly orderly and partly fuzzy process in which their relationships and interactions are complex. According to this understanding, sustainable governance and the renewal of citizenship education require governance solutions based on collaboration among state and local power institutions, non-governmental actors, and active citizens. This is generally structured and facilitated by the government. In the multilevel government perspective, the government is understood as constituted at different levels—from local and regional to national and beyond—and consisting of political, policy, and administrative elements. Actors have roles in defining and implementing policies and include both governmental and non-governmental actors; for example, schools can be both. We can study what is fixed and what is flexible in each country, both in terms of educational content, regulations, and actor roles, and how this is played out in practice.

In implementation practice, front-line implementers—that is, schools and especially teachers—usually play a key role in citizenship-education policy. Frontline implementers—especially teachers, but also civil society actors—play key roles in how citizenship education is enacted in practice, what messages are actually conveyed, and how effectively. It is also relevant to mobilize resources from the policy network and environment, both financial and material, as well as activity- and participation-based and other resources. Simultaneously, there are goals and objectives in regulated citizenship education that provide the basis for its normative, pedagogic, and organizational orientation and the assessment of results. Thus, we need to combine the goals and objectives with the grassroots-level, interaction-sensitive organization of citizenship education. Once again, the ideational element is crucial here, as it establishes a common understanding of the challenges and ways forward and thus forms the basis for cooperation among diverse actors.

Sustainable governance and renewal of citizenship education require governance solutions based on collaboration among state and local power institutions, non-governmental actors, and active citizens, facilitated and coordinated by the government. The front-line implementers—especially teachers, but also civil-society actors—have key roles in how citizenship education is enacted in practice, what messages are actually conveyed, and how effectively. It is also relevant to mobilize resources from the policy network and environment, both financial and material, as well as activity- and participation-based and other resources. Once again, the ideational element is crucial here, as it establishes a common understanding of the challenges and ways forward and thus forms a basis for cooperation among the diverse actors.

In conclusion, countries and regions have different ways of organizing civic education, but there usually exists some normative orientation, organizational and pedagogical enactment, and assessment of results. The organization of citizenship education may be based on various national (or other competent-level) policies, regulations, and frameworks. Usually, there is a parliamentary committee, a ministry and department, and an agency at the national level, complemented by regional and local councils, agencies, and schools. Educational practice may take place in classrooms via specific subjects or in a generalized way via any subject, may be related to school democracy and leadership, and may happen during extracurricular learning, or in central and local government bodies, communities, and NGOs. In this article, most attention is given to regulations and practices, especially those that inform ideations. In addition, the actors’ perspectives on the challenges, commonalities, contrasts, and gaps are addressed.

3. Adjusting Citizenship Education to Contemporary Democratic Challenges

3.1. Democratic Expectations

To meaningfully discuss the challenges and adjustments, we must first understand what is expected. For democratic citizenship, it has been well established in general terms and can be seen as consisting of two parts: what is expected from a democratic citizen and what is expected from the democratic system and its leaders.

A concise summary of the first is offered by Judit Shklar (p. 5) [19]. A good democratic citizen is a political actor who participates in both local and national politics regularly, and not only on voting and election days. Active citizens stay informed about public measures and raise objections if they consider them to be unfair, unreasonable, or too expensive. They also publicly support policies that they believe to be fair and reasonable. Although they do not avoid acting in their own personal and reference-group interests, they try to impartially consider other people’s demands and listen to their reasons. They engage in public speaking and join free associations, conversing and debating with others about policies that concern them all, and serve their country not merely as taxpayers and occasional soldiers, but based on an internally considered and accepted notion of the public good. A good citizen is also a patriot.

Robert Dahl (p. 31) offers a similarly concise response for the second part [20]. To support this, democratic institutions need to be set up to provide citizens with believable opportunities for political participation, influence, and control. To benefit from these opportunities, citizens should be interested in and informed about the policy-making decisions of political institutions. In order for citizens to be informed, political and media elites must conduct public debate and discussion of alternatives in ways that can win public attention and sympathy and provide comprehensible reasons for decisions. Political competition between parties and individuals seeking office is necessary to secure public debate. Elected representatives must be able to control the bureaucracy [21].

A more in-depth view reveals different expectations of democratic citizens. Kalev [22] summarized these as six key normative perspectives: the national communitarian emphasizing national cohesion; the republican perspective emphasizing democratic political agency; the liberal-democratic perspective emphasizing rights; the neoliberal perspective emphasizing entrepreneurialism and efficacy; the social-justice perspective emphasizing critical thinking and tackling the root causes of problems; and the personal-character perspective emphasizing good character.

The diversity and debate of various normative perspectives on democratic citizenship and the role of the citizen can be seen as a strength—an intellectual resource that can be used to update and enrich the concept of responsible democratic citizenship and ensure its sustainability. These perspectives can be analytically approached as aporias [22,23] that can be used as continuums to locate practical solutions. In practice, we can see a broad—if ever contested and changing—consensus or compromise on how democratic citizenship should look.

It is also useful to understand that it is the interplay between democratic institutions and democratic action that keeps democracies alive. It is useful to differentiate between the vertical and horizontal dimensions of democratic action [24]. The vertical dimension refers to the interrelations between public authorities and citizens, both top-down and bottom-up. The horizontal dimension refers to the relationship between citizens and their groups. Thus, we must consider both formal political and governance processes and democratic action in everyday life to grasp the quality of democracy.

