Letters from a Labor Activist ; November/December 2016

above:  Humanity does not Live by Bread Alone ; What about Democracy and Political Literacy in our Educational Curricula?

Progressive Letters to 'The Age' and 'The Herald-Sun' ; (November/December 2016) ; Everything from ‘Public Debt Shibboleths’ to Privatisation, Defending Democracy,  The Right Protest, Education for Politically Literate and Active Citizenship, and more ; Please feel welcome to read and comment on the articles, share via Facebook and so on.

Dr Tristan Ewins

Is there a public debt crisis?  Or is the Crisis one of Private Debt?

(Debt letter One)  (Unpublished)  Regularly we are warned of the ‘immense threat’ of government debt.  But its best, here, to use the measure of ‘net debt’ which also includes revenue from government assets.  (instead of ‘gross debt’ - which does not)  For example, with the privatisation of assets like the Commonwealth Bank gross debt fell, but net debt worsened significantly.  Australian Government  net debt was recently measured around 18 per cent of GDP : approximately $285 billion in an economy around AUS $1.6 billion.  But HOUSEHOLD debt – ie: the debt owed by Australian individuals and families – is over 100% of GDP -  over $2 TRILLION.  Private debt is clearly the bigger threat. The Liberals try and offset private debt with public austerity – in health, education, welfare, infrastructure. But these areas are often more crucial to our well-being than private consumption.  So arguably we need a BIGGER social investment in these areas as opposed to cuts. We need a more balanced approach ; containing debt long term – without gutting public services and infrastructure, or destroying  jobs and growth.  And now is a good time to invest in potential income bearing (and other) government assets – on account of low interest rates.  A big investment in public housing could also make housing more affordable –  making significant inroads into private household debt.  We also need an industry policy to achieve full employment –and full time jobs for those who want them.  That could offset an ageing population without resort to measures like raising the age of retirement.

References:

http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/natsem-budget/natsem-pre-budget-2016-state-of-play/how-much-public-debt-do-australians-have/

https://theconversation.com/election-factcheck-has-100-billion-been-added-to-australias-national-debt-under-the-current-government-60701

(Debt letter Two) (Published) Bruce Hambour (Herald-Sun Letters, November 2016)  writes that debt is getting so out of control that welfare must be cut to rein it in. But why start by cutting the payments for some of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians when there are other options?  Why not drop massive corporate tax cuts, and other tax cuts for the well off?    Why not cut back Superannuation Tax Concessions – mainly beneficial to the well-off – whom taxpayers are effectively subsidising by tens of billions every year?   Also public sector debt is actually negligible compared with private debt.  (approx. 30% of GDP compared with 200% of GDP)  The housing bubble hasn’t helped ; and what’s needed are big investments in public and social housing (to increase supply), and in infrastructure and services (to ensure quality of life).  Also Conservatives attempt to play the working poor of against the vulnerable welfare-dependent.  (divide and conquer) That’s better fixed by raising the minimum wage, and improving the social wage for the working poor.

Herald-Sun Op-Ed Describes Labor Left Opposition to Privatisation as “Extremist”.

(Published)  James Campbell (Herald-Sun, 24/11) depicts Labor Left opposition to privatization as ‘extremist’.  But what grounds are there for this opinion?   Most Australians did (and still do) oppose privatization of important government assets.  And the longest-serving Australian Liberal Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, presided over a relatively larger public sector (and more steeply progressive income taxes) than Labor governments of the 80s and 90s.  The ‘extreme’ tag is a flippant way of dismissing an argument without having to engage or justify your position.  ‘Natural public monopolies’ (eg: in water, communications, energy) would reduce costs for the broader economy.  And Medibank Private’s recent privatization saw private health insurance costs rise as the newly-privatizated corporation arguably began abusing its market power.   The Commonwealth Bank can also make profits close to $10 billion now.  That means our net government debt position is much worse now because of its privatization.  Since its privatization there have also been problems with fees, and the quality of services for regions and financially disadvantaged customers.

