1  

Civic  Education  via  Democracy  Assistance:    The  role  of  Young  Donors  in  Supporting  Youth  Participation  in  Democratizing  

Countries    

Paulina  Pospieszna  and  Aleksandra  Galus  Faculty  of  Political  Science  and  Journalism  Adam  Mickiewicz  University  of  Poznan  

 Workshop:  Citizenship,  Diversity,  Participation  and  Education  in  Times  of  Change  

ECPR  Joint  Sessions,  29.03-­‐2.04.2015,  Warsaw    Abstract    The  main  purpose  of  the  paper  is  to  analyse  externally  driven  youth  empowerment  strategies  in  Eastern  European  countries.  Specifically,  the  paper  demonstrates  the  attempts  of  third-­‐wave  democracies  in  building  and  increasing  the  activism  of  young  people  in  authoritarian  and  democratizing  countries.  Given  their  democratizing  potential,  young  people  become  a  common  target  group.  However,  whereas  a  role  of  youth  engagement  in  political  and  social  changes  has  been  already  widely  examined,  studies  regarding  civic  education  aid  to  support  the  idea  of  responsible  citizenship,  participation  and  activism  in  other  countries  are  scarce.  Thus,  in  our  paper  we  aim  to  fill  this  gap.    Civic  education,  i.e.  activities  aimed  to  teach  citizens  of  recipient  countries  basic  values,  knowledge,  and  skills  relating  to  democracy,  has  become  a  popular  form  of  promoting  democracy  by  Poland,  the  Czech  Republic,  and  Slovakia  in  countries  that  currently  struggling  with  democracy.  Our  goal  is  to  demonstrate  these  efforts  and  to  analyse  programs  aimed  at  educating  and  activating  young  people  to  be  more  socially  responsible  for  their  local  community,  region,  and  country.  In  our  study  we  take  a  closer  look  at  study  tours,  internships,  scholarships,  and  exchange  programs  organized  by  NGOs  from  young  donor  countries  (young  democracies)  for  young  people  from  Ukraine;  Belarus;  Russia  (Kaliningrad  Oblast);  Moldova;  and  Georgia.      Despite  an  important  contribution  to  a  better  understanding  how  youth  participation  is  being  built  through  civic  education,  this  paper  also  reveals  a  potential  of  cross-­‐border  cooperation  of  different  organizations  focused  on  educating  young  people  and  its  role  in  diffusing  democratic  ideas  and  behaviour.      Key  words:  democracy  assistance;  civic  education;  youth  participation;  empowerment;        Funding:  This  work  was  supported  by  National  Science  Centre  (NCN)  Poland  [grant  number  UMO-­‐2013/09/D/HS5/04381].        

  2  

Introduction      

Democracy  assistance  is  understood  as  an  effort  of  donors  to  spread  democracy  as  political  system  worldwide  (Carothers,  2009;  Finkel  et  al.,  2008;  Rakner,  Menocal  and  Fritz,  2007).  The  idea  of  democracy  assistance  is  to  boost  democratic  potential  within  target  countries  rather  than  providing  external  incentives  or  pressure  for  pro-­‐democratic  changes.  Although  democracy  assistance  is  not  entirely  new,  especially  assistance  coming  from  well-­‐established  Western  democracies,1  the  practice  of  supporting  the  development  of  democracy  in  countries  struggling  with  democratization  has  become  more  and  more  popular  among  young  democracies  which  not  so  long  ago  were  themselves  recipients  of  such  aid.2  Young  democracies  perceive  giving  democratic  aid  as  a  chance  to  share  their  own  experience  with  successful  transformation  thus  creating  environment  for  safer  neighbourhood  (Pospieszna  2014a).  

It  has  been  acknowledged  by  scholars  that  recent  pro-­‐democratic  changes  in  post-­‐communist  countries  have  not  only  been  driven  by  internal  forces.  For  example,  Bunce  and  Wolchik  (2006)  investigating  the  incidence  of  civil  society  upheavals  in  form  of  electoral  revolutions  in  the  post-­‐communist  region  come  to  conclusion  that  these  processes  process  of  diffusion  occurred  through  complex  cross-­‐national  collaborations  that  included  not  just  US  democracy  promoters  but  also  regional  democracy  promoters.  Pospieszna  (2014a)  exploring  the  involvement  of  Polish  organizations  before  and  during  the  2004  Orange  Revolution  in  Ukraine  finds  that  Pora’s  engagement  as  well  as  other  civil  society  organizations  grouping  young  people,  was  to  large  extent  motivated  by  long-­‐term  relationship  established  with  Polish  non-­‐governmental  organizations.  Young  people  also  become  an  important  civil  society  group  to  work  with  especially  in  authoritarian  countries,  like  Belarus,  where  cooperation  with  civil  society  organizations  has  been  restricted  (Pospieszna  2014a).      

Seeing  the  potential  especially  of  young  people  in  observable  democratization  processes  and  in  newly  established  democracies  as  well  as  the  role  of  young  democracies'  efforts  in  influencing  youth  from  other  countries,  it  is  important  to  explore  the  nature  of  support  to  young  people.  Therefore,  in  our  study  we  take  a  closer  look  at  some  projects  of  Central  and  Eastern  European  countries,  so-­‐called  young  donors,  directed  toward  youth  in  democratizing  countries,  such  as  Ukraine,  Moldova,  Georgia,  Russia,  and  authoritarian  country,  like  Belarus.  We  ask  the  following  questions:  Why  do  young  donors  support  young  people  in  other  countries?  What  type  of  youth  projects  do  they  implement  in  target  countries?  To  what  extent  have  their  own  experience  with  both  transformation  and  receiving  aid  shaped  their  view  on  how  to  support  young  people  in  democratizing  countries?  

In  order  to  answer  these  questions  we  performed  fieldworks  in  Poland  and  the  Czech  Republic  during  which  we  conducted  interviews  with  the  representatives                                                                                                                  1  Alesina  and  Dollar  (2000);  Burnell  (2000);  Carothers  (1999;  2004),  Diamond(1992);  Ottaway  and  Chung  (1999),  Youngs  (2006;2008)  2  Drążkiewicz-­‐Grodzicka  (2013),  Fialova,  Kucharczyk  and  Lovitt  (2008),  Lexmann  (2014),  Lightfoot  and  Szent-­‐Iványia  (2014),  Pospieszna  (2010;  2014a;  2014b),  Fialova  (2014).    

  3  

of  ministerial  aid  programs  that  engage  in  democracy  assistance  as  well  as  with  representatives  of  non-­‐governmental  organizations.  We  also  collected  materials  and  analysed  the  content  of  reports  and  various  documents.  In  addition  to  interviews  and  material  collection  we  also  employed  participant  observations  methodology  in  order  to  understand  better  the  requirements,  procedures  and  implementation  of  a  given  youth  program.    

We  find  that  many  of  the  projects  implemented  by  the  young  donors  take  a  form  of  civic  education  programs  with  aim  to  educate  for  democracy.  Interestingly  many  of  these  educational  projects  emphasize  participation  as  the  main  indicator  of  democracy.  The  goal  of  these  programs  is  to  encourage  young  people  to  become  participative  citizens  first  in  their  close  community,  region,  and  then  to  become  active  at  the  political  arena.  These  findings  make  four  important  contributions  to  theory  and  practice.  First,  by  showing  young  democracies’  efforts  to  influence  youth  participation  in  other  countries,  we  demonstrate  that  youth  activism  is  and  can  be  influenced  from  outside.  Second,  by  demonstrating  how  young  democratizes  support  youth  participation  abroad  through  different  educational  programs  we  learn  how  these  countries  conceptualize  democracy  and  the  importance  they  attach  to  the  role  of  participation  in  building  and  maintaining  democratic  regime.  Although  there  were  attempts  to  examine  the  impact  of  external  factors  (Bunce  and  Wolchik  2006;  Keck  and  Sikkink  1998;  Smith,  Chatfield,  and  Pagnucco,  1997;  Tarrow  1998  and  2005)  but  not  much  attention  has  been  devoted  to  the  promotion  of  democratic  values  through  youth  programs.  Third,  we  learn  that  civic  education  becomes  an  important  sphere  outside  the  school  educational  system.  Finally,  educational  programs  can  constitute  an  important  part  of  youth  empowerment  mechanism  as  well  as  the  form  of  sharing  other  countries’  experience  with  democracy.    

The  paper  proceeds  as  follows.  First,  we  review  the  literatures  on  youth  participation  and  its  role  for  democratization,  as  well  as  on  civic  education  for  democracy.    This  is  followed  by  the  analysis  of  young  donors  approach  to  support  young  people  in  partner  countries,  the  review  of  civic  educational  programs,  and  concluding  remarks.  