3.2. Contemporary Democratic Challenges

Turning to the contemporary challenges of Western democracies, we can differentiate between challenges within the democratic system and external challenges. The internal challenges to democratic politics and governance, which in contemporary societies are shaped by growing fragmentation, mediatization, and the widening gap between frontstage and backstage politics, can be summarized as follows [2].

The fragmentation of citizens’ preferences has led political parties to cultivate increasingly public-relations-driven and manipulative relationships with their members and voters. This tendency is reinforced by mediatization, that is, the adaptation of political actors to the commercialized mass media’s demand for spectacle and their growing capacity to manipulate it.

Politicians who specialize in spectacle politics and power dynamics often lack sufficient time for substantive policy formulation and governance [25]. Consequently, they tend to align with technocratizing initiatives such as agencification, marketization, juridification, and judicialization, along with the delegation of competences to domestic and international technocratic institutions [26,27,28,29]. The marginalization of parliamentary institutions derives from executive drift, even what is called the ‘executive aggrandizement’, and technocratization, thereby increasing the role of governments and bureaucracy [30].

Consequently, vote-oriented frontstage politics becomes increasingly detached from governance-oriented backstage politics, producing a situation in which, within the framework of democracy, political actors operate according to a different underlying logic. Politicians focus on media and public communication, while practical policy formulation and implementation are increasingly performed by officials, reducing the possibilities of citizens to use representative democracy meaningfully [31,32].

These and other factors contribute to citizens’ disenchantment with politics [1], increasing the sense of apathy and disappointment within pluralistic democracies. It is accompanied by increased bottom-up mobilization and civic and political participation, which is not always positive and can manifest as intolerance, disrespect for minorities and bigotry. The overflow of information available to citizens, as well as the other necessary skills required to function within the contemporary context of post-democracy, are imperative to act as good citizens. At the same time, general support for the democratic regime remains high [4].

External challenges include socioeconomic pressures, crises, securitization, and digitalization. In terms of socioeconomic challenges, living standards in Western countries have not changed much in recent decades, while most of the rest of the world has benefited from liberal globalization. This has been characterized by the elephant curve [33]. Consequently, there is hesitation about whether the Western contemporary socioeconomic model is viable in comparison with more successful competitors, and relatively little hope for rapidly improving personal prosperity among Western commoners.

Crises are abundant and create a demand for more resolute and securitizing governments. In recent years, some of the most significant crises in Europe have been the financial crisis (2007–09), migration crisis (2015), COVID-19 pandemic (2019 onward), and the 2022 Russian war against Ukraine. All have divided the public and challenged political leaders, policymakers, and administrators. This has paved the way for leadership in and through crises, sometimes referred to as authoritarian liberalism [34]. This is also related to securitization [35], approaching social phenomena through a security lens, and adopting an orientation of minimizing risks instead of taking them for development. Such an approach pressures free and democratic societies and polities based on democratic citizenship.

Perhaps the most significant is the increasing influence of digitalization, which is concisely characterized as the ongoing integration of digital technologies and digitized data across the economy and society [36] More elaborately, Susskind [7] defined digitalization through increasingly capable systems, increasingly integrated technology, and increasingly quantified society. Digitalization offers both opportunities and threats to democracy and the political community. It involves datafication and algorithmization, autonomous devices and artificial intelligence, surveillance and securitization, and further transformation of media, politics, policy, and governance [6,7,37,38]. The focal development has been the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI), that is, by the OECD’s updated definition [39]: “An AI system is a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers from the input it receives how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments. Different AI systems vary in their levels of autonomy and adaptiveness after deployment.”

People try to make sense of this new setting and develop feasible coping strategies. However, the scale of change and the lack of clear parameters make this challenging. From a citizen’s perspective, these developments create economic, political, and personal insecurity, increase the appeal of illiberalism, and strengthen disenchantment or radicalization through technocracy and populism, respectively. In addition, there is increasing information noise, such as false news, PR spin, emotional appeals, and manipulation. In this context, being a good citizen has become increasingly difficult. If there is no clear understanding of how to be a good citizen, it becomes increasingly difficult to act accordingly. Citizenship education can support reflexive and proactive bases for citizen autonomy and integrity.

3.3. Educational Strategies

Education, especially education for democracy, can mitigate these effects by reinforcing the role of citizens as agents of change and improving the quality of democracy. These developments create additional challenges for educating young people in schools, indicating the need to go beyond formal education settings. Simultaneously, there is renewed interest in the democratic regulation of key social sectors. There is a growing demand for inclusion, equality, and redistributive justice, suggesting that democratic norms have not passed their sell-by date for everyone [40]. This concerns, albeit cautiously, schools as democratic institutions where students are seen as school citizens [41] and points to the question of how democratic education is possible when it cannot be practiced in everyday life at school or work.

There are several strategies for building democratic citizenship. For example, Mathews-Schultz and Sweet-Cushman proposed a model of four key competencies: knowing, caring, choosing, and acting [42]. Knowing refers to knowledge of public life, issues, attitudes, and government institutions. Caring is a habit of the mind that is concerned with collective well-being. Choosing denotes the ability to select courses of action at all levels of government. Acting means engagement that supports a democratic worldview through multiple forms of action. Supporting these competencies through education is expected to develop democratic citizenship agency, even in contemporary conditions.