Herald-Sun letter calls for ‘Technocracy’ in place of Democracy

(Unpublished)   Simon Hammond (Herald-Sun, 26/11) claims democracy is to blame for weak and indecisive government .  Instead he suggests a kind of ‘government of experts’. (a technocracy) But the problem is not democracy ; it is particular practices such as poll and focus-group driven politics ; and ‘gotcha’ politics’ which neglect the substance of policy choices.   Another problem is the major parties all aiming for ‘the centre ground’ ; not standing up for their beliefs. (‘Convergence politics’)   That means weaker pluralism. That is, less choice.  In fact we need a stronger democracy.  A free multi-party system is meant to ensure scrutiny of public policy and social issues ; but often media neglect the substance ; and politicians respond by playing to shallow agendas.  We need to transform our society ; which could be achieved partly through educational curricula for active and politically literate citizenship ; which is ideologically inclusive and  encourages students to think about – and stand up for - their rights and interests. 

Responding to Andrew Bolt on the causes of the Trump Victory

(Unpublished)  Andrew Bolt calls the Trump election victory “a revolt against the Left’s arrogance” (Herald-Sun, 10/11). But reality is more complex than this.  A neo-liberal consensus  - a particular INTERPRETATION of ‘globalisation’ - has prevailed around much of the world, facilitated by BOTH the parties of the Right and of the ostensible Centre-Left. Working class people who had lost their identity, as well as their economic and social security with the destruction of their jobs – gravitated towards a promise to restore America’s industrial base.   Trump’s old school protectionism might not be the answer, but Nordic-style, targeted industry policy might serve better.   Policies which promote high value-added manufacturing alongside Research and Development, and promotion of information and communications technology industrial development.   The US Left needs to actively court the working class – including white males – with policies that offer the respect and security which could be key to building a broad electoral bloc, and rolling back Trump’s support base.

Why Scott Morrisson and the Liberals are Wrong on Company Tax Cuts

(to both the Herald-Sun and The Age ; Unpublished)  Today (28/11)  it was distressing to see Treasurer Scott Morrison in Question Time defending massive cuts to Company Tax.   He referred to Trump’s objective of a 15% corporate rate, and suggested Australia needs to be ‘competitive’.  But the United States had enjoyed a maximum corporate rate of 35% for many years under both Republican and Democrat Administrations.  Elsewhere, the reality is that high quality social services, education, infrastructure are ‘pull factors’ for investment as well.   And this needs to be paid for somehow.  The Conservative approach is ‘corporate welfare’.  That is: the corporate rate is cut - but workers, pensioners, families ‘pay the price’ one way another.  Through unfair ‘replacement taxes’ like the GST , or through a neglect of services and infrastructure which is arguably bad for investment anyway. We need international agreement to stop ‘the race to the bottom’ in corporate taxation.  Without this the economy will suffer anyway – as ‘corporate welfare’ takes income away from the very workers  whose consumption supports the domestic economy. 

Feminist Revolution must take account of class ; must be based on Mutual Respect and Empathy

(Unpublished)  Trish Thompson (‘The Age’, letters;  30/11) reminds us of “the privileges of being a white heterosexual male”.  But she makes no mention of social class .  That determines our quality of life ; where our kids go to school ; often the quality of our diet and health care; whether we can pay the bills and put a roof over our heads ; what else we can enjoy outside of work.  Other factors include whether or not our work is fulfilling ; and what economic (and hence political) power we have.  Why is class usually forgotten today ; or otherwise relegated to a subordinate position?  Age, body image and disability are also relatively neglected. We are in the midst of what might be called a feminist revolution.  What’s at stake is whether or not that revolution is broadened in pursuit of genuine mutual solidarity and liberation.  Or whether there is a kind of ‘turning of the tables’.  Many men are reacting against discourse they see as inferring ‘masculinity’ and male sexuality are ‘essentially bad’.   Without mutual respect and empathy there will be a reaction and the feminist revolution might fail.