 Literature  Review      Youth  Participation  and  Democratization      

Democracy  in  principles  demands  from  the  citizens  to  participate  in  establishing  the  governance  at  different  levels  (e.g.  Dahl,  1989).  In  other  words,  it  requires  active  civil  society  to  maintain  the  checks  and  balances  on  democratic  life  (Putnam,  1993;  Almond  and  Verba,  1963).  The  process  of  democratization,  which  is  usually  defined  as  a  transition  consisting  on  different  stages,  from  the  “authoritarian  opening,”  through  liberalization  and  increased  participation  to  final  regime  change  (Gunther  et  al.,  1995),  highlights  civil  society’s  participation  as  an  important  component  of  pro-­‐democratic  change.  The  literature  abounds  with  studies  identifying  the  importance  of  civil  society  in  pro-­‐democratic  changes  and  transition  from  authoritarianism  to  democracy  all  over  the  world  (e.g.  Bernhard,  1993;  Bernhard  and  Kaya,  2012;  Diamond,  1996;  Ekiert,  2003,  Ekiert,  Kubik,  Vachudova,  

  4  

2007;  Henderson,  2003;  Linz  and  Stepan,  1996).  In  general,  civil  society  is  described  as  a  sphere  of  social  activities  and  organizations  based  on  volunteering,  tolerance  and  pluralism,  existing  separately  from  the  state,  the  market  and  the  private  sector  (Anheier,  2004;  Diamond,  1999;  Salamon,  Sokolowski,  and  List,  2003).  Although  there  is  a  lot  of  debates  on  the  essence  of  civil  society  which  has  been  even  named  as  “one  of  the  favourite  buzzwords”  (Carothers,  1999)  or  “a  bane  or  boon  for  democracies”  (Tusalem,  2007),  most  academics  agree  on  its  significance  for  modern  democracies  and  transition  processes  (e.g.  Ishkanian  et  al.,  2013;  Linz  and  Stepan,  1996;  Tusalem,  2007),  even  if  we  face  methodological  difficulties  with  measuring  civil  society  (Anheier,  2004;  Fioramonti  and  Heinrich,  2007;  Fowler,  2012).    

Scholars  and  practitioners  acknowledge  that  youth  participation  plays  a  special  role  in  building  and  developing  civil  society  and  thus  democracy  (UN,  2006).  First,  young  people  play  important  role  as  advocates  for  democratic  change  and  contestants  of  non-­‐democratic  regimes  through  mobilizing  protests,  uprisings,  and  peaceful  movements  (e.g.  Ezbawy,  2012;  Hoffman  and  Jamal,  2012).    It  was  clearly  visible  on  the  examples  on  youth  involvement  in  protests  during  the  Arab  Spring  (e.g.  Honwana,  2013;  Mulderig,  2013)  and  in  Ukraine  during  Orange  Revolution  (Diuk,  2012;  Diuk  2013)  and  during  Euromaidan  (Diuk,  2014).  Second,  young  people  participation  is  crucial  in  maintaining  the  democratic  regime.  In  democratic  states,  participation  as  a  fundamental  right  of  citizenship  refers  to  the  process  of  involving  people,  sharing  decisions  which  usually  affect  life  of  the  community  in  which  they  live,  therefore  young  people  should  also  use  this  right  (Checkoway,  2010;  Hart,  1992;  Utter,  2011).  The  participation  of  young  people  is  important,  because  “it  draws  upon  their  expertise,  enables  them  to  exercise  their  rights  as  citizens,  and  contributes  to  a  more  democratic  society”  (Checkoway,  2010,  p.  340).  Young  people  affect  positively  personal  and  social  development  of  entities,  provide  substantive  knowledge,  and  promote  democratic  values  and  democratic  society  (e.g.  Checkoway,  2010;  Head,  2010;  Rajani,  2001;  UN,  2006).  

Involvement  of  young  people  in  political  decision-­‐making  process  and  different  spheres  of  social  life  builds  a  good  foundation  for  their  participation  and  overall  engagement  in  public  affairs  in  the  adulthood  (Checkoway,  Tanene  and  Montoya,  2005;  Head,  2010).  Excluding  adolescents  from  this  process  would  mean  robbing  a  broad  group  of  citizens  from  their  natural  right  to  have  their  interests  and  to  be  involved  in  the  decisions  and  institutions  which  directly  affect  their  lives  (Rajani,  2001;  Utter,  2011).  According  to  the  Arnstein’s  ladder  of  citizen  participation,  in  which  particular  rungs  correspond  to  the  extent  of  peoples’  power  (Arnstein,  1969),  the  ladder  of  engagement  might  be  applied  also  to  young  people.  Eight  stages  of  children  and  teenagers’  participation,  from  manipulation  to  young  people-­‐led  activities  in  decision  making  processes,  show  clearly  that  civic  engagement  belongs  no  only  to  the  realm  of  adults,  and,  what  is  more,  youth  could  be  an  important  or  even  equal  partner  at  high  levels  of  participation  (Hart,  1992).  

However,  despite  the  merits  of  youth  participation,  young  people  are  not  always  perceived  as  equal  participants  in  social  and  political  life.  The  decline  of  political  participation  across  established  Western  democracies  (Putnam,  2000),  especially  among  young  people  (Fieldhouse,  Tranmer  and  Russel,  2007),  questioned  the  role  of  youth  participation  and  its  role  in  democracy  (Henn,  Weinstein  and  

  5  

Forrest,  2005).  United  Nations-­‐led  World  Programme  of  Action  for  Youth,  aimed  at  fostering  conditions  and  mechanisms  to  increase  opportunities  available  to  young  people  for  full  and  effective,  constructive  participation  in  society  all  over  the  world,  concludes  that  “societies  often  do  not  view  young  people  as  indispensable  contributors  to  policy  formulation,  evaluation  and  implementation”  (UN,  2006,  p.  80).    

The  problem  with  still  insufficient  acknowledgment  of  young  people’s  role  may  be  because  of  little  understanding  of  how  youth  themselves  see  and  relate  to  politics  (Banaji,  2008;  O’Toole,  2003).  Putnam  (2000),  for  instance,  contests  a  fear  of  youth  disengagement  and  suggests  that  for  young  people  the  norms  of  participation  have  shifted  from  turning  away  from  voting  and  involvement  in  political  parties  into  volunteering  and  protest  activities.  Whatever  causes  difficulties  with  answering  the  questions  about  the  nature  of  young  people’  engagement  in  democracy  and  democratization  processes;  it  could  be  certainly  omitted  by  simply  getting  to  know  with  youth  better.  Given  more  attention  to  young  people,  it  can  be  noted  that  youth  engages  differently  than  previous  generations,  for  example  by  using  new  media  (Hoffman  and  Jamal,  2012;  Olsson,  2008).  Young  people  at  first  glimpse  might  seem  to  be  less  likely  to  actively  participate  which  is  determined  by  the  lifecycle  and  generation  effects  (Quintelier,  2007).  In  addition  to  this,  politically  apathetic  adolescents  should  not  be  demonized  and  compared  to  older  voters  as  a  group  with  totally  different  characteristics  (Mycock  and  Tonge,  2014).    

Undoubtedly,  the  enormous  potential  of  youth  in  terms  of  civic  engagement  should  not  be  wasted  and  thus  its  participation  became  a  focal  point  on  youth  empowerment  agenda  and  over  last  two  decades.    

 Youth  Empowerment  through  Civic  Education    

 A  great  number  of  scholarly  work  has  been  devoted  to  how  participation  

should  look  like,  and  how  to  strengthen  youth  as  a  part  of  civil  society  (Banaji,  2008).  Despite  an  overall  agreement  on  the  necessity  of  youth  empowerment  in  terms  of  participation,  there  is  no  consensus  in  the  literature  on  how  exactly  this  political  and  social  potential  of  young  people  should  be  boosted  effectively.  Usually  the  scientific  reflections  on  political  and  social  engagement  of  adolescents  are  directed  towards  assessing  its  importance.    

In  our  study  we  embark  on  explaining  how  youth  participation  can  be  facilitated  and  increased  especially  in  countries  struggling  with  democracy.  We  argue  that  this  participation  requires  a  youth  empowerment  mechanism,  which  might  not  be  created  from  within,  but  rather  from  outside  the  country.    Youth  empowerment  is  a  process  which  builds  young  people’  sense  of  power,  as  well  as  their  ability  to  affect  power  relationships  in  communities  they  belong  to  (Checkoway,  1997;  Delgrado  and  Staples,  2008;  Head,  2010).  Successful  involvement  of  young  people  would  be  possible  only  when  they  will  perceive  themselves  as  a  group  that  “can  create  change,  or  when  they  have  ideas  but  are  unsure  how  to  proceed”  (Checkoway,  2010,  p.  343)  and  also  when  participation  is  made  accessible  and  relevant  to  them  (Mycock  and  Tonge,  2014,  p.  3).  The  domestic  empowerment  mechanisms  in  the  authoritarian  states  or  countries  that  only  

  6  

recently  began  democratization  process  are  usually  insufficient  to  create  such  opportunities  for  young  people,  or  they  simply  do  not  exist.    

To  empower  youth  it  is  necessary  to  understand  properly  how  young  people  participate  in  political  life  nowadays,  what  participation  and  activism  means  to  them,  and  on  the  basis  of  this  knowledge,  how  to  educate  youth  effectively.  We  argue  that  the  process  of  empowerment  that  aims  at  encouraging  young  people  to  become  active  and  participative  citizens  starts  with  civic  education.    

Commonly,  the  term  citizenship  education  has  been  associated  with  a  subject  at  schools  (Solhaug  2013)  that  aims  to  provide  knowledge  about  political  concepts,  political  processes  and  institutions  at  various  governmental  levels,  as  well  as  to  increase  understanding  of  citizens’  engagement  in  decision-­‐making  process.  Remarkable  efforts  to  rethink  civic  education  might  be  seen  in  last  ten  to  fifteen  years.  Much  attention  has  been  paid  to  civic  education  in  terms  of  evaluation  and  improvement  of  school-­‐based  education  aimed  at  developing  democratic  knowledge  and  skills  (Campbell,  2007;  Campbell,  2008;  Lawy  and  Biesta,  2009;  Martens,  2012;  Veugelers,  2011).  After  reviewing  the  classical  literature  on  democratic  citizenship  (e.g.  Almond  and  Verba,  1963;  Biesta,  Lawy,  and  Kelly,  2009),  Print  (2013)  presents  five  dimensions  of  active  citizen:  knowledge,  skills,  attitudes,  values,  and  intended  behaviour/dispositions,  which  may  constitute  an  integrated  approach  to  civic  education.    Print  and  Lange  (2012)  and  Print  (2013)  recognize  those  dimensions  as  the  basis  for  education  and  enhancing  civic  competences  within  schools  through  the  formal  but  also  informal  school  curriculum.  