Across major international and European Education for Democracy (EfD) frameworks, a recurring expectation is that citizens should not only know democratic values but also act as democratic agents who demonstrate a balanced set of competences—typically encompassing participation and engagement in public life, critical and independent thinking, perspective-taking and empathy, and a commitment to sustaining democratic principles in diverse societies [43].

Building on these foundations, the DEMOCRAT project placed its key emphasis on supporting democratic agency, in line with Ten Dam et al. [44,45]. A revision of civic-education policies in the six participating countries indicated that democratic principles guide national education systems, although the content and outreach differ considerably. Therefore, DEMOCRAT focused on developing a Responsible Democratic Competencies (RDC) framework centered on democratic agency and complementary to the Council of Europe’s Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture [46]. Drawing from theoretical models of democracy and citizenship, as well as current frameworks for citizenship competencies, the RDC framework distilled four broad key competencies for responsible democratic citizenship: solidary participation, deliberation, judgment, and democratic resilience [47]. Each of these includes multiple sub-aspects, forming a comprehensive foundation for analyzing how education systems foster democratic agency. The RDC competence framework was established prior to the analysis, its articulation was further developed as the project advanced, and the findings were synthesized and presented through this four-competence structure.

• Participation. At the heart of democratic life is participation—not just as an individual act but as a collective endeavor that promotes the inclusion of all, including minorities and marginalized groups. This competence fosters solidarity, emphasizing collaboration across social, cultural and religious backgrounds to achieve common goals. The RDC framework’s emphasis on solidarity and involvement aligns with democratic thought, which sees participation as both a civic obligation and a right [48]. Participation includes voting, social movements, public discourse, and community life, consistent with the idea of social capital—the value of social networks and their supportive tendencies. The framework’s emphasis on solidarity and involving marginalized groups addresses the issues raised by Young on inclusive democratic communication that respects diversity and maintains justice [49].
• Deliberation. Democracy thrives on free and fair exchange of ideas. Deliberation involves mutual respect and reflection on options, values, and interests related to societal matters. This competence underscores the importance of public debate and equips individuals to manage conflicting interests constructively. This accords with Habermas’s theory of communicative action, which holds that rational discourse strengthens democracy [50]. Deliberation highlights the value of public forums—traditional and digital—while Sunstein [51] warns against polarization and echo chambers that sabotage it.
• Judgment. In an age where information is abundant yet questionable, discernment is paramount. Judgment is the critical evaluation of sources and arguments, especially when navigating the digital landscape where disinformation spreads unchecked. This aligns with Hobbs [52] critical literacy theory, which emphasizes assessment across media. It also follows Wodak [53] in using critical discourse analysis to expose and counter the power structures shaping media narratives.
• Democratic resilience. A democratic society is not immune to crises but is defined by its ability to withstand and adapt without forsaking its principles. Democratic resilience is the maintenance of commitment to democratic norms and acting responsibly, even in adversity. The RDC framework’s definition parallels Masten’s resilience theory and Habermas’s constitutional patriotism, which unites citizens in defending democratic values [54,55]. This competence is particularly pertinent to modern issues such as political polarization.

These four competencies are interdependent, with each reinforcing the other to create a comprehensive framework for democratic education. Their role extends beyond the classroom, influencing how individuals interact with communities, participate in governance, and shape the future of democracy. Each competency can also be viewed as multidimensional, encompassing various sub-competences and elements of knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes. They involve, for example, reflection, self-awareness, empathy, collaboration, ethical reasoning, and ethical leadership—qualities that sustain both individual growth and collective democratic living. This multidimensional understanding stands in contrast to recent European and global skills agendas that prioritize employability and advanced technical skills while neglecting foundational, civic, and democratic learning aims [56].

4. Research Design

The DEMOCRAT project aimed to foster democratic competencies and practices through innovative educational frameworks [57]. To develop a comprehensive understanding of how education for democracy (EfD) could be effectively implemented across different European contexts, we employed a multifaceted research design. This design integrated (1) national and international Living Labs, (2) desk-based research, and (3) fieldwork. Each methodological component contributed complementary forms of data and insight, together providing a robust basis for analyzing and enhancing EfD practices.

4.1. Living Labs as an Overarching Methodological Approach

Within the DEMOCRAT research design, Living Labs served as an overarching methodological approach that enabled the project to explore Education for Democracy (EfD) in authentic contexts through participatory and collaborative inquiry. Rather than positioning participants as passive respondents, Living Labs engage them as active contributors in processes of co-creation and shared exploration, allowing educational innovations and reflections to emerge through real-life interactions among stakeholders [58,59]. As a methodological framework, Living Labs bring together educators, students, policymakers, civil society actors, public sector representatives, and researchers to investigate challenges, generate new perspectives, and develop practices that hold value for multiple communities [60,61,62]. Their inclusion in the research design aligns with the Horizon 2020 emphasis on user-centered and co-creative development within socially embedded research settings [63].

