The responsibility for civic education has variously been given to departments of education, election management bodies and statutory institutions. Such national institutions may have the mandate as part of a more general mandate in regard to human rights, constitutional affairs, or social development.
There have also been some national multi-sectoral councils or forums established through statutory provision or voluntary association.
And finally, there are domestic manifestations of international organisations and associations.
Each of these has its merits and challenges.
If a country is going to encourage and promote civic education then it is essential that there should be some nodal champion capable of drawing in other stakeholders. This requires that it be able to exert some power and influence – through legislative primacy, budgetary provision, or intellectual leadership. In the absence of this primacy, civic education is going to remain fragmented even if it follows the German model – see below. This may not be seen as a problem, and may even be seen as appropriate to a democratic society encouraging multiple voices and multiple institutions to interact in ways which strengthen the society – but it does introduce a level of institutional inertia which makes innovation during times of crisis difficult.
The German model
Germany has established a federal institution for politische bildung which obtains federal funds for its own programmes and disburses the funds through a chain of foundations, regional centres, and non-governmental organisations. By developing educational materials and through the incentives and controls which grant making allows, it has a nationally funded, democratically aligned and effective domestic civic education system in which formal education, non-formal education, state institutions and civil society play a role. This is a system that has become so deeply entrenched over half a century of existence that it is barely remarked upon in the country and is unremarked by those developing civic education models. It deserves more attention than it gets.
Nodal institutions
The choice as to the nodal institution – a department of state, a statutory institution such as an election management body or human rights commission, a university or group of universities or a national forum on civic education – is going to be determined by individual countries. In some cases, such institutions may emerge as a result of a particular set of circumstances. However it happens, that institution needs the resources to at the very least engage other stakeholders and develop some form of national programme.
Election management bodies are not necessarily the appropriate organisations: they have the demands of elections, limited election staff, and the need to be vigorously non-partisan. Human Rights Commissions face some of the same problems, although they are more used to being ‘politicized’ and to managing this. .
Because of the importance for civic education of not being seen merely as an activity designed to protect a state and benefit an incumbent government but rather to support a democratic system, nodal organisations in the state may be viewed with some suspicion even under the best of circumstances. Some form of state/non-state partnership may be preferable, and so national councils should be considered.
