March 18, 2026

By Ole Jantschek, National Director of the Protestant Network for Civic Youth Education and Deputy Secretary General of the Protestant Academies in Germany

Diversity as a resource in an international and multi-professional conference
From the outset of the festival, it was clear that hope carries growing significance in times of multiple crises. Civic educators and civil society activists from Europe, the US, and Africa easily found common ground around shared challenges: democratic backsliding, growing polarisation, the climate emergency, and geopolitical instability. Yet the diverse international participation, particularly from Central and Eastern Europe, also revealed genuinely different perspectives on hope itself. The varying political circumstances in home countries (and the experiences shaped by them) influenced how participants approached the theme. While people working in shrinking civic spaces or situations of war and conflict emphasised resilience and persistence, other educators based in more liberal democracies saw hope as a means to revive participation and counter complacency. These contrasting perspectives created potential for transnational learning, which many participants highlighted as one of the festival’s main strengths.

In addition, NECE enables exchange across professions. The festival brought together activists and civic educators, two communities that are closely connected yet have distinct self-understandings and approach their work in importantly different ways. Activists operate with clear political agendas, working to raise awareness of urgent problems, build powerful communities, and mobilise for direct action. Civic educators, by contrast, focus on supporting individuals and communities in developing knowledge, competence, and critical thinking. Crucially, their role involves ensuring different perspectives are heard and creating space for controversial positions to be discussed, so that participants can develop their own informed views and tolerance of ambiguity. These different approaches surfaced throughout the festival as both groups explored hope as a source of resilience, cooperation, action, innovation, and as a moral foundation. Continued exchange between these perspectives can help participants clarify their own professional identity, recognise complementary strengths, and identify opportunities for cooperation.

A practice and a choice – understanding HOPE and its limits
Håp. Esperanza. Надежда. Hoffnung. Nadzieja. These words for HOPE are just a small selection from the languages spoken by participants. They reveal not just linguistic differences but also offer a window into diverse emotions, philosophies, and cultural nuances. Not surprisingly, participants approached hope from different angles, shaped by their contexts and experiences.

At the same time, there was a shared understanding that hope should not be confused with naivety or optimism. Instead, it was interpreted as a stance grounded in realistic analysis and as a conscious practice. “Hope is a noun, but it is also a verb. It is something that we perform”, one participant noted. Participants also approached hope in daily life as a routine. As one participant pointed out with humour: “Hope is like a burpee, it’s a very tough exercise.” This proactive attitude makes it possible to “get up in the morning” and creates possibilities for agency.

Equally strong was the perception of hope as a choice to do something you believe is right without knowing if it will bear fruit in the future. This echoed Václav Havel’s famous understanding of hope as an orientation of the heart that allows us to act for what is right, regardless of the likelihood of success. This seems to be particularly true in difficult situations where optimism fails – a lesson that can be learned not only from the history of resistance and opposition, but also from activists working in very challenging environments today.

Crucially, both hope and resilience were understood as collective practices. Hope binds people to common causes and to each other. The concept of hope as a unifying force resonated strongly, as did hope as a force for action. In this spirit, participants cautioned against diving too deep into difficult topics without offering pathways forward, as this risks making people feel helpless and disempowered. They argued for “showing the dream instead of the fear,” connecting hope directly to a crucial element of civic education: inviting people not only to be critical of the current state of things, but also to imagine a better society and take practical steps towards it.

Yet not everyone embraced the concept equally. Participants from Ukraine or Central and Eastern Europe expressed scepticism, preferring to focus on resilience instead of hope. Some also highlighted an important tension: while hope can motivate civic educators and activists to believe in positive change, it also risks leading to burnout when faced with persistent setbacks. Sceptical voices remained with regard to the scope of the challenges: “There is a lot of hope and creativity here, but I am afraid it will not be enough to meet the crises of our democracies.”

Questions and challenges
These different understandings of hope led to probing questions about its role in addressing contemporary challenges. This can be illustrated with some examples:

• Hope and insecurities: An interesting discussion emerged around how prior experiences shape people’s capacity for hope in times of insecurity and the polycrisis. Are those who lived through the post-communist transformation better equipped to remain hopeful during a crisis because insecurity is familiar? Conversely, have Western democracies grown ill-equipped to cope with the current polycrisis precisely because they’ve long been accustomed to wealth, security, and stability? If so, how might hope-based approaches help these societies embrace change rather than resist it?

• Hope and privilege: Another discussion explored the relationship between hope and privilege. Is it easier for people to feel hopeful when speaking from a privileged position? As the saying goes, “rich people worry about the end of the world, poor people worry about the end of the month.” Or does hope actually develop its full potential in situations where people simply cannot afford to feel hopeless because they face existential challenges, such as in post-conflict situations?

• Hope in times of war and terror: Panels on democratic resilience in Ukraine and reflections on the 22 July 2011 terrorist attacks in Norway offered powerful examples of how communities maintain hope and rebuild trust after profound trauma, lessons particularly relevant as societies across Europe grapple with their own experiences of instability.