In educational and social research contexts, Living Labs offer a dynamic structure for examining how pedagogical approaches and democratic learning take shape in situated environments. They provide a platform for communities of practice in which educational tools, learning processes, and organizational practices can be collaboratively developed, tested, and reflected upon [64,65]. As Living Labs operate through iterative cycles of exploration, experimentation, and feedback, they support the refinement of educational strategies and ensure that insights remain grounded in practical needs and conditions. This methodological approach strengthens the relationship between research and practice by facilitating the direct application of emergent understandings in educational settings, while also generating analytical material for systematic study [66,67]. In DEMOCRAT, Living Labs were organized mainly as workshops coordinated at both the international and national levels. International Living Labs were held in Amsterdam (June 2023), Helsinki (December 2023), and Tallinn (February 2024, including the Transnational Conference), bringing together teachers, researchers, NGOs, and other actors interested in strengthening EfD across Europe. These International Living Lab activities provided the shared inputs that informed the analytical focus, desk-based research, and fieldwork presented in this article. National Living Labs commenced in autumn 2023 and will continue throughout the project until February 2026, each adapted to contextual priorities and educational realities in partner countries. National research teams guided the activities, documented reflections, and synthesized discussions, supporting stakeholder engagement and contributing to the ongoing development of EfD beyond the scope of the results reported in this article.

4.2. Analytical Orientation and Competence Framework

The Responsible Democratic Competencies (RDC) framework served as the conceptual starting point for investigating EfD across countries. As the project progressed, discussions and reflections emerging from the Living Labs demonstrated that a broader and more fine-grained structure was required for analytical and interpretive purposes. To support the analysis within this methodological approach, the four competencies were unpacked into an Analytical Framework consisting of ten aspects, which enabled a more detailed exploration of democratic learning, curriculum structures, pedagogical approaches, and educational experiences.

To make the RDC framework usable for empirical analysis and collaboration with schools, it was necessary to ensure that the four core competences were not interpreted solely as cognitive or skill-based constructs. As learning is also an emotional and reflective process shaped by meaning-making, value negotiation, and readiness to change, it was important that these dimensions could be observed explicitly within the analytical work. Emotions play a constitutive role in how individuals interpret, evaluate, and act in the world, influencing reflection and critical thinking rather than opposing them [40]. Therefore, when the RDC framework was temporarily expanded for analytical purposes, aspects linked to reflection, emotional awareness, learning-to-learn, and readiness to change were made visible within the ten-aspect structure.

This expanded Analytical Framework [57] enabled the examination of what Education for Democracy in the future should encompass. Informed by extensive literature reviews and iterative consultations with project stakeholders, including researchers, NGOs, teachers, students, and educational administrators, the ten-aspect structure served as a practical tool for analyzing the national curricula, policy frameworks, and educational practices. By “unpacking” the four RDC competencies into ten more concrete aspects, the framework supported comparative country analysis and dialogue with diverse educational actors, while the four RDC competencies remained the overarching conceptual structure.

4.3. Empirical Data Collection and Analysis

The exploratory desk-based research aimed to capture the breadth of Education for Democracy (EfD) provision and potential in each partner country and provide a tentative comparison using this analytical structure. Conducted between October and December 2023, the research built on the preceding work packages by analyzing national curricula, strategies, learning approaches, pedagogical materials and teacher training provision. The research proceeded in two stages: country-based analysis and comparative synthesis, guided by the ten-aspect Analytical Framework. Researchers in each partner country conducted a desk-based review that included the following:

• Reviewing national curricula and identifying examples of EfD within curricular and strategic documents;
• Gathering examples of learning approaches used in schools;
• Collating examples of EfD beyond formal schooling, including informal and non-formal settings;
• Collecting pedagogical materials related to EfD;
• Gathering information on teacher-education provision.

This ordering ensured that each national context was analyzed independently before the comparative phase.

Following the country-based analysis, a comparative analysis was conducted to identify commonalities, differences, and gaps in EfD provision across the partner countries. This phase aimed to provide a tentative comparison of EfD through the lens of the RDC framework, highlighting areas for potential improvement and further research. The guide for the comparative analysis is presented in the following table (Table 1).

Table 1. Guide for comparative analysis. Source: Hytti et al., 2024 [57].

Aspect (Initials)	Commonalities	Differences	Gaps	Questions
What is the aspect? (initials of analyst)	What things are common across countries? What useful foundations are evident?	What things are different across countries? For example, what outliers are there? What promising practices are apparent?	What gaps do you notice? What are the challenges?	What questions do you have about this aspect and how it is addressed? What potential connections to literature are there?

The structured methodology ensured comprehensive and consistent analysis across diverse educational contexts and established an evidence base for subsequent project stages. Fieldwork complemented desk-based research and insights from international workshops by providing deeper insights into the practical experiences of EfD. Conducted between January and May 2024, this phase included semi-structured interviews and focus groups with educators, experts, and students. The fieldwork focused on understanding individuals’ perceptions of EfD, identifying recognized practices, and exploring the current status of EfD teaching and organization. By directly engaging with stakeholders, this research aimed to gather personal experiences and insights that could inform the development of effective EfD strategies. Using the same analytical framework as the desk-based research but expanded to include additional questions addressing personal experiences and perceptions, the fieldwork provided a richer, more nuanced understanding of how EfD is practiced and perceived in different contexts.