Working Class Men don’t have ‘a lot to gain’ from Deindustrialisation and the Consequence is Unemployment and Poverty

(Unpublished)  Jacqueline Maley  (‘The Age’, 3/12/16)  writes as if men have more to gain than lose through deindustrialisation. The reality, though, is that older skilled manufacturing workers will not find replacement work making use of their skill sets.  And service industry jobs are unlikely to make up for the 50,000 jobs lost in the car industry and supporting industries .  The notion that when men take up service industry jobs that these will rise in stature is questionable.   The balance of trade is another associated concern.  It is a function of capitalism more so than patriarchy that ‘unprofitable’ service jobs are devalued. For example, a better deal for both aged care workers AND residents might ‘eat into corporate profits’ – directly (eg: through higher corporate tax) or indirectly (with a reduction in private consumption power with higher income or consumption  taxes). That said we do need to ‘valorise’ caring (often ‘feminised’) professions.   We need a re-regulation of the most-highly-exploited end of the labour market.  To reform the tax mix and extend the social wage.  Resistance to the extension and improvement of social services is most likely to come from capitalists and their advocates in the so-called ‘political class’ rather than from working class men.

We Must be unambiguous on the Right to Protest ; and stand against even more regressive User-Pays in Tertiary Education

(Part-Published)  David Penberthy  (Herald-Sun 4/12/16) condemns the protestors who disrupted parliament the other day as ‘ratbags’. He goes on to support user-pays in Higher Education, arguing ‘Why should blue collar workers pay for someone’s Law degree?”   In response ; democracies must defend liberal and democratic rights, including speech, association and assembly.  But arguably a mature democracy – which feels secure in itself - accepts there will be occasions where differences of principle become so steep that accommodation must be made for civil disobedience as well.  Such flexibility helps define us as a genuinely *liberal* democracy.   Furthermore: Penberthy’s defence of user pays in Higher Education ignores the fact that were a greater portion of education costs shouldered through income and corporate taxes – then roughly people and interests would pay in proportion to the financial benefit gained.  And if we wanted to reform the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)  to make it fairer, then we might raise repayment thresholds.  There are many former students on less than the average wage who are forced to repay loans that bear no relation to their actual incomes.  Repayment thresholds have fallen relative to the average wage: and that is unfair.

 

Why Political Literacy, and encouraging Active Citizenship must Have Their Place in Educational Curricula ‘in a strong democracy’

(Unpublished)  There is a developing view (Herald-Sun Editorial, ‘Teach don’t Preach’ , 7/12/16) that ‘politics should be kept out of the classroom’; and that means not only that teachers ‘should not be advocating causes’ – but also that there should be a ‘back to basics’ movement emphasising science and maths.  The problem with this is that education needs to be for life – and while maths and science have their place,  education for politically literate and active citizenship can strengthen our democracy and empower our citizenry to work for their beliefs, rights and interests. To achieve bipartisanship – there needs to be a reformed National Curriculum – which exposes students to the ideas of BOTH the Democratic Left and the Democratic Right, while also imparting an understanding of other ideologies.  As the saying goes ‘man does not live by bread alone’.   An active and informed democracy should have bipartisan support across the Democratic Right and the Democratic Left.

(Unpublished)   Greg Byrne (Herald-Sun, 10/12/16) refers to  education about “gender, ethnicity and class” as “nonsense” that has nothing to do with finding jobs.   But the Humanities and Social Sciences involve research and writing skills ; the construction of detailed arguments , and evaluating complex information.  Also humanity ‘does not live by bread alone’.  (ie:  the labour market and work)  A stronger democracy (based on understanding and participation) rests on citizens’ political literacy (understanding political ideologies, values, movements, processes) and on their powers of expression.   The Humanities and Social Sciences drive us to ask fundamental questions about the human condition ; about ethics ; and thinking critically about democracy, economy and society.   In a strong democracy we must be empowered to make informed choices as citizens – regardless of whether we perceive ourselves as being of  “the Right” or “The Left”.  That means imagining alternatives to current social and economic arrangements in pursuit of ‘The Good Society’. Here,  assessing the balance of wealth, power  and opportunity in society is a legitimate question.