However,  the  need  to  improve  youth'  engagement  in  decision-­‐making  process  through  developing  skills  of  critical  thinking,  debating,  and  undertaking  civic  and  political  activities  by  young  people  and  encouraging  them  to  actively  participate  and  instil  democratic  values,  challenged  citizenship  education  as  a  subject  at  schools  (Mycock  and  Tonge,  2014).  According  to  Himmelmann  (2013,  p.  3),  we  can  observe:  

“a  new  and  specified  form  of  ‘democratic  citizenship  education’  beyond  just  civics’,  for  a  new  way  of  ‘teaching  democracy’  beyond  teaching  institutional  political  settings  or  a  new  ‘education  of,  for  and  through  democracy’  beyond  mere  teacher-­‐centered  instruction  in  politics”    

 Thus,  citizenship  education  (sometimes  is  referred  to  as  “civic  education”  or  

“education  for  democracy”),  which  includes  educational  efforts  in  order  to  strengthen  democracy  and  qualify  citizens  for  participation,  has  become  not  only  the  domain  of  schools  and  national  educational  systems,  but  also  other  actors  who  engage  in  this  field.  The  need  for  educating  young  people  for  being  more  active  citizens  seem  to  be  more  and  more  popular  approach  among  non-­‐governmental  organizations  both  domestic  and  international  (Schulz,  2008;  UNESCO,  2014).  Civic  education  seems  to  be  interrelated  with  empowering  youth  and  building  well-­‐functioning  and  strong  civil  society  (Maroshek-­‐Klarman  1996).    It  is  believed  that  NGOs  citizenship  education'  projects  are  part  of  youth  empowerment  mechanism  aimed  at  increasing  youth  participation  in  civic  life.      

However,  there  are  two  important  gaps  in  the  literature  that  we  aim  to  fill.  First,  we  still  have  little  knowledge  about  ways  in  which  youth  participate  in  social  

  7  

and  political  life  (van  Deth,  2013)  and  the  direct  and  indirect  role  that  citizenship  education  plays  in  activating  young  people  (Biesta,  2011;  Galston,  2001;  Lawy  and  Biesta,  2009).  Second,  little  is  known  whether  and  how  citizens  can  be  educated  about  the  idea  of  responsible  citizenship  and  participation  outside  educational  system  and  whether  and  how  important  role  can  play  non-­‐governmental  organizations  in  this  process.  Therefore  in  our  study  we  aim  to  fill  this  gap  by  studying  civic  education  efforts  of  non-­‐governmental  organizations,  especially  from  other  countries.  We  believe  that  NGOs  from  young  democracies  have  unique  perspectives  and  approach  to  teach  and  promote  democratic  values.  In  this  paper  we  would  like  to  present  these  efforts  to  influence  young  people,  analyse  them  in  terms  of  their  potential  to  stimulate  activeness  among  youth  through  civic  education  projects.      Empirical  Part      Young  Donor  Countries  Supporting  Youth  Activism  Abroad      

The  aim  of  the  paper  is  to  explore  how  youth  participation  is  being  built  through  civic  education  programs  funded  by  the  young  donors.  We  focus  on  the  young  donors  from  the  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  that  twenty  years  ago  were  recipients  of  democracy  aid  themselves.  These  countries  became  active  in  aid  provision  especially  after  joining  the  European  Union  that  requires  from  its  members  contribution  to  the  Community’s  multilateral  aid  provision  as  well  as  the  establishment  of  bilateral  aid.  As  the  result,  the  bilateral  aid  of  new  member  states  from  Visegrad  group,  is  channelled  through  special  governmental  programs  established  under  Ministries  of  Foreign  Affairs,  such  as  Polish  Aid,  Czech  Transition  Promotion  Program,  Slovak  Aid,  and  the  Department  for  International  Development  Co-­‐operation.  Whereas  the  volume  of  aid  is  conditioned  by  its  membership  in  the  EU,  a  choice  of  recipient  countries  is  not,  and  the  governments  of  these  countries  may  decide  which  countries  they  want  support  and  for  what  purposes  they  want  to  spend  their  monies.  It  has  become  obvious  that  foreign  policy  defines  the  choice  of  possible  recipient  countries,  which  for  Poland  for  example  would  be  her  direct  neighbours:  Ukraine  and  Belarus.  Also,  new  members  have  chosen  to  spend  much  of  its  bilateral  aid  for  democracy  assistance  activities,  in  which  they  claim  to  have  a  comparative  advantage.    

However,  the  involvement  in  democracy  assistance  of  these  countries  precedes  the  creation  of  the  above-­‐mentioned  governmental  programs.  The  non-­‐governmental  organizations  in  these  countries  already  in  the  1990s  began  democracy  assistance  projects  in  partner  countries,  such  as  in  Belarus,  Ukraine,  Moldova,  Georgia,  the  Western  Balkan  countries,  and  continue  this  form  of  cooperation  until  today.  In  fact  the  realization  of  democracy  assistance  by  Visegrad  countries  would  not  be  possible  without  work  of  domestic  NGOs.    NGOs  are  perceived  the  main  partners  in  democracy  promotion,  especially  because  of  their  knowledge  and  skills,  and  even  more  importantly  because  of  their  ability  to  reach  target  groups  in  partner  countries,  as  well  as  because  the  foreign  government  cannot  directly  support  civil  society  in  other  countries.  In  addition  to  governmental  

  8  

sources,  the  NGOs  in  all  Visegrad  countries  receive  funds  for  democracy  assistance  projects  from  the  old  donor  countries—the  United  States  government-­‐funded,  privately  run  US-­‐based  non-­‐profit  organizations  and  private  donors  and/or  the  Western  European  governmental  and  quasi-­‐governmental  donor  agencies—as  well  as  from  jointly  established  International  Visegrad  Fund.    

Many  of  NGOs  in  Visegrad  countries  that  are  involved  in  democracy  assistance  projects  in  other  countries,  were  very  active  during  the  democratization  processes  and  contributed  to  important  changes  in  their  countries.  They  also  were  recipients  of  aid  themselves.  These  two  important  experiences  as  well  as  openness  of  partner  countries  for  cooperation  explain  the  NGOs  involvement  in  sharing  transition  experience.  As  expressed  by  one  of  the  NGO  activists:    

 “It  is  our  added  value  as  compared  to  France,  for  example,  that  we  have  this  experience   [with   transition   toward   democracy],   we   have   some   ‘lesson  learned’  about  what  was  good,  what  was  less  successful,  and  this  is  one  of  the  reasons  why   some   countries   are  more  willing   to   cooperate  with   the   Czech  Republic   than   with   other   countries   that   are   far   away   not   only   from  geographical  but  also  from  mental  point  of  view.”3  

 The  NGOs  experiences  undoubtedly  also  shaped  their  view  on  how  other  

countries  should  be  assisted  in  their  struggle  to  democracy.  They  also  had  a  chance  to  learn  from  the  mistakes  of  their  donors,  which  also  helped  them  develop  a  unique  form  of  passing  their  experience  and  a  good  example  to  other  countries,  which  also  many  interviewees  for  this  project  claim  to  be  more  effective.    This  form  is  called:  partnership  (sometimes  referred  to  as  “cross-­‐border  work”).  Partnership  means  that  Czech  and  Georgian  NGOs,  for  example,  share  responsibility  and  tasks  over  implementation,  and  that  Czech  organization  assists,  rather  than  imposes  upon,  the  Georgian  partner  what  and  how  should  be  done.  The  partnership  also  means  greater  ownership  of  the  project.  The  partner  in  the  target  country  communicates  the  needs  and  then  the  project  outline  is  agreed  before  applying  for  the  grant  to  donors.  This  form  of  projects  is  also  promoted  by  the  governmental  aid  programs  in  Poland,  Czech,  and  Slovakia,  which  often  require  from  the  domestic  NGOs  to  demonstrate  such  partnership  while  applying  for  funding.  Also  many  Western  donors  of  Polish  NGOs  projects  stress  the  importance  of  partnership.  The  National  Endowment  for  Democracy,  which  is  still  one  of  the  major  US  donors  funding  Visegrad  countries’  project  in  the  Eastern  Europe,  is  more  likely  to  finance  projects  that  demonstrate  incorporate  partners.      

If  the  direct  participation  of  the  partner  in  implementation  phase  is  not  required,  the  partner  can  be  engaged  in  preparation  phase,  for  example  may  engage  in  searching  for  possible  targets  or  simply  serve  as  so-­‐called  “local  points”—offering  assistance  or  advice  if  needed  as  well  as  disseminate  information  about  the  project.  All  representatives  of  governmental  and  non-­‐governmental  entity  engaged  in  democracy  assistance  interviewed  for  this  study  share  an  opinion  that  partnership                                                                                                                  3  Interview  with  Radomir  Spok,  Executive  director  of  the  EUROPEUM  Institute  for  European  Policy,  Prague,  February  17,  2015.  

  9  

is  the  added  value  of  democracy  assistance  offered  by  Visegrad  countries.  Because  the  partners  know  better  how  to  promote  the  project  to  the  local  community,  as  well  as  has  better  knowledge  about  the  needs  of  the  local  community,  the  project  has  a  greater  chance  to  be  better  tailored  to  the  needs  of  the  beneficiaries  of  the  projects,  which  in  turn  may  contribute  to  the  overall  success  of  the  project  (Gajowik  and  Skoczkowa  2011,  27).4  Second,  more  importantly,  such  relationship  with  partners  that  lasts  for  years  may  contribute  to  overall  better  way  of  diffusing  democratic  ideas  and  values.  In  case  of  one  of  the  Czech  organizations,  People  in  Need,  such  lasting  cooperation  led  to  the  creation  of  local  offices  in  partner  countries  that  employ  the  local  people  working  closely  with  other  organizations,  often  allowing  them  after  some  time  to  fully  to  take  over  the  projects.    