Finally, findings generated across the ten aspects (and themes from interviews) were synthesized and categorized into the four RDC competencies. This ensured that the results could be presented through the four-competence structure while retaining the empirical nuance arising from stakeholder engagement, documentary analysis, and fieldwork. The Results section reports the findings through the lens of the four competencies established at the outset, demonstrating how education systems support democratic agency across countries.

5. Empirical Results

The educational strategies of Estonia, Finland, Poland, Germany, Ireland, and Spain reveal both shared trends and unique approaches in democratic citizenship education (EfD). Most countries integrate EfD across various subjects rather than having a dedicated subject, thereby promoting active citizenship and participation. This integration ensures that democratic principles permeate all aspects of learning, fostering a holistic educational experience that emphasizes community trust, collective well-being and multidisciplinary learning.

In Estonia, the educational strategy emphasizes learner-centered approaches and meeting the real needs of learners and society. The national curriculum places a strong emphasis on developing key values and attitudes among students. The emphasis is on general humane values and societal values that derive from the state constitution, UN Human Rights Declaration, Convention on the Rights of the Child, and foundational documents of the EU. Democracy is also mentioned alongside being law-abiding, dealing well with cultural diversity, being tolerant and solidary, and so forth. Despite a strong theoretical foundation, practical engagement in democratic processes remains below the EU average, partly due to inadequate teacher training, sporadic integration of civics throughout school years, high teacher workloads, and a lack of democratic culture in schools. Although innovative practices exist, they remain peripheral and rely heavily on individual enthusiasm. Opportunities for improvement include elective courses, subject integration, and collaboration with NGOs and universities. Some NGOs offer courses in debate, negotiation, and global education, while others pilot participatory budgeting projects in schools. The Ministry of Education is actively renewing the social subject curricula and enhancing teacher training to cultivate a more engaged citizenry grounded in democratic values.

Finland’s holistic educational system stands out for its integration of democratic principles, community trust, and collective wellbeing. The curriculum embeds key competencies in multidisciplinary courses, ensuring that democratic education permeates all learning aspects. The Ministry of Education robustly supports research and initiatives focused on democratic education and sustainable development. However, challenges such as maintaining constructive debate amidst increasing polarization and varying teacher education programs persist. To address these issues, Jyväskylä University’s Education for Democracy curriculum integrates crucial topics into teacher training, while inclusive pedagogy and inquiry-based learning emerge as effective strategies. Finnish schools emphasize collaborative learning, project-based learning, and student councils to foster democratic engagement, although real participation remains a challenge.

In Poland, democratic principles are embedded across various subjects; however, the educational system faces significant financial constraints that impact the implementation of democratic education programs. The dispersion of educational resources makes it difficult for teachers to access them despite the availability of numerous EfD materials. Teachers employ creative and interactive teaching methods, such as working groups, simulation games, and project-based learning, sometimes in collaboration with NGOs. Schools encourage student councils and strive for more democratic governance by introducing participatory budgets. Despite these efforts, students often have a limited understanding of democracy, associating it mainly with political participation and lacking awareness of their agency in the matter.

Germany’s educational system, characterized by state-specific frameworks rather than a national curriculum, emphasizes competencies, including democratic values, across various subjects. Teachers grapple with challenges such as fake news, formal consent to democracy and interethnic conflict. High workloads and growing student diversity necessitate the need for additional resources. Innovative approaches by committed teachers include interactive teaching methods and collaboration with NGOs. Schools integrate democracy into everyday life through student councils, school newspapers, project days, and visits to historical sites. Regional centers for civic education provide support and financial stimuli for EfD projects. However, freedom of speech and addressing controversial issues remain significant challenges, and there is a structural contradiction between the hierarchical school system and real student participation.

Ireland incorporates EfD through a cross-curricular approach with specific opportunities in subjects such as Politics and Society. Despite the absence of an overarching EfD policy, curricular reforms and various programs promote democratic participation. Teacher education initiatives, such as the DICE Project and the Global Village program, support EfD integration. Innovative pedagogical approaches are shaping the landscape of education, both within Living Labs and traditional classroom settings. Irish Living Labs adopted experiential learning, participatory methods, active learning, and design-based learning, involving stakeholders from various educational sectors in co-creation and communities of practice. The workshops focused on practical, real-world scenarios, fostering deep engagement and reflection. Additionally, Irish classrooms use dynamic strategies to promote critical thinking, democratic participation, and ethical understanding, preparing students to become informed, ethical, and proactive community members.

Spain’s recent education reform emphasizes transversal citizenship competence across primary and secondary education, aiming to instill a democratic culture throughout all subjects. Historical grassroots initiatives promoted democratic principles, although their relevance has declined over time. Effective democratic education in Spain links knowledge and practice, involving local social issues and community collaboration. The Catalan education system, for example, uses methodologies such as learning situations, service learning, problem-based learning, and interactive groups to integrate democratic perspectives into the learning process. Challenges include preparing teachers for citizenship education, the lack of spaces for sharing experiences, and managing extreme political positions among the students. Nevertheless, innovative approaches and strategic methodologies are being employed to foster responsible citizenship.

