Civic education in a changing world

A sophisticated analysis of modern warfare is not needed to be able to recognise that each new day presents a unique challenge for those of us engaged in the art of practicing civics – challenges unlike any we have encountered before.

What does it mean for our practice, activism, strategy, when we see societies becoming overwhelmingly shaped by chronic political violence, computerised warfare, and hybrid wars? How can we safeguard sovereignty, uphold democracy, and build resilience when fear, distrust, and apathy dominate the public sphere in almost every aspect of our daily lives?

We, at THE CIVICS, could not let this year pass without reflecting on these dilemmas, acknowledging how the evolution of modern warfare demands not just a rethinking of security, but a reimagining of how we prepare citizens to cope and make a difference to the perpetual flux that has taken over us.

Our final NECE lab for this year took place in Tallinn, Estonia, bringing together civic and peace educators, civil society actors, and foreign policy and security experts, to examine how civic education can empower individuals and communities to effectively cope with information manipulation, polarisation, and external aggressions, while strengthening democratic frameworks and trust in institutions.

Building resilience through civic education: Estonia’s response to modern threats

Estonia’s approach to resilience, shaped by its proximity to Russia, integrates security awareness into civic education. Approximately 200 schools have voluntarily implemented programmes covering topics from national defence to hybrid warfare. These initiatives are not militaristic but aim to prepare citizens for potential risks, fostering an informed society capable of withstanding disruptions such as cyberattacks or GPS signal interference, as highlighted by Riina Kaljurand, the director for Russia, Belarus, and Central Asia at Estonia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The notion of resilience also extends to the inclusivity and cohesion of Estonia’s diverse society, which includes a significant Russian-speaking minority and a growing Ukrainian refugee population. Kaljurand acknowledged the challenges of countering ethnic engineering – efforts to polarise communities along linguistic and cultural lines – but highlighted progress in bridging informational divides. Discussions about hybrid threats, she noted, not only educate but also build a shared awareness.

There are some concrete outcomes of Estonia’s proactive stance. Public trust in national defence capabilities, bolstered by NATO membership, remains robust, with 80% of Estonians expressing a willingness to participate in the country’s defence efforts. Voluntary defence organisations, comprising over 30,000 citizens, further underscore the country’s commitment to preparedness. These grassroots initiatives blend civic security training with practical education, maintaining a culture of vigilance without succumbing to fear or panic.

Values such as unity, inclusiveness, and resilience are not just abstract ideals but are integral to Estonia’s strategy for survival and self-determination. For Estonia, civic education is not merely about imparting knowledge but about creating a framework for collective action in defence of sovereignty and democracy.

© Carolina Kokk

Reckoning with resilience and reality: Germany’s shifting role in Europe’s defence framework

There is a stark contrast in readiness and resilience across Europe, particularly between Germany and Baltic nations like Estonia.

Estonia’s pragmatic integration of military service and national defence into everyday life differs significantly from Germany’s historical tendency toward a more optimistic view of Russia, shaped to a large extent by decades of post-Cold War optimism. Though, the belief in a predictable trajectory toward liberal democracy for powers like Russia and China has been profoundly challenged by events such as the annexation of Crimea and the war in Ukraine.

Currently, Germany’s reckoning with its defence posture remains fraught with tensions, as public debates on military spending and defence preparedness reveal an ongoing struggle to balance realism with pacifist sentiments.

A key challenge, as Christoph Eichhorn argued, is the looming uncertainty over the future of NATO’s collective defence framework, particularly in light of shifting U.S. defence priorities. The former German ambassador to Estonia warned that a potential reorientation of American policy toward Asia could leave Europe grappling with its own defence responsibilities – a scenario requiring both financial commitment and a fundamental cultural shift in Germany and across Europe. In the words of NATO’s head Mark Rutte, we must switch to a “wartime mindset”.

Europe’s resilience depends not just on military readiness but also on societal and political willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about security.

Reflecting on the role of security in civic education

There is a paradox in German civic education that, while the military emerged as the most trusted institution among German youth in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as per the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) results of 2022, civic education remains hesitant to engage with security and defence topics. This resistance stems from a deeply ingrained anti-militaristic tradition in education that frames the military as antithetical to democracy. At the NECE Lab panel, Prof. Dr. Hermann J. Abs questioned whether civic education adequately addresses the need to “defend” democracy, pointing to a critical gap in the language and philosophy of how democratic values are taught. According to him, maintaining democracy in today’s circumstances requires concepts of protection and defence to be openly discussed, even in schools. This would involve breaking traditional taboos, such as allowing military representatives to engage with students, and finding ways to incorporate security as an integral part of democratic education. Yet, there is resistance within the education sector and collaboration with civil society is required to bridge this divide.

Democracy’s Swiss Army knife

Some 3,000 kilometres south of Estonia, Tbilisi has continuously faced the security threat from Russia since 2008. With Russian troops stationed alarmingly close, Georgia’s borders seem to inch inward with each passing day.

Dr. Natia Natsvlishvili, a leader in education reform and human rights advocacy, has witnessed firsthand the transformative impact of civic education in inspiring democratic participation in Georgia. The ongoing protests of the past two weeks, which have become a battle over the country’s alignment with the East or West, are, according to Natsvlishvili, a testament to the integration of civic and human rights education in Georgian schools and universities. While the mass protests may seem surprising to some, Natsvlishvili sees them as the direct outcome of deliberate educational strategies developed over the past decade to foster democratic awareness and encourage active participation.

Natsvlishvili’s work has been instrumental to the adoption of the Council of Europe’s Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (RFCDC), with Georgia being the first European country to start implementing the framework, embedding it into teacher training, curricula, and institutional practices.

“This framework is like a golden key. You can open all kinds of doors with it,” Natsvlishvili commented, “like a Swiss Army knife – you cannot use it as a weapon and go to war with it, but it is an essential tool for survival”.

This initiative, backed by resources such as training modules, adaptable teaching materials, and a recognisable “democratic butterfly,” has reached even the most segregated rural areas of Georgia. However, the broader ambitions of the RFCDC implementation are not without challenges. The programme’s sustainability is threatened by authoritarian pressure from the government, societal resistance, and underfunded educational reforms.

Next steps for civic education

With our discussions in Tallinn, it became clear that civic education needs to fully embrace the realities of security and conflict. Its role is shifting from teaching democracy to helping citizens sustain and protect it. That means preparing people to face hybrid threats, fostering trust in democratic institutions, and encouraging collective action in the face of disruption. Conflict targets societies as much as states, and civic education must adapt to that.

*This NECE lab was curated by THE CIVICS Innovation Hub in partnership with the Network of Estonian Nonprofit Organisations and the Center for Democracy, DD Foundation.

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