Why  do  the  NGOs  find  it  important  to  support  youth  activism  in  Ukraine,  Belarus,  Moldova,  Georgia  as  well  as  in  some  Western  Balkan  countries?  Young  people  are  perceived  as  an  important  component  of  civil  society,  the  generation  that  is  the  future  of  these  countries,  therefore  it  is  crucial  to  work  with  young  people  especially  in  age  range  15-­‐25,  because  in  this  age  their  opinions  and  attitudes  are  being  formed  and  thus  can  be  influenced.  Moreover,  the  young  people  in  these  countries  demonstrate  some  interest  in  being  active  citizens  in  contrast  to  their  parents  who  lived  in  communism  and  have  been  very  passive,  and  do  not  think  they  can  change  or  improve  anything.5  Activation  of  young  people  is  about  increasing  the  quality  of  citizen  competencies  through  rising  awareness  and  empowering  them  so  that  they  can  be  included  in  the  public  life,  especially  decision-­‐making  process  at  the  local  level.  However,  there  is  also  the  other  side  of  the  coin:  the  support  for  youth  is  also  justified  for  more  practical  reasons—to  create  more  secure,  stable  and  friendly  neighbourhood  that  in  turn  may  lead  to  mutually  fruitful  political  and  economic  cooperation  between  the  countries.    

Believing  that  the  active  citizenship  starts  with  education,  many  youth  projects  take  a  form  of  civic  education,  i.e.  activities  aimed  to  teach  citizens  of  target  countries  basic  values,  knowledge,  and  skills  relating  to  democracy.  Civic  education  is  practiced  either  through  activities  organized  in  the  partner  countries,  such  as  providing  didactic  materials  to  schools,  organizing  workshops,  discussions  and  knowledge  contests,  or  through  activities  offered  outside  their  own  country:  summer  schools,  internships,  scholarships,  exchange  programs,  and  study  missions  programs.  Unfortunately  it  has  turned  out  to  be  very  difficult  to  collect  information  about  all  civic  education  programs  implemented  by  the  Polish,  Czech,  Slovak  and  Hungarian  organizations  in  the  target  countries,  because  during  two  decades  of  offering  such  projects  funded  through  different  donors  and  via  various  program  schemes  we  will  risk  losing  some  projects  and  thus  provide  incomplete  data  if  we  decide  to  create  such  database.  Thus,  instead  of  showing  some  statistics,  we  would  like  to  provide  some  examples  of  different  types  of  civic  education  programs  and  to  elaborate  more  on  one  of  the  program  we  were  invited  to  participate  in.    

                                                                                                               4  Ibid.    5  Interview  with  Pavla  Štefanová,  Regional  coordinator  for  Southern  Caucasus,  Eastern  Europe,  Western  Balkans,  and  Mongolia  in  non-­‐governmental  organization  'People  In  Need',  Prague,  February  17,  2015.  

  10  

Civic  Education  Programs  of  NGOs  from  Visegrad  Countries      

As  an  example  of  civic  education  project  implemented  by  NGOs  from  Visegrad  countries  in  a  partner  country  can  serve  project  by  Czech  organization  People  in  Need  directed  toward  young  people  from  Georgia.  Within  this  project,  more  than  250  Georgian  schools  received  educational  toolkits  consisting  of  documentary  films  and  didactic  materials  used  to  teach  students  being  an  active  and  responsible  citizen.6  The  movies,  which  were  on  controversial  topic  not  discussed  enough  within  the  society,  such  as  human  rights,  exclusion  of  some  groups,  served  as  staring  point  for  discussion  and  interactive  games  afterwards.  The  films,  which  were  watched  by  over  27,000  students  aimed  at  rising  awareness,  educating  and  thus  activating  these  young  people.  People  in  Need  proudly  reports  that  these  initiatives  led  to  the  creation  of  various  actions,  such  as  Children’s  Rights  Club  by  young  people,  also  motivated  them  to  participate  in  civic  initiatives  and  to  proactively  solve  concrete  problems  in  their  local  community.  

Some  civic  education  programs  implemented  in  the  partner  country  may  take  a  form  of  the  knowledge  contest.  Czech  organization  and  think  tank  named  EUROPEUM  belonging  to  PASOS,  the  association  that  promotes  and  protects  open  society  values,  including  democracy,  the  rule  of  law,  and  respect  and  protection  for  human  right’s  by  supporting  the  entities  promoting  the  integration  within  the  EU,  has  organized  such  contests.  The  program,  sponsored  since  2003  by  the  Czech  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  International  Visegrad  Fund,  involved  participants  from  all  over  the  world  with  strong  representation  from  South  and  Eastern  European  non-­‐EU  member  countries.  The  contest  motivated  students  to  learn  about  the  idea  of  European  integration,  as  well  as  political,  social,  and  security  issues,  and  their  knowledge  was  tested  in  two  rounds:  online  test,  and  analytical  essay  on  the  topic  that  the  organizer  provided.  The  third  round  was  at  the  same  time  a  prize  for  the  students  because  the  winners  (a  group  of  third  people)  were  invited  to  come  to  Prague  for  one-­‐week  visit  during  which  they  participated  in  workshops  and  seminars.    

However,  bulk  of  civic  education  programs  are  implemented  outside  the  partner  country.  These  could  be  for  various  reasons.  First,  more  practical,  events  scheduled  in  Visegrad  countries  engage  many  experts  and  include  activities  that  would  be  realized  in  partner  countries.  Second,  especially  in  case  of  authoritarian  countries  like  Belarus  who  have  been  subject  to  unusually  strong  indoctrination  in  schools  and  universities,  bringing  a  group  of  young  people  to  one  of  the  Visegrad  countries  can  be  more  promising  because  such  visit  exposes  young  people  to  life  in  the  democratic  country,  and  may  encourage  them  to  act  as  advocates  of  pro-­‐democratic  changes.  Third,  simply  the  idea  of  some  educational  projects  does  not  allow  for  a  different  form,  and  such  project  are  scholarships,  internships,  summer  schools,  exchange  programs,  and  study  missions  programs.  

                                                                                                               6  Source  of  this  information  is  “People  in  Need.  Annual  Report  2013”  obtained  during  the  meeting  with  Pavla  Štefanová,  Regional  coordinator  for  Southern  Caucasus,  Eastern  Europe,  Western  Balkans,  and  Mongolia.    

  11  

The  most  popular  scholarships  are  the  Lane  Kirkland  Scholarship  offered  to  young  leaders  from  the  Eastern  European  countries,  the  Western  Balkans,  and  some  Central  Asian  countries,  as  well  as  the  Kalinowski  Scholarship  offered  to  Belarusian  students  only.  The  aim  of  these  initiatives  is  to  allow  the  participants  learn  about  Polish  experiences  with  economic,  social,  and  political  transformation  either  directly  through  education  they  receive  when  studying  at  Polish  universities,  or  indirectly  through  holding  a  student  status  and  living  in  Poland.  The  Kalinowski  Scholarship  is  directed  toward  Belarusian  students  refused  to  study  or  expelled  from  Belarusian  universities  because  of  their  anti-­‐regime  activity.  These  students    have  a  chance  to  continue  their  education  at  Warsaw  University.  7  In  addition  to  receiving  scholarships,  there  are  some  events  organized  outside  the  university  in  which  the  students  participate.  Kirkland  scholars,  however,  are  young  leaders  from  public  administration,  academia,  business,  media  or  politics.  Participants  in  the  program  take  courses  and  do  research  in  areas  of  interest,  such  as  economics,  management,  public  administration,  business  administration,  law,  and  social  sciences.  Additionally,  a  scholarship  can  be  supplemented  with  internships  in  governmental  and  private  institutions  creating  the  opportunity  to  the  young  people  to  work  with  specialists  in  the  field  and  learn  from  them.    Another  example  of  civic  education  programs  is  summer  school.  EUROPEUM  organizes  such  programs  every  year  in  order  to  teach  universities’  students  from  non-­‐EU  countries  about  the  European  Union,  political  and  economic  integration,  about  the  European  values,  what  the  benefits  to  citizens  are—from  the  Central  and  Eastern  European  (new  member  states)  perception.      

In  addition  to  scholarships,  internships  and  summer  schools,  some  NGOs  from  Visegrad  countries  chose  to  organize  exchange  programs  between  young  people.  On  a  larger  scale  than  others  is  RAZOM  project,  the  project  implemented  by  the  PAUCI  organization  and  funded  by  the  Polish  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  which  is  an  exchange  program  with  Ukrainian  young  people.  Every  year  young  people  from  both  countries  get  together  and  work  on  common  projects.  Within  this  initiative,  young  people  from  Ukrainian  and  Polish  partner  schools  are  engaged  in  joint  activities  of  different  kinds,  from  soccer  games  to  protecting  the  common  cultural  heritage.  As  representative  of  PAUCI  organization  said:  “these  are  maybe  not  ambitious  projects;  but  they  mobilize  young  people  to  do  something  together  and  learn  about  each  other  and  get  teachers  interested  in  some  initiatives,  as  well.”8       Finally,  we  would  like  to  present  civic  education  efforts  through  study  missions.  This  forms  of  educating  young  people  about  what  democracy  is  for  an  ordinary  citizen  and  how  it  functions  has  been  chosen  by  Polish  NGOs:  the  "Borussia"  Foundation,  and  the  Jan  Nowak-­‐Jeziorański  College  of  Eastern  Europe  (KEW),  as  well  as  Education  for  Democracy  Foundation  (FED).  The  organizations  jointly  implement  the  project  Study  Tours  to  Poland  for  students,  which  is  one  of  the  first  civic  educational  Polish  projects  directed  toward  young  people  from  Eastern  

                                                                                                               7  The  Center  for  East  European  Studies  of  Warsaw  University  together  with  the  Ministry  of  Science  and  Higher  Education  has  been  implementing  the  program.    8  Jan  Piekło,  Director  of  Poland-­‐Ukrainian  Cooperation  Foundation  (PAUCI),  interviewed  by  Paulina  Pospieszna,  Warsaw,  June  30,  2008.  