Several common trends in democratic citizenship education are evident across countries. Most integrate EfD across various subjects rather than having a dedicated subject, promoting active citizenship and participation. Holistic approaches, such as those in Finland, emphasize community trust and multidisciplinary learning, integrating democratic values into everyday education. Improving teacher training is a universal focus, with efforts to enhance both pre-service and in-service programs to better equip educators for EfD. Collaboration with NGOs and external organizations supplements formal education with practical experiences of democratic engagement.

However, the particularities of each country’s approach also emerge. Finland’s curriculum specifically focuses on participation, active citizenship, and building a sustainable future. Estonia emphasizes learner-centered approaches and emotional regulation, although practical engagement in democratic processes remains low. Poland faces financial constraints that impact program implementation, while Germany deals with challenges related to fake news and interethnic conflict. Ireland’s inclusive and holistic approaches address broader societal factors, and Spain’s education reform aims to integrate democratic culture across all subjects, despite political skepticism.

Despite these efforts, several gaps and developmental needs in democratic citizenship education remain. The inconsistent emphasis on digital and media literacy, especially concerning misinformation, is a notable gap. Teacher training programs often lack comprehensive coverage of democratic education, which impacts students’ practical engagement in democratic processes. Not surprisingly, access to educational resources remains uneven, and stronger institutional support structures and policy frameworks are needed to foster a culture of collaboration and deliberation. Additionally, there is limited focus on broader global challenges, such as climate change and technological disruptions, which should be incorporated more explicitly into the curricula.

Developing the country-based perspective into the competence-based understanding of the commonalities, contrasts, and gaps, the results are summarized and further contextualized in the following table (Table 2).

Table 2. Comparative analysis of results based on the RDC framework. Source: Hytti et al., 2024 [57].

Competence	Commonalities	Contrasts	Gaps
Participation/ Solidarity	All countries emphasize the importance of fostering active citizenship, promoting inclusion, collaboration, and participation within their national curricula. Curricula include elements aimed at developing students’ sense of belonging, agency, and responsibility towards society. Various learning approaches and methods are employed while NGOs and informal learning organizations also play a significant role.	Ireland and Spain focus on global citizenship education as a framework for participation with collaborative and active learning methods integrated throughout the curriculum. While Finland and Estonia prioritize student participation and active citizenship within and outside of schools through multidisciplinary approaches, such as entrepreneurship or student councils, but not necessarily global education. Poland focuses more on prevention and education, including engagement in volunteer activities.	Accessibility and availability of resources and initiatives promoting collaboration and inclusion is uneven. Disparities in how effectively values of collaboration and inclusion are integrated into classroom practices. Need for addressing barriers to participation and ensuring equal opportunities for all students, regardless of background.
Deliberation	Common focus on respectful discussion, collective decision-making, conflict resolution, and embracing diverse perspectives. Learning methods include drama activities, debates, role plays, and group work. Emphasis on skills like discussion, decision-making, and conflict resolution across countries.	Ireland incorporates restorative practices and dedicated teacher training programs. Germany involves students in decision-making committees, e.g., lunch menu debates. Finland focuses on practical applications within school communities and building trust. Estonia emphasizes argumentation and debate. Poland uses school self-government and peer mediation. Spain includes deliberation in its Curriculum on Global citizenship.	Variability in the extent of implementation across different countries and educational contexts. Some countries may overlook essential dimensions of deliberation focusing predominantly on argumentation and debate. Need for institutional support structures and policy frameworks to foster a culture of collaboration and deliberation.
Judgment	Commonly found under digital competence and media use, emphasizing the ability to discern reliable information, behavior, and intentions, especially in the digital age of misinformation. Various countries integrate media literacy and critical thinking into their curricula.	Germany offers supplementary courses to train students as mediators in conflicts. Finland focuses on critical use of information, analyzing media culture, and reflecting on the effects of media. Poland employs methods like Project-Based Learning and Interactive Learning. Estonia’s curriculum includes judgment of trustworthiness but highlights the need for greater emphasis. Ireland includes some references to accessing reliable information, with a JC Short Course on Digital Media Literacy. In Spain, the new Education Act includes digital competence, which also deals with the issue of disinformation. In Catalonia this topic is addressed by the promotion of innovation projects in the field of digitalization and disinformation.	Limited focus on digital literacy starting from primary school, including misinformation, AI, and cybersecurity. Inconsistent emphasis on critical analysis of information and media literacy across different educational levels. Need for more explicit references to ‘Misinformation’, ‘Media Literacy’, and ‘Scientific Literacy’ starting at an earlier educational stage.
Democratic Resilience	Emphasis on maintaining democratic values and effective collaboration during crises. Focus on personal peace, balance, and problem-solving skills. Shared understanding of the importance of collaboration during crises and encouraging a growth mindset. Teaching students to set healthy boundaries and individual survival skills in some contexts.	Irish curriculum includes personal peace and balance, focusing on psychological well-being and individual survival skills. Polish approach may include psychological and pedagogical care but lacks detailed strategies. Estonia includes aspects of resilience with an emphasis on collaboration and collective problem-solving. Finland emphasizes community and trust, everyday skills, collective well-being and safety. Spain stresses maintaining democratic values during crises. Germany involves supplementary courses and initiatives like student mediators in conflicts.	Limited focus on broader global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and technological disruption. Sparse direct references to mental health education and emotional intelligence. Inconsistent teaching of resilience across regions and schools within the same country. Lack of clear connections between skills taught and their application in real-world scenarios. Need for explicit teacher training and support in teaching resilience.