• Hope in polarised societies: Several interconnected questions emerged about hope in polarised societies and in the current media landscape. As people are constantly confronted with a flood of information and frequent negative events, can hope-based communication counter the negative spin and disinformation flooding digital media?

• Hope between generations: Interestingly, hope is a common name in several languages, symbolising how a child represents the potential for a better future. A critical generational dynamic can be observed: While older generations place their hopes on the next generations, younger generations currently express less optimism and risk being marginalised in an ageing society. This raises fundamental questions about generational responsibilities and the urgent need to amplify young voices.

• Hope and the resilience of civic education: Finally, participants turned the lens inward. How can civic educators and activists maintain hope facing persistent setbacks, especially in authoritarian or non-responsive environments? The discussion revealed both vulnerability and determination, a recognition that staying open “to see the good in people and to also see the good in our world” requires conscious practice.

Hope and key concepts of civic education
Civic education need not reinvent itself around hope, but rather recognise how hope is already intrinsically linked to its main principles. Of course, this requires critically reflecting on its role in the face of current challenges. In the following, some examples are mentioned.

One important principle in civic education is the “expectation of self-efficacy”, the belief that one’s actions can make a difference. This emerged as a recurring theme, with participants describing hope as a necessary precondition for active societal engagement. Closely connected are two other key concepts: On the one hand, educators aim at creating spaces for individuals and groups to increase their capacity and confidence to take action (empowerment). On the other hand, they want to make sure that the current state of democracy and of society is not seen as naturally given, but can be changed through collective action (sense of agency). Hope was consistently discussed as a collective practice to change society for the better, with hope-based communication centering on the idea that humans are not powerless. As several noted, “destroying people’s hope is a power strategy”—making civic education’s role in nurturing hope both pedagogical and political.

“Future orientation” constitutes another principle of civic education that distinguishes it from related subjects. Civic education invites people not only to critique the current state of things, but also to imagine a better society and develop alternative positive visions worth striving for. Combined with “action orientation”, which emphasises acquiring and applying skills to actively participate in society and politics, this connects naturally to hope. Hope enables participants to develop creative, even utopian visions of alternative societies based on their values, while also identifying practical steps towards a better world. This resonates with a theory of change expressed by one speaker from the activist side: “Small islands of coherence can help shift the whole system to a higher order.”

Last but not least, thoughtful discussions emerged around the role of civic education in times of an authoritarian backlash and polarised societies. On the one hand, civic education cannot give up its normative orientation towards human rights and democracy. It should offer spaces in which authority and power can be critically examined. This also involves setting boundaries against discriminatory practices or empowering people to resist non-democratic behaviour. On the other hand, civic education must avoid preaching the “right cause” and appearing as self-righteous. This would limit not only its outreach but also deepen polarisation. A reminder that is particularly important as civic education and civil society are being politicised and face increasing hostilities and strategies of delegitimisation.

From HOPE to TRUST – contact zones in times of polarisation
Throughout the festival, speakers and participants highlighted the unifying power of personal encounters, where people with differing worldviews or political orientations meet and connect over common causes. Creating such “contact zones” resonated strongly. Civic educators are convinced that face-to-face encounters enable a positive experience of controversy and dialogue, even across group identities and political divides. In these spaces, participants can have the experience of both surprising agreement and respectful disagreement.

“Difficult conversations are key to building a more cohesive society”, participants insisted. This emphasis points naturally towards this year’s NECE theme and connects the topics of HOPE and TRUST. Civic education builds on the idea that it is always worth reaching out across deep divides. Hope enables us to take the first step towards others, to believe that meaningful connections are possible. But it is through the practice of encounter, through taking the time, listening, and engaging in difficult conversations that divides can be overcome and social trust can be strengthened.

The contact zones discussed during the festival may offer an antidote to the erosion of trust: spaces where people act as citizens rather than consumers, where they come together around shared concerns rather than retreat into opposing camps. These encounters don’t erase disagreement, but they can be one element to rebuild the social fabric necessary for democratic societies. However, a crucial reminder: Talking about hope—or trust—should not gloss over conflict or complexity. In civic education, it is essential to face disagreements openly, explore challenges deeply, and embrace ambiguity. Only then can meaningful conversations and sometimes solutions emerge.

As the NECE community gathers in Lisbon this year to explore TRUST, the Oslo conversations offer a foundation. Trust cannot be manufactured or mandated—it emerges from repeated practice, from sustained hope that connection is worthwhile, and from the courage to remain open even when it feels difficult. At the same time, it will be interesting to discuss which other elements are needed to not only rebuild social trust but also respond to the erosion of confidence in democratic institutions, political representation and the media.

*The NECE Festival: HOPE was organised by THE CIVICS Innovation Hub in partnership with the the European Wergeland Centre (EWC).

** NECE is financially supported by the German Federal Agency for Civic Education | bpb and led by THE CIVICS Innovation Hub.