  12  

Europe.  Every  year  over  200  students  from  Belarus,  Moldova,  Ukraine  and  the  Russian  Federation  come  for  a  two-­‐week  visit  to  Poland  in  order  to  “meet  Poland,”  however  the  main  purpose  of  this  program  is  to  “provide  an  incentive  for  the  students  to  actively  participate  in  public  life  and  become  aware  citizens.”9  Students  meet  with  Polish  governmental  officials,  local  authorities,  they  visit  various  public  institutions,  media  outlets,  and  Polish  companies.  The  participants  also  meet  with  students  at  the  Universities  and  with  representatives  of  student  associations,  as  well  as  with  representatives  of  Polish  non-­‐governmental  organizations.    

The  question  is  why  study  missions  might  be  a  good  form  of  sharing  Polish  experience  with  democracy  and  educating  the  young  people  from  partner  countries  about  functioning  of  democratic  state.  When  we  asked  this  question  we  received  and  answer  “It  is  better  to  see  once  than  hear  about  it  a  thousand  times.”10  We  also  learnt  that  the  order  of  activities  planned  for  students  is  not  random,  i.e.  the  agenda  should  be  well-­‐prepared.  This  means  two  things.  First,  to  ensure  that  students  can  have  a  chance  to  actively  participate  in  scheduled  events,  the  group  of  hundred  students,  who  come  to  Poland  in  a  given  edition  (there  are  two  editions  per  year:  autumns  and  spring),  is  divided  into  smaller  groups  of  eleven  to  thirteen  students.  Each  group  is  led  by  a  so-­‐called  STP  operator,  who  is  Polish  NGO  that  because  of  its  experience  and  proven  capabilities,  is  selected  to  take  care  of  a  group  of  participants.  Second,  the  role  of  an  operator  is  to  make  sure  that  the  students  knowledge  about  democracy,  authorities’  responsibilities,  civic  and  political  freedoms,  as  well  as  the  role  of  a  citizen  in  the  society  is  introduced  in  the  proper  time  and  place.    

It  is  worth  elaborating  about  the  organizational  side  of  the  project  itself  because  it  shows  how  the  goal  of  this  youth  project  is  fulfilled  and  also  how  in  this  particular  case  study,  the  young  democratic  country  aims  to  promote  democracy  as  a  political  system.  The  mixed  four  to  five  groups  that  include  students  from  Ukraine,  Moldova,  Russia,  and  Belarus  are  hosted  by  one  of  the  Polish  NGOs  who  are  carefully  selected  in  competition.  These  NGOs  have  to  demonstrate  their  experience  with  youth  projects,  they  have  to  prepare  a  detailed  plan  of  the  activities  according  to  the  strict  guidelines  provided  by  the  organizers,  which  stress  that  it  is  not  important  what  is  being  shown  but  how.  It  is  important  to  practice  various  forms  that  allow  for  students’  engagement:  discussion,  workshops,  presentations,  and  lectures.    

“The  perspective  from  inside”  the  democratic  country  that  the  students  have  a  chance  to  get,  is  not  random.  The  order  of  events  planned  for  this  twelve-­‐day  visit  matters.  Namely,  first  the  students  learn  about  Polish  road  toward  democracy  from  the  historical  point  of  view,  including  Poland’s  path  toward  becoming  a  member  of  the  European  Union.  Then  they  visit  governmental  institutions  like  the  Polish  Parliament,  the  President’s  house  and  hear  about  the  functioning  of  these  intuitions,  or/and  they  visits  local  offices  and  meet  with  Presidents  of  the  cities,  voivodships,  during  which  they  can  learn  about  the  division  of  power  between  central  and  lower-­‐

                                                                                                               9http://www.studytours.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47:main-­‐2&catid=1:latest-­‐news&Itemid=54&lang=en    10  Ewa  Romanowska,  Member  of  management  of  non-­‐governmental  organization  Borussia  Foundation,  interviewed  by  Paulina  Pospieszna,  Warsaw,  February  11,  2015.  

  13  

level  units  in  Poland.  After  having  a  general  view  on  how  the  democratic  institutions  in  Poland  were  build  and  how  they  now  serve  the  society,  the  students  can  learn  about  the  citizens’  obligations  and  rights.  Thus  best  way  is  familiarize  them  with  work  of  non-­‐governmental  organizations,  and  media.  For  this  purpose,  they  take  part  in  meetings,  workshops  and  discussions  organized  by  the  NGOs,  as  well  as  at  radio  stations  or  newspapers.  Additionally,  students  meet  with  their  student  fellows  at  the  Polish  universities  and  have  a  chance  to  see  how  they  build  their  community,  socialize  and  organize  various  events.    Finally  to  better  understand  the  links  between  democracy  and  market  economy  they  also  have  a  chance  to  visit  Polish  companies.    

Having  the  insights  from  how  the  program  is  run,  we  can  also  infer  on  how  the  youth  participation  is  promoted  among  the  participants.  The  idea  of  participation  is  already  strongly  emphasized  in  recruitment  procedure  itself  of  the  program.  First  of  all,  the  young  people,  aged  between  18  and  21,  are  applying  individually  to  the  program  that  for  the  students  from  these  countries  is  already  unusual,  because  it  is  neither  the  universities’  officials  nor  teaching  instructor  are  deciding  whether  they  qualify  or  not.11  The  recruitment  procedure  requires  from  the  young  people  to  be  responsible  for  their  application  and  to  demonstrate  competiveness  skills  and  entrepreneurship.  Second,  in  the  call  for  applications  the  organizers  stress  that  are  looking  for  the  young  people  who  not  only  show  good  school  performance  but,  more  importantly,  are  socially  active—either  in  a  school  environment  or  beyond.  The  students  should  fill  not  only  standard  application  in  which  they  should  list  any  memberships  in  organizations,  participation  in  various  social  events,  but  also  answer  in  a  few  sentences  four  questions,  such  as:  How  did  you  find  out  about  the  STP  and  what  did  interest  you  the  most  in  this  program?  How  people  view  you  as  a  person?  What  does  civic  participation  mean  for  you?  What  is  your  association  with  Poland  as  a  country?  Moreover,  they  should  ask  and  provide  recommendation  letters  that  confirm  their  activeness.    

Since  the  goal  of  this  youth  program  is  to  encourage  and  empower  the  young  people  from  the  post-­‐communist  countries  to  participate  in  a  society  and  to  be  an  active  citizens  who  in  the  future  might  become  political  elites,  the  recruitment  procedure  is  designed  in  the  way  that  such  predisposition  among  the  candidates  is  not  missed.  However,  it  requires  participation  observation  to  understand  how  much  the  program  organizers  value  some  inclines  toward  participation  among  the  candidates.  Once  the  ranking  list  of  students  from  each  country  is  prepared,  based  on  the  evaluation  in  three  categories:  school  performance  (including  grades  and  other  school  activity),  participation  (in  youth,  civic  and  other  organizations),  and  answers  to  the  above  question,  the  organizers  make  a  final  decision  during  the  recruitment  committee  meeting.  During  such  a  gathering,  the  members  of  the  committee  review  again  the  applications  of  candidates  who  were  able  to  secure  high  positions  in  the  ranking  list  and  as  well  as  those  were  placed  below  the  cut-­‐off  to  make  sure  that  that  any  potentially  good  candidates  were  not  missed.  As  the  result  we  saw  that  a  few  candidates  were  promoted  up  the  list  and  eventually  got  the  

                                                                                                               11  Interview  with  Ewa  Romanowska,  Borussia  Foundation,Warsaw,  February  11,  2015.  

  14  

program  because  although  they  did  not  have  excellent  grades  but  proved  to  show  social  activeness  that  distinguished  them  from  the  others.12  

In  order  to  understand  better  young  people  and  their  overall  engagement  in  society,  we  took  a  closer  look  at  the  profile  of  participants  selected  to  the  program:  thirty-­‐one  Belarusian  students,  eleven  from  Moldova,  eighteen  from  Russia,  and  seventy  from  Ukraine.  We  found  that  many  young  people  participate  in  various  types  of  organizations,  such  as  cultural  organizations,  human  rights  organizations,  legal  organizations,  media  outlets,  ethnic/national  minority’s  organizations,  entrepreneurs'  organizations,  political  youth  organizations,  sport  organizations,  student  organizations,  student  parliaments  and  councils,  and  disability  organizations.  In  these  organizations  young  people  usually  act  as  volunteers  or  interns  and  are  responsible  for  such  activities  as:  advertising;  public  relations,  and  overall  promotion;  cooperation  with  media;  cooperation  with  other  entities;  fundraising;  organization  of  different  events,  debates  and  discussions;  translations;  writing;  elections  observation;  and  work  with  main  beneficiaries  of  organizations’  activities:  disable  people,  elderlies,  orphans,  and  socially  excluded.    