6. Discussion

The purpose of this article was to explore and address critical questions to facilitate democratic citizenship through education in contemporary Europe. We aimed to understand what aspects should be addressed and focused on, identify common trends and particularities in democratic citizenship education content and governance, and pinpoint gaps and developmental needs based on the experiences of six European countries: Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Germany, Spain, and Poland. The findings show that democratic citizenship education can be interpreted not only through educational practices but also through broader ideational orientations, policy paradigms, and program ideas that shape how citizenship education is conceptualized, organized, and enacted across national contexts.

6.1. Common Patterns and Country-Specific Variations in Democratic Citizenship Education

Across the six countries, democratic citizenship education is typically integrated into subjects rather than being addressed as a standalone topic. This integrated approach promotes a holistic educational experience in which democratic principles permeate the learning environment. Such an approach reflects shared ideations about democracy as a transversal cultural and educational value rather than a discrete instructional topic, reinforcing the expectation that democratic citizenship should be cultivated through a wider learning ecosystem rather than through isolated modules.

There is also a shared emphasis on strengthening teacher training to equip educators with the skills and knowledge to effectively foster democratic citizenship [68] in schools. At the policy-paradigm level, this reflects a common understanding that democratic competencies represent both curricular outcomes and professional responsibilities. National differences, however, reveal variations in program ideas—how shared principles translate into pedagogical practices, institutional arrangements, and governance mechanisms. Estonia emphasizes learner-centered approaches and emotional regulation but faces challenges related to teacher preparation and school culture. Finland integrates democratic principles through community trust and collective well-being but struggles with constructive debate in a polarized environment. Poland’s financial constraints limit implementation despite creative pedagogical methods, while Germany addresses misinformation and interethnic tensions through the subject-based integration of democratic values. Ireland advances inclusive and holistic approaches, supported by strong teacher education initiatives. Spain embeds democratic culture across subjects but lacks sufficient teacher preparation and faces political skepticism regarding its implementation. These differences illustrate how national ideations and policy paradigms shape the delivery of citizenship education, leading to diverse enactments of democratic agency.

6.2. Gaps, Implementation Challenges and Emerging Developmental Needs

Despite shared ambitions, gaps persist that limit coherence and effectiveness. Although national curricula frequently reference democracy education, the depth, consistency, and delivery methods vary considerably. Pedagogical resources are inconsistently integrated across educational settings and levels, and institutional support structures do not uniformly foster cultures of participation, deliberation, and inclusion. These gaps demonstrate tensions between policy paradigms and program ideas—national frameworks may articulate democratic aims, but implementation environments do not always enable them to materialize.

Variations in teacher education represent a major developmental need. Many programs lack continuity, depth, or an applied focus, leaving educators insufficiently prepared to translate democratic values into practice. Consequently, opportunities for student participation, critical engagement, and collaborative problem-solving are uneven. Internal and external challenges to democracy, including disenchantment, radicalization, digitalization, crisis resilience, and societal diversity, require more systematic attention [69,70,71]. Media and information literacy is particularly urgent [72] given the dynamics of misinformation [73,74].

In addition, emotional dimensions and resilience are important factors. Emotional awareness and emotional engagement foster empathy, collaboration, and constructive conflict resolution, supporting prosocial behaviors [75] and shaping how individuals participate, express themselves, and connect with others [43], while resilience, particularly democratic resilience, supports the maintenance of democratic norms and values even under pressure [76]. Emphasizing the capacity to uphold democratic principles during crises prepares students to act responsibly and ethically in uncertain or adverse situations, thereby strengthening the integrity of democratic institutions.

Democratic education should also support the development of personalized democratic competencies, enabling individuals to act as reflective and responsible citizens. While systemic approaches to governance and participation remain essential, learners must simultaneously cultivate a personal democratic agency rooted in reflection, values, and lived experiences. Such competencies should be continuously observed, reflected upon, and adapted in response to evolving democratic challenges, governance arrangements, and opportunity structures.

These findings align with the Council of Europe’s Review of the Implementation of the Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (RFCDC) [77], which identified similar gaps: uneven adoption, limited teacher preparedness, insufficient media literacy integration, and weak support for democratic resilience. In this regard, the DEMOCRAT project’s Responsible Democratic Competences (RDC) framework complements the RFCDC by linking the cognitive, emotional, and ethical dimensions of learning and by promoting integrated competences that combine knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes. Simultaneously, recent European and global policy trends, such as skills-first approaches, prioritize employability and technical competencies while neglecting civic and democratic learning goals [56]. The RDC framework repositions democratic competencies as central to lifelong learning and essential for sustaining democratic life.

6.3. Holistic, Reflective, and Emotional Dimensions of Democratic Learning

From a pedagogical perspective, education for democracy requires a holistic view of learning that integrates cognitive, emotional and reflective dimensions [43]. Learning democracy involves not only acquiring knowledge or procedural skills but also cultivating awareness, empathy, and readiness for transformation. Reflection fosters critical thinking and self-awareness [78], enabling a deeper understanding of democratic principles and informed participation. Learning to learn supports autonomy and equips individuals to navigate complex sociopolitical environments, thereby strengthening democratic participation.