Reforming Australian Curricula: Why is Kevin Donnelly afraid of a Robust Democracy?

above:  Kevin Donnelly's vision of education curricula in Australia excludes education for active and critical citizenship

The following article puts the case for curriculum reform promoting active citizenship and critical thinking amongst young Australian students.  Specifically, the author argues there should be cross-partisan consensus were all parties truly committed to democracy in practice...

nb:  The Left Focus facebook group can be found at the following URL, and provides regular updates of new material here at the blog itself: See:  

http://www.facebook.com/groups/58243419565/

Tristan Ewins; November 18^th, 2012

Conservative Education commentator, Kevin Donnelly has again been in the headlines – attacking progressive aspects of secondary curricula in Australia.  On November 3^rd in Melbourne’s “Herald-Sun” Donnelly was quoted as criticising the lack of emphasis on Britain in the origins of Australia’s system of government. But Donnelly also went further – condemning civics and citizenship provisions in curricula as encouraging students to become “cultural warriors for the Left”.  Indeed Donnelly indicated he was “concerned” by the “active citizenship” emphasis. 

(Herald-Sun, 3/11/2012, p 22)

I have a number of arguments in response to Donnelly’s stance.

To begin – to be opposed to “active citizenship” ‘in principle’ is suggestive of a disdain for democracy..  Active and critical citizenship are the foundation for any robust democracy as any genuine liberal and/or democrat should be able to grasp. Democracy only functions when an informed, mobilised and engaged citizenship is capable of (and inclined and willing to) hold the powerful – including politicians – to account.   When active citizenship decays, so too does democracy – and in this sense the cynicism and disengagement of Australian citizens is a genuine threat.  

But in order to engage constructively citizens require certain ‘intellectual tools’ – to help in formulating cohesive values systems, a sense of their interests, and of different perspectives on the proper rights and responsibilities of citizenship.  Arguably what is required is “education for ideological literacy” and the imparting of ‘skills of deconstruction’ which assist tomorrow’s active citizens in discerning the ways in which ideologies and institutions themselves (both on the Left and the Right) have been socially and historically constructed.  For some the word ‘deconstruction’ is synonymous with ‘nihilism’; but this need not be the case if we do not choose for it to be so.  There remains scope for a certain kind of deconstruction side-by-side the positing of certain ‘universals’: the value of life, liberty, community and a sense of universal humanity; of kindness and altruism; and the value of culture and science as forces driving improved quality of life and self-realisation for all of us.   

Both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are experiencing severe organisational decline in Australia – and have been for some time.  You would think there would be a cross-party commitment to the principles of active citizenship as a remedy for the drift towards the scenario of a “detached political caste” governing over a disillusioned and disengaged populace.  Education for active and informed citizenship need not simply be a ‘Trojan horse’ for either the Left or the Right – but rather should be considered a revitalising factor for democracy generally; and an empowering factor for all young people.  An emphasis on active and ideologically literate citizenship is about encouraging young people to think critically and empowering them to see through the ‘spin’ employed by all political parties in today’s society, with its emphasis on the short term media cycle.  The result of a more robust ‘active and critical’ civics and citizenship education curriculum would be a stronger democracy; with young citizens capable of ‘reading against the grain’ whether the texts in question are of a conservative, liberal or socialist perspective. 

As a consequence we would have not only more committed liberals or socialists – but also more committed conservatives.  While we might see some young people gravitating towards socialist, labour and human rights organisations, we could just as easily see other young people grappling with economic liberalism; engaging with the ideas of values of, say, Hayek or Burkean Conservatism; or of ‘Christian social welfare centrism’.  Underscoring an active/critical agenda would be an inclusive pluralism as the basis for cross-party consensus.

And this could be achieved in the context of education regarding the principles of the ‘liberal democratic settlement’;  a settlement of agreed liberal, social and democratic rights which provide a ‘framework for relative conciliation’ for societies such as ours.  (although in the spirit of critical enquiry even this would be open to relativisation from critiques both from the Left and Right; including those seeking ‘a new constitution’; which is the substance of any political revolution)   The point would be to consider the role of democracy in ‘setting oppositions free’, but also resolving them peacefully; though accepting civil disobedience as a legitimate strategy where differences are irreconcilable – but not accepting a descent into escalating violence. 

Why is Kevin Donnelly so determinedly opposed to such a scenario?

Both the authoritarian Left and the authoritarian Right would likely “have problems” with an education system which seeks to empower and mobilise individuals to think deeply and critically, and encourage them to express themselves, organise, and participate.  But leftists, liberals, democratic conservatives – should all at least hold to a ‘shared political ground’ when it comes to empowering young Australians with tools of ideological literacy and criticism – not as a ‘Trojan Horse’ for either the Left or Right – but on the assumption that ‘democracy is a good in of itself’.