The  analysis  of  the  participants  shows  that  young  people  even  in  an  authoritarian  state  like  Belarus,  have  a  great  potential  to  play  important  role  in  a  society  and  that  in  order  to  boost  their  participation  youth  empowerment  mechanism  is  required,  which  might  not  be  created  from  within  the  country.    Therefore  participation  in  such  educational  program  may  build  young  people’  sense  of  power  that  they  are  able  to  make  changes  in  their  communities  they  belong  to,  region  and  even  their  country.  By  visiting  universities  having  chance  to  talk  to  their  Polish  student  fellows,  as  well  as  through  visiting  civil  society  organization  and    governmental  institutions,  they  can  understand  better  how  young  people  participate  in  political  life  in  democracies,  what  participation  and  activism  means  to  society,  and  then  trying  to  implement  changes  first  in  their  lives,  and  their  closer  community.    

Active  young  people  are  important  for  democracy,  and  their  activity  building  starts  with  civic  education.  However,  promoting  youth  participation  is  not  only  about  raising  awareness  and  knowledge  but  also  about  promoting  cooperation  of  young  people  with  local  authorities,  creation  of  real  mechanisms  of  engagement,  and  capacity  building.  The  young  donors  seem  to  understand  that  as  well.  People  in  Need,  for  example  within  one  of  its  cyclical  projects  in  Georgia  aimed  for  inclusion  and  better  engagement  of  young  people  in  decision-­‐making  at  the  local  level  in  different  target  districts  of  Georgia13,  assisted  in  developing  the  concrete  mechanism,  such  as  Municipal  Advisory  Committees.  Such  committees  include  representatives  from  local  government,  NGOs,  youth,  the  private  sector,  and  the  media,  and  are  responsible  for  creating,  implementing  and  monitoring  the  Municipal                                                                                                                  12  Information  obtained  during  the  participation  in  management  meeting  of  NGO  Foundation  Borussia  on  January  27,  2015  in  Olsztyn,  Poland.    13  These  projects  have  been:  1.  Youth  Inclusion  and  Social  Accountability  Project,  2.  Promoting  Transparent  and  Effective  Decision-­‐making  Processes.  Information  obtained  during  the  interview  with  Pavla  Štefanová,  Regional  coordinator  for  Southern  Caucasus,  Eastern  Europe,  Western  Balkans,  and  Mongolia  in  non-­‐governmental  organization  People  In  Need  in  Prague  on  February  17,  2015,  as  well  as  from  the  People  in  Need  printed  materials  and  website.    

  15  

Action  Plans.  Thanks  to  such  solutions  youth  is  perceived  an  important  player  in  the  society,  the  role  of  young  generation  in  municipal  decision-­‐making  process  is  strengthened,  and  they  become  more  empowered  to  tackle  jointly  with  the  local  government  issues  facing  their  communities.  Also,  witnessing  that  their  ideas  turn  into  action  make  young  people  even  more  eager  to  actively  participate  in  addressing  local  issues.  

Youth  capacity  building  is  about  increasing  young  people  skills,  organize  and  mobilize  themselves,  to  finance  their  activities,  and  to  increasing  their  independence.  Thus,  some  young  donor  countries  offer  training  on  proposal  writing,  project  management  and  reporting,  but  more  importantly  provide  small  grants.  Small  grants,  like  these  offered  by  People  in  Need,  are  provided  on  the  basis  of  open  competition  to  young  people  for  the  realization  of  their  projects.  Other  small  grant,  like  those  carried  out  by  the  Pontis  Foundation  in  cooperation  with  Belarusian  partner,  were  aimed  at  making  possible  the  work  of  independent  young  researchers,  scholars  and  outstanding  students  in  Belarus  (Kucharczyk  and  Lovitt  2008).    

 Conclusion      

Active,  aware,  informed  and  determined  citizens  are  important  for  building  and  maintaining  democracy.  In  this  study  we  have  explored  how  citizen’s  participation  can  be  ignited  among  the  “functionaries  of  democracy”  (Ekiert,  2007,  p.  17):  the  young  people.    Since  authoritarian  and  democratizing  countries  often  lack  sufficient  sources,  programs  and  overall  youth  empowerment  mechanisms,  we  have  taken  a  closer  look  at  the  efforts  of  external  forces,  especially  young  democratic  countries  that  engage  in  supporting  democratic  values  and  behaviours  and  sharing  their  democratization  experience.    Of  course,  the  method  of  support  depends  on  the  way  young  democracies  conceptualize  democracy.  We  find  that  NGOs  from  Central  and  Eastern  European  countries,  which  are  at  the  forefront  of  democracy  assistance,  attach  a  great  importance  to  the  development  of  local  and  participatory  community  life  in  which  young  people  should  play  an  important  role.    

The  young  democracy  promoters,  probably  because  they  were  recipients  of  democracy  aid  themselves,  or  because  of  their  experience  with  transformation,  perceive  participation  as  an  important  factor  leading  to  democratization.  Therefore,  the  goal  of  many  youth  programs  implemented  by  the  NGOs  from  CEE  is  to  activate  young  people  to  be  more  socially  responsible  for  their  local  community,  region,  and  country,  because  a  democratic  country  requires  such  active  participation.  We  have  found  that  many  programs  targeted  at  these  groups  aim  to  educate  them—about  the  citizens’  rights  and  role  they  can  play  in  the  society,  and  about  the  functioning  of  democratic  institutions  and  authorities  responsibilities.  Civic  education  is  practiced  either  through  activities  organized  in  the  partner  countries  with  aim  to  support  schools—providing  didactic  materials,  teachers  training,  organizing  workshops,  or  through  activities  offered  in  Central  and  Eastern  European  countries:  summer  schools,  internships,  scholarships,  exchange  programs,  and  study  missions  programs.    

Having  insights  from  how  one  of  the  programs  has  been  run,  we  could  infer  how  civic  education  thorough  other  venues  than  schools  can  be  achieved.  In  our  

  16  

study  we  have  taken  a  closer  look  as  one  of  the  programs  that  engage  into  education  of  students  from  Ukraine,  Belarus,  Moldova,  and  Russia  with  aim  to  activate  them  and  make  them  more  aware  and  active  citizens  that  can  serve  their  society.  Specifically,  within  this  program  students  who  come  to  young  democracy  learn  about  the  functioning  of  democratic  state  when  they  visit  governmental  institutions  and  administration  offices;  when  they  meet  with  the  representatives  of  non-­‐governmental  organizations  and  learn  how  these  organizations  engage  into  solving  social  problems  and  how  they  serve  a  community;  when  they  have  a  chance  to  talk  with  journalists  and  learn  about  the  freedom  of  speech  and  about  the  functioning  of  free  media;  and  finally  when  they  meet  with  their  student  fellows  at  the  universities  and  in  student  organizations.    

Civic  educational  programs  of  NGOs  from  young  democracies  teach  us  that  education  to  democracy  does  not  mean  learning  to  recognize  the  sanctity  of  democratic  institutions.  Rather,  it  means  propagating  the  idea  of  democracy,  citizens’  rights  and  responsibilities  and  preparing  people  to  work  for  the  benefit  of  democracy.  Civic  education  programs  when  communicating  to  students  the  values  of  democracy  and  developing  in  them  the  habit  of  political  activity  recognize  also  the  differences  that  separate  youth  and  adults.  Many  of  the  projects  practice  various  forms  that  allow  for  students’  engagement:  discussions  about  fundamental  principles  of  democracy,  workshops,  presentations,  and  lectures  as  way  to  helping  them  develop  their  opinions,  judgments  and  to  express  feeling.  Often,  for  many  students  from  democratizing  and  authoritarian  states  this  is  a  first  opportunity  to  freely  speak  and  engage  in  discussions,  thus  may  lead  to  some  inner  transformation  involving  the  desire  for  changing  something  in  their  lives  and  activating  them  to  take  a  greater  responsibility  for  their  community.  Such  activated  young  people  will  be  better  prepared  also  to  participate  in  democratic  institutions  in  the  future.    

Conducting  educational  activity  aimed  at  propagating  the  idea  of  democracy  and  preparing  people  to  work  for  the  benefit  of  democracy—improving  young  people’s  understanding  about  their  role  and  ability  to  solve  problems  in  their  close  community,  region  or  even  country—is  an  important  element  of  youth  empowerment  mechanism  however  not  sufficient.  Analysis  of  the  participants’  profile  in  one  of  the  programs  allowed  us  to  find  that  young  people  from  democratizing  countries  or  even  from  Belarus  where  civil  liberties  are  curtailed,  have  a  great  potential  to  play  important  role  in  a  society  and  that  in  order  to  boost  their  participation  youth  empowerment  mechanism  is  required,  which  might  not  be  created  from  within  the  country.    Young  donors  seem  to  recognize  that  full  participation  of  young  people  requires  adequate  social  and  political  environment  that  allows  for  such  participation  without  fear  of  punishment.  Therefore  in  our  future  study  we  would  like  to  explore  these  programs  and  evaluate  their  impact  on  young  people.                

  17  

References      Alesina,  Alberto,  and  David  Dollar.  2000.  Who  Gives  Foreign  Aid  to  Whom  and  Why?  

Journal  of  Economic  Growth  5.  Almond,  Gabriel  A.,  and  Sidney  Verba.  1963.  The  Civic  Culture:  Political  Attitudes  in  

Five  Western  Democracies.  Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press.  

Anheier,  Helmut  K.  2004.  Civil  Society:  Measurement,  Evaluation,  Policy.  Sterling,  VA:  Earthscan  Publications.  

Arnstein,  Sherry.  1969.  A  Ladder  of  Citizen  Participation.  Journal  of  the  American  Planning  Association,  Vol.  35,  No.  4,  July  1969.  