Emotions significantly shape attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors [79], and recognizing the emotional dimension of learning through practices such as embodied learning, drama- and art-based methods, and mindfulness [43] may help create inclusive environments where students feel valued and able to express themselves openly [80]. This engagement fosters empathy, positive interpersonal relationships, and collaborative problem-solving—competencies essential for building cohesive and resilient democratic communities. Readiness to change enables learners to adapt to new ideas and perspectives [81,82,83], whereas conflict resolution skills support deliberation, cooperative dialogue, and peaceful coexistence [84,85]. Taken together, reflection, emotional awareness, emotional engagement, readiness to change, and conflict resolution strengthen democratic agency by linking personal growth to collective responsibility. These dimensions ensure that democracy education develops the whole person and cultivates dispositions that sustain democratic life, even under conditions of uncertainty and difference.

6.4. Towards a Coordinated and Adaptive European Approach

The findings underline that the challenges of democratic education extend beyond individual classrooms or national contexts and reflect broader European and global developments. Although the Council of Europe’s RFCDC offers a recognized foundation, implementation remains uneven [77]. Strengthening this framework requires coordinated policy alignment, sustained teacher education, and institutional support. The RDC framework complements these efforts by translating democratic competencies into pedagogically applicable and context-sensitive tools that integrate knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes.

At the European level, cooperation could promote democratic competencies through teacher education, curriculum development, and the exchange of pedagogical practices. Including democracy, citizenship, and human rights modules in teacher training prepares educators to cultivate democratic agency and resilience. Shared and accessible pedagogical resources, supported by translation technologies, can enhance equity and coherence across Europe.

A more coherent European approach would also benefit from connecting formal education with non-formal and community-based learning. Democracy is practiced not only in classrooms but also through civic initiatives, youth participation, and intergenerational dialogue. Strengthening partnerships between schools, local authorities, and civil society organizations can extend democratic learning beyond the school walls.

Finally, ongoing evaluation and feedback processes are vital. Democracy education must evolve with societal shifts, emerging forms of participation, and risks to democratic integrity. Regular European-level reviews, similar to the RFCDC monitoring cycle, would support responsiveness, inclusion, and long-term impact.

In this broader context, the DEMOCRAT project demonstrates that advancing democracy education requires both a shared European vision and contextual sensitivity. Coherent strategies, participatory pedagogies, and reflective policy dialogue can strengthen democratic culture across Europe—empowering learners not only to understand democracy but to live and sustain it.

7. Conclusions

This article has shown that democratic citizenship education in six European countries is shaped by underlying ideations about democracy, policy paradigms that define the role of schools and teachers, and program ideas that materialize in curricula and pedagogical practices. While common elements can be found, the problems emphasized and the solutions used vary by country. Current ideations on democratic citizenship, citizenship education, and its organization are diverse, and the resulting activities vary across countries. There are some national or regional strategies and efficiencies in contemporary policy and governance practices in democratic citizenship education, but we can see opportunities for both country-level improvement and the development of a more common and systematic European response to contemporary democratic challenges.

The findings suggest that a more cohesive approach and better coordinated European strategy could be beneficial for democratic citizenship education. Such coordination should not be rigid or uniform but guided by common general aims, points of reference, and shared resources, both in terms of educational content and pedagogical or organizational strategies, allowing countries to develop contextually appropriate solutions. By fostering a comprehensive, inclusive, and dynamic approach to democracy education, we can empower students to learn about democracy and live it. This supports the development of engaged, resilient, and informed citizens capable of steering democratic societies toward stronger and more inclusive futures.

In practical terms, this could involve establishing non-binding common curricular objectives for democracy education and developing illustrative examples or templates for organizing citizenship education as part of school governance. Guidance and frameworks in teacher education would also be valuable, for instance, integrating democracy, citizenship, and human rights modules into teacher training, supported by EU-funded initiatives and cross-national exchanges of expertise. Furthermore, developing common, accessible, and timely pedagogical resources, such as a shared repository of teaching materials aligned with curricular goals and supported by advanced translation tools, could enhance collaboration and equity in access to quality education.

At the classroom level, promoting active and participatory learning methods, such as simulations, student governance, and civic initiative projects, helps translate democratic principles into lived experiences [86,87]. Equally important are holistic pedagogies that connect cognition with reflection and emotion, allowing students to develop democratic dispositions in more embodied and transformative ways, not forgetting the digital dimensions of learning and facilitation [88,89,90]. Finally, establishing regular mechanisms for the assessment and adaptation of democracy education programs would ensure responsiveness to changing societal needs and strengthen their long-term impact [91,92]. These considerations indicate that strengthening democratic citizenship education requires attention to both governance structures and pedagogical practices, aligning ideational orientations with the development of a democratic agency. In summary, the results, interpreted through the Responsible Democratic Competences (RDC) framework, highlight the need for a holistic, reflective, personalized, practice-related, and adaptive approach to fostering democratic competences. Addressing these dimensions will better prepare educational systems to cultivate citizens who can participate meaningfully, think critically, and act responsibly within contemporary democracies [46].