Perhaps Donnelly has a point: that education about Australia’s historic cultural and political ties to Britain are important – even though ‘unfashionable’ for those planning and formulating this nation’s curricula.  But if there is an important place for recognising the place of Britain in the Australian nation’s cultural heritage, surely there must also be a place for ideological and cultural literacy. 

In part this means communicating the experience of people otherwise excluded in Australia’s historical cultural narratives: including the experiences of women, migrants and indigenous Australians.  But it should  also involve critical engagement with other sources of Australian identity and tradition: whether ‘the ANZAC spirit’, or ‘the spirit of Eureka’.  Importantly: curricula need to be pluralist, inclusive and balanced with regards such content.

English can play a central role in encouraging critical thinking and critical writing – regardless of any ideological prejudice.  The study of History, meanwhile, could be framed in such a way as to critically interrogate values systems – whether that means exploring critiques of capitalism looking at the Great Depression; or exploring the sources of totalitarianism in both its Stalinist and Fascist forms.  To be balanced there could also, for instance, be a consideration of ‘both sides’ of the debate with the retreat of the welfare state and mixed economy from the 1970s. And Politics can provide for a more direct engagement with the political philosophies which underscore our pluralist society: whether socialist, liberal or conservative.   

Finally Pluralism itself needs to be the underlying principle of all such attempts, also: to maintain a cross-partisan consensus on the need for education for active and critical citizenship. 

As a socialist I can nonetheless appreciate the wisdom in Edmund Burke’s words: "All that’s necessary for evil in the world to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.   An active/critical civics and citizenship education model is about encouraging students to think carefully about what is right, and then to stand up for that in the context of participatory democracy.

I implore Kevin Donnelly: think again about your opposition to education for active and critical citizenship.  Commit yourself to a new consensus – based on a genuinely pluralist curricula – which can only strengthen the democracy that we all claim we believe in.  

Liberal compromise and the struggle for social justice

(Second in the Series)

As part of the struggle for ‘The Good Society', it is necessary to aim for the right economic, political and social mix.   In pursuit of this, one response is the pursuit of a “democratic mixed economy”: an economic template which pursues economic democracy, strategic planning and public ownership, and the harnessing of market forces.

The “Good Society”, however, is more than a question of how best to manage the economy. Underlining Australian democracy - and democracies the world over - is a presumed social contract of liberal democratic consensus.

The maintenance of social compromise, here, is critical. To begin with, such a compromise can provide the framework for cultural and political pluralism: essential for modern multicultural societies.

However, the rationale for social compromise goes deeper still:

All social actors have a shared interest in avoiding a “vacuum” which can be filled by a desperate and brutal struggle to re-impose a social order.

Such scenarios developed during the 1789-1799 Revolution in France, and also following the 1917 Russian Revolution. After the experience of the Jacobins in France, the desperate efforts of revolutionary governments to hold power has been termed as “Jacobinism”.

Whatever the ideals of the revolutionaries in such struggles, ordinary people in their hundreds of thousands perished in the Terror and the wars which ensued.

Of course, counter-revolutionary terror can be just as horrible, or worse, than revolutionary terror. But surely, if there is an alternative - and less brutal - road to change, then we should use it. So, in avoiding such terror, the social compromise of liberal democracy commands our attention and respect.

The composition of any “liberal democratic consensus” or “social compromise”, however, is strongly contested.

Without social rights and social democracy, such a consensus is simply not enough. The liberal democratic consensus underlining the United States, for instance, is not necessarily a comfort to its poor and vulnerable, including the unemployed, the exploited and the homeless.

And sometimes - such as with the outbreak of World War I in 1914 - the acquiescence of elected governments in the face of such barbarism and horror - shatters any illusion or semblance of legitimacy.

Ultimately, even where a democratic government carries a mandate, pursuit of justice demands that workers, citizens, minorities - engage in struggle for their liberal and social rights (and in the case of unjust wars - for diplomacy and peace).

Liberal democratic compromise might ensure the right of citizens and workers to mobilise and argue in the “public sphere”, and to exercise the right of universal suffrage.