Banaji,  Shakuntala.  2008.  The  trouble  with  civic:  a  snapshot  of  young  people’s  civic  and  political  engagements  in  twenty-­‐first-­‐century  democracies.  Journal  of  Youth  Studies,  Vol.  11,  No.  5,  October  2008.  

Biesta,  Gary,  and  Robert  Lawy.  2006.  From  teaching  citizenship  to  learning  democracy.  Overcoming  individualism  in  research,  policy  and  practice.  Cambridge  Journal  of  Education,  36(1).  

Biesta,  Gert,  Robert  Lawy,  and  Narcie  Kelly.  2009.  Understanding  young  people’s  citizenship  learning  in  everyday  life:  The  role  of  contexts,  relationships  and  dispositions.  Education,  Citizenship  and  Social  Justice,  4(1).  

Biesta,  Gert.  2011.  Learning  Democracy  in  School  and  Society.  Education,  Lifelong  Learning,  and  the  Politics  of  Citizenship.  Sense  Publishersh.  

Bernhard,  Michael.  1993.  Civil  Society  and  Democratic  Transition  in  East  Central  Europe.  Political  Science  Quarterly  108  (2).  

Bernhard,  Michael  and  Ruchan  Kaya.  2012.  Civil  Society  and  Regime-­‐Type  in  European  Postcommunist  Countries:  The  Perspective  Two  Decades  after  1989-­‐1991.  Taiwan  Journal  of  Democracy  8(2).  

Bunce,  Valerie  J.  and  Sharon  L.  Wolchik.  2006.  International  Diffusion  and  Postcommunist  Electoral  Revolutions.  Communist  and  Post-­‐Communist  Studies  39  (3).  

Burnell,  Peter.  2000.  Democracy  Assistance:  International  Co-­‐operation  for  Democratization,  London  and  Portland:  Frank  Cass  Co  Ltd.  

Campbell,  David  E.  2007.  Sticking  together:  Classroom  diversity  and  civic  education.  American  Politics  Research,  35(1).  

Campbell,  David  E.  2008.  Voice  in  the  Classroom:  How  an  Open  Classroom  Climate  Fosters  Political  Engagement  Among  Adolescents.  Springer  Science+Business  Media,  LLC.  

Carothers,  Thomas.  1999.  Aiding  Democracy  Abroad:  The  Learning  Curve.  Washington  DC:  Carnegie  Endowment  for  International  Peace.  

  18  

Carothers,  Thomas.  2004.  Critical  Mission:  Essays  on  Democracy  Promotion.  Washington,  D.C.:  Carnegie  Endowment  for  International  Peace.  

Checkoway,  Barry.  1997.  Core  concepts  for  community  change.  Journal  of  Community  Practice,  4.  

Checkoway,  Barry,  Tanene  Allison,  and  Colleen  Montoya.  2005.  Youth  participation  in  public  policy  at  the  municipal  level.  Children  and  Youth  Services  Review  27.  

Checkoway,  Barry.  2010.  What  is  youth  participation?  Children  and  Youth  Services  Review  33  (2011)  340–345.  

Dahl,  Robert.  1989.  Democracy  and  Its  Critics.  New  Haven:  Yale  University  Press.  

Dalton,  Russell  J.  1996.  Citizen:  public  opinion  and  political  parties  in  advanced  industrial  democracies.  Chatham,  N.J.:  Chatham  House.  

Delgrado,  Melvin,  and  Lee  Staples.  2008.  Youth-­‐led  community  organizing.  New  York:  Oxford  University  Press.  

Diamond,  Larry.  1996.  Toward  Democratic  Consolidation.  In  The  Global  Resurgence  of  Democracy,  ed.  Larry  Diamond  and  Marc  F.  Plattner.  Baltimore:  The  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press.  

Diuk,  Nadia.  2012.  The  Next  Generation  in  Russia,  Ukraine,  and  Azerbaijan:  Youth,  Politics,  Identity,  and  Change.  Rowman  &  Littlefield  Publishers.  

Diuk,  Nadia.  2013.  Youth  as  an  Agent  for  Change:  The  Next  Generation  in  Ukraine.  Demokratizatsiya,  Spring  2013,  Vol.  21  Issue  2.  

Diuk,  Nadia.  2014.  Euromaidan.  Ukraine’s  Self-­‐Organizing  Revolution.  World  Affairs,  Vol.  176  Issue  6.  

Drążkiewicz-­‐Grodzicka,  Elżbieta.  2013.  From  a  recipient  to  Donor:  The  Case  of  Polish  Developmental  Cooperation,  Human  Organization  72  (1).  

Ekiert,  Grzegorz.  2003.  Patterns  of  Post-­‐Communist  Transformation  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe.  In  Capitalism  and  Democracy  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe:  Assessing  the  Legacy  of  Communist  Rule,  ed.  Grzegorz  Ekiert,  and  Stephen  E.  Hanson,  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press.  

Ekiert,  Grzegorz,  Jan  Kubik  and  Milada  Anna  Vachudova.  2007.  Democracy  in  the  Post-­‐Communist  World:  An  Unending  Quest?  East  European  Politics  and  Societies  2007  (21).  

Ezbawy,  Yusery  Ahmed.  2012.  The  Role  of  the  Youth's  New  Protest  Movements  in  the  January  25th  Revolution.  IDS  Bulletin,  Special  Issue:  The  Pulse  of  Egypt's  Revolt,  Volume  43,  Issue  1.  

Fialová,  Zuzanna.  2014.  Development  as  Freedom?  What  Sustainable  Solutions  Can  Be  Offered  to  Developing  Countries  by  the  EU  and  Slovakia.  In  International  Conference  Booklet  Development  and  Democracy.  Development  Ecosystems  in  V4:  the  New  Role  for  Civil  Society  Organizations  and  Business  Beyond  2015.  Pontins  Foundation.  

  19  

Fieldhouse,  Edward,  Mark  Tranmer  and  Andrew  Russel.  2007.  Something  about  young  people  or  something  about  elections?  Electoral  participation  of  young  people  in  Europe:  Evidence  from  a  multilevel  analysis  of  the  European  Social  Survey.  European  Journal  of  Political  Research  Volume  46,  Issue  6.  

Finkel,  Steven  E.,  Anibal  Pérez-­‐Liñán,  Mitchell  A.  Seligson,  and  Neal  C.  Tate  2008.  Deepening  Our  Understanding  of  the  Effects  of  U.S.  Foreign  Assistance  on  Democracy  Building:  Final  Report,  http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnade694.pdf.    

Fioramonti,  Lorenzo,  and  Volkhart  Finn  Heinrich.  2007.  How  Civil  Society  Influences  Policy:  A  Comparative  Analysis  of  the  CIVICUS  Civil  Society  Index  in  Post-­‐Communist  Europe.  Issues  of  Conceptualization  and  Measurement.  Journal  of  Civil  Society  1  (3).  

Fowler,  Alan.  2012.  Measuring  Civil  Society:  Perspectives  on  Afro-­‐Centrism.  VOLUNTAS:  International  Journal  of  Voluntary  and  Nonprofit  Organizations  23  (1).  

Gajownik,  Sylwia,  and  Ewa  Skoczkowa.  2011.  How  do  we  organize  study  visits?  Polish  perspective  [Jak  organizujemy  wizyty  studyjne?  Polska  perspektywa]  In:  Cooperation.  Effective  transfer  of  Polish  experiences.  Christian  Culture  Foundation  “Znak.”  

Galston  William.  1991.  Liberal  Purposes:  Goods,  Virtues,  and  Diversity  in  the  Liberal  State.  Cambridge  University  Press.  

Galston,  William.  2001.  Political  knowledge,  political  engagement  and  civic  education.  Annual  Review  of  Political  Science,  4.  

Galston,  William.  2004.  Civic  education  and  political  participation.  PS:  Political  Science  and  Politics.  

Gunther,  Richard  et  al.  1995.  The  Politics  of  Democratic  Consolidation.  The  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press.  

Hoffman,  Michael  and  Amaney  Jamal.  2012.  The  Youth  and  the  Arab  Spring:  Cohort  Differences  and  Similarities.  Middle  East  Law  and  Governance  4.  

Honwana,  Alcinda.  2013.  Youth  and  revolution  in  Tunisia.  Zed  Books.  London.  

Hart,  Roger.  1992.  Children’s  Participation  from  Tokenism  to  Citizenship.  UNICEF  Innocenti  Research  Centre.  

Head,  Brian  W.  2010.  Why  not  ask  them?  Mapping  and  promoting  youth  participation.  Children  and  Youth  Services  Review  33  (2011)  541–547.  

Henderson,  Sarah.  2003.  Building  Democracy  in  Contemporary  Russia:  Western  Support  for  Grassroots  Organizations.  Ithaca,  NY:  Cornell  University  Press.  

Henn,  Matt,  Mark  Weinstein  and  Sarah  Forrest.  2005.  Uninterested  Youth?  Young  People’s  Attitudes  towards  Party  Politics  in  Britain.  Political  Studies,  VOL  53.    

  20  

Himmelmann,  Gerhard.  2013.  Competences  For  Teaching,  Learning  and  Living  Democratic  Citizenship  In  Civic  Education  and  Competences  for  Engaging  Citizens  in  Democracies.  Murray  Print  and  Dirk  Lange  (eds.).  Sense  Publishers.  

Ishkanian,  Armine,  Evelina  Gyulkhandanyan,  Sona  Manusyan,  and  Arpy  Manusyan.  2013.  Civil  Society,  Development  and  Environmental  Activism  in  Armenia.  The  London  School  of  Economics  and  Political  Science  (LSE).    

Keck,  Margaret  E.  and  Kathryn  Sikkink.  1998.  Activists  Beyond  Borders:  Advocacy  Networks  in  International  Politics.  Ithaca  and  London:  Cornell  University  Press.  

Kucharczyk,  Jacek  and  Jeff  Lovitt  (eds.).  2008.  Democracy's  New  Champions.  European  Democracy  Assistance  After  EU  Enlagement.  Policy  Association  for  an  Open  Society.      

Lawy,  Robert  and  Gert  Biesta.  2009.  Citizenship  Learning  and  Democracy  in  the  Lives  of  Young  People.  http://www.adulterc.org/Proceedings/2007/Proceedings/Lawy_Biesta.pdf  

Lexmann,  Miriam.  2014.  Let's  not  talk  about  transition  sharing,  let's  do  it.  The  potential  of  Central  and  Eastern  EU  Member  States  in  accelerating  democracy  support  and  transition  in  EU's  neighborhood.  In  International  Conference  Booklet  Development  and  Democracy.  Development  Ecosystems  in  V4:  the  New  Role  for  Civil  Society  Organizations  and  Business  Beyond  2015.  Pontins  Foundation.  

Lightfoot,  Simon  and  Balazs  Szent-­‐Ivantyi.  2014.  Reluctant  Donors?  The  Europeanization  of  International  Development  Policies  in  the  New  Member  States.  Journal  of  Common  Market  Studies.  

Linz,  Juan  J.,and  Alfred  Stepan.  1996.  Problems  of  Democratic  Transition  and  Consolidation:  Southern  Europe,  South  America,  and  Post-­‐Communist  Europe.  Baltimore:  John  Hopkins  University  Press.  

Maroshek-­‐Klarman,  Uki.  1996.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  little  democracy.  About  education  to  democracy  and  democracy  in  the  school  system  [Nie  ma  czegoś  takiego  jak  trochę  demokracji.  O  kszałceniu  ku  demokracji  i  o  demokracji  w  systemie  oświaty]  Warsaw:  Foundation  for  Education  for  Democracy.    

McNevin,  Anne.  2011.  Contesting  Citizenship.  Irregular  Migrants  and  New  Frontiers  of  the  Political.  Columbia  University  Press.  

Martens,  Allison  M.  and  Jason  Gainous.  2012.  Civic  Education  and  Democratic  Capacity:  How  Do  Teachers  Teach  and  What  Works?  Social  Science  Quarterly,  Volume  94,  Issue  4.  

Mulderig,  Chloe  M.  2013.  An  Uncertain  Future.  Youth  Frustration  and  the  Arab  Spring.  Boston  University  Creative  Services.  

  21  

Mycock,  Andrew  and  Jonathan  Tonge.  2014.  Beyond  the  Youth  Citizenship  Commission:  Young  People  and  Politics.  Political  Studies  Association.  http://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/PSA%20Beyond%20the%20YCC%20FINAL_0.pdf  

Olsson,  Tobias.  2008.  For  activists,  for  potential  voters,  for  consumers:  three  modes  of  producing  the  civic  web.  Journal  of  Youth  Studies,  Vol.  11,  No.  5,  October  2008.  

Osler,  Audrey,  and  Hugh  Starkey.  2003.  Learning  for  Cosmopolitan  Citizenship:  theoretical  debates  and  young  people’s  experiences.  Educational  Review,  Vol.  55,  No.  3.  

O'Toole,  Therese  et  al.  2003.  Tuning  out  or  left  out?  Participation  and  nonparticipation  among  young  people.  Contemporary  Politics,  Volume  9,  Number  1.    

Ottaway,  Marina,  and  Theresa  Chung.  1999.  Debating  Democracy  Assistance:  Toward  a  New  Paradigm,  Journal  of  Democracy,  vol.  10,  no.  4.  

Pospieszna,  Paulina  2010.  When  Recipients  Become  Donors:  Polish  Democracy  Assistance  in  Belarus  and  Ukraine.  Problems  of  Post-­‐Communism  57  (4).  

Pospieszna,  Paulina.  2014a.  Democracy  Assistance  from  the  Third  Wave.  Polish  Engagement  in  Belarus  in  Ukraine.  University  of  Pittsburgh  Press.  

Pospieszna,  Paulina.  2014b.  Democracy  Assistance  Efforts  of  Yoing  Donors  from  the  Visegrad  Group:  In  Search  for  Better  Impact  Evaluation  Methods.  In  International  Conference  Booklet  Development  and  Democracy.  Development  Ecosystems  in  V4:  the  New  Role  for  Civil  Society  Organizations  and  Business  Beyond  2015.  Pontins  Foundation.  

Print,  Murray,  and  Dirk  Lange  (eds.).  2012.  Schools,  Curriculum  and  Civic  Education  for  Building  Democratic  Citizens.  Sense  Publishers.  

Print,  Murray.  2013.  Competences  for  Democratic  Citizenship  in  Europe  In  Civic  Education  and  Competences  for  Engaging  Citizens  in  Democracies.  Murray  Print  and  Dirk  Lange  (eds.).  Sense  Publishers.  

Putnam,  Robert  D.  1993.  Making  democracy  work.  Princeton,  NJ:  Princeton  University  Press.  

Putnam,  Robert  D.  2000.  Bowling  alone:  The  collapse  and  revival  of  American  community.  New  York:  Simon  and  schuster.  

Rakner,  Lise,  Alina  Rocha  Menocal  and  Verena  Fritz.  2007.  Democratisation's  Third  Wave  and  the  Challenges  of  Democratic  Deepening:  Assessing  International  Democracy  Assistance  and  Lessons  Learned.  London:  Overseas  Development  Institute.  ODI  Working  Papers  no.  1.  

Rajani,  Rakesh.  2001.  The  participation  rights  of  adolescents:  A  strategic  approach.  UNICEF.  

  22  

Rios,  Francisco,  and  Susan  Markus.  2008.  Multicultural  Education  as  a  Human  Right:  Framing  Multicultural  Education  for  Citizenship  in  a  Global  Age.  Multicultural  Education  Review.  Vol.  3,  No.  2.  

Salamon,  Lester  M,  S.  Wojciech  Sokolowski,  and  Regina  List.  2003.  Global  Civil  Society:  An  Overview.  The  Johns  Hopkins  Comparative  Nonprofit  Sector  Project.  

Schulz,  Wolfram  et  al.  2008.  International  Civic  and  Citizenship  Education  Study.  Assessment  Framework.  International  Association  for  the  Evaluation  of  Educational  Achievement    

Smith,  Jackie,  Charles  Chatfield,  and  Ron  Pagnucco.  1997.  Transnational  Social  Movements  and  Global  Politics:  Solidarity  Beyond  the  State.  Syracuse,  NY:  Syracuse  University  Press.  

Solhaug,  Trond.  2013.  Trends  and  dilemmas  in  citizenship  education.  Nordidactica:  Journal  of  Humanities  and  Social  Science  Education.  Issue  2013:1.  

Tammi,  Lynne.  2013.  Hey,  those  are  teenagers  and  they  are  doing  stuff.  Youth  Participation  in  Community  Development.  University  of  Pittsburgh.    

Tarrow,  Sidney.  1998.  Power  in  Movement:  Social  Movements  and  Contentious  Politics.  Cambridge  University  Press.  

Tarrow,  Sidney.  2005.  The  New  Transnational  Activism.  Cambridge  University  Press,  Cambridge.  

Tusalem,  Rollin  F.  2007.    A  Boon  or  a  Bane?  The  Role  of  Civil  Society  in  Third-­‐and  Fourth-­‐  Wave  Democracies.  International  Political  Science  Review  28  (3).  

Utter,  Glenn.  2011.  Youth  and  Political  Participation.  A  Reference  Handbook.  ABC-­‐CLIO.  

UN.  2006.  Guide  to  the  Implementation  of  the  World  Programme  of  Action  for  Youth.    http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/wpay_guide.pdf.  

UNESCO.  2014.  Global  Citizenship  Education.  Preparing  learners  for  the  challenges  of  the  twenty-­‐first  century.  http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002277/227729E.pdf  

Quintelier,  Ellen.  2007.  Differences  in  Political  Participation  Between  Young  and  Old  People.  Contemporary  Politics,  Volume  13,  Number  2,  June  2007.  

van  Deth,  Jan  W.  2013.  Citizenship  and  the  Civic  Realities  of  Everyday  Life  In  Civic  Education  and  Competences  for  Engaging  Citizens  in  Democracies.  Murray  Print  and  Dirk  Lange  (eds.).  Sense  Publishers.  

Veugelers,  Wiel.  2011.  Theory  and  Practice  of  Citizenship  Education.  The  Case  of  Policy,  Science  and  Education  in  the  Netherlands.  Revista  de  Educación,  número  extraordinario  2011.  

Végh,  Zsuzsanna.  2014.  Democracy  support  through  Visegrad  development  aid:  Tha  case  of  Moldova  and  Georgia.  In  International  Conference  Booklet  Development  

  23  

and  Democracy.  Development  Ecosystems  in  V4:  the  New  Role  for  Civil  Society  Organizations  and  Business  Beyond  2015.  Pontins  Foundation.  

Yashar,  Deborah  J.  2005.  Contesting  Citizenship  in  Latin  America.  The  Rise  of  Indigenous  Movements  and  the  Postliberal  Challenge.  Cambridge  University  Press.  

Youngs,  Richards.  2006.  Survey  of  European  Democracy  Promotion  Policies  2000-­‐2006.  Fundación  para  las  Relaciones  Internacionales  y  el  Diálogo  Exterior  (FRIDE)  available  at:  http://www.fride.org/EuropeanDemocracy2000-­‐06.  

Youngs,  Richards.  2008.  Trends  in  Democracy  Assistance:  What  Has  Europe  Been  Doing?  Journal  of  Democracy  19  (2).