But there are instances, also, when people need to push the limits of liberal democratic social compromise. Strategies of civil disobedience: rallies, occupations, political strike action, the holding of picket lines - can well be justified.

And while terror and brutalisation must be avoided, strategies of civil disobedience can lead to physical confrontation between ordinary people and the state power.

Such circumstances can comprise a delicate “balancing out”: one where physical confrontation and conflict is limited by mutual restraint. Failure to exercise restraint, though, can result in a crisis of legitimacy, descent into repression, and escalation.

Under circumstances of liberal democratic consensus, the state itself - to an extent - also comes to embody the social contradictions it is called upon to mediate.

Employees of the state involved in the provision of social services and welfare might develop an interest in the continuation or improvement of services in their field. Teachers, for instance, have not only been involved in struggles for wage justice: they have been at the heart of struggles for a more progressive curriculum.

And it is not unimaginable to suppose that some police - who themselves have experienced industrial struggles - might under some circumstances be reluctant to break the picket lines of other workers.

Furthermore, strategies of “dual power” may involve the creation of alternative democratic institutions - community media, mutual and building societies, non-exploitative co-operative enterprise - beyond the internal contradictions of the state power.

A more radical example might involve the establishment of “community development” or “citizens’ investment” funds from below - through industrial action.

“The Good Society”, here, is one which is open to change: through the dynamic of class struggle, as well as the struggles by minorities and interest groups for recognition, and socio-economic justice.

But such a society is also one whose liberal foundations allow for civil disobedience, while acting as a bulwark against the disintegration of social order, violent desperation: even terror.

In conclusion, “The Good Society” is one marked by a liberal and social democratic consensus. It is a society characterised by a “mixed democratic economy” whose aim it is to provide for the complex tapestry of human need.

So complex a tapestry refers to material, social and cultural need; and to spiritual and secular aspiration for hope, kindness, justice, love, peace and meaning. The “Good Society” aims for a market which is democratic, innovative, responsive, fair and participatory. Such a social project aims beyond the crude logic of share value maximisation.

“The Good Society”, by this reckoning, is one where each contributes according to their ability, and each receives according to their need.

The stability and endurance of liberal and social democratic consensus and compromise is also central to the pursuit of a good and just social order.

Here, the best defence for liberal, democratic and social rights is a culture of civic mobilisation and activism, and of critical inquiry.

Reference to a culture of “civic mobilisation” includes the strength of NGOs (non-government organisations), social movements, religious organisations and movements, trade unions, and political parties.

“Civic mobilisation” also refers to the capacity of such organisations and movements to build counter-hegemonic strategies to challenge the social order, and - where appropriate - to take collective action - including civil disobedience.

Such a culture is best sustained through a robust and participatory “public sphere”: in participatory electronic media, journals and newspapers, public assemblies and social forums.

The foundations of “active/critical” citizenship, here, are best laid early: in the process of public education, and in the development of curricula and teaching strategies. The emphasis, here, ought be upon value formation, ideological literacy, civic mobilisation (including public sphere participation), and critical appreciation of issues through engagement in the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Hopefully this task of imagining of just what constitutes the “Good Society” might compromise a starting point for real efforts to improve the world.

After all, the “point” is not just to talk about the world - but to change it.

By Tristan Ewins

Re-invigorating Civics and Citizenship Education

 nb:  This article was originally published in Agora, the journal of the History Teachers Association of Victoria (HTAV) - in 2006.  Since them it has been slightly edited.

Civics and Citizenship education has come a long way since Paul Keating instigated the formation of a ‘Civics Expert Group (CEG) in 1994 to build a non-partisan program for citizenship education in Australia in response to a perceived ‘civic deficit’ betraying negligible levels of knowledge concerning Australian political processes and institutions.  

Whereas the original blueprint for civics education espoused by the Howard Conservative government may seem somewhat conservative and ‘uncritically celebratory’, the ‘Discovering Democracy’ initiative, incorporating a wide range of curricular material,  has put civics and citizenship ‘on the map’ in schools nationwide.   

The momentum gathered through the provision of the ‘Discovering Democracy’ material has also opened the necessary space for state Labor governments to customize their own approaches to civics and citizenship education.   

In Victoria, for instance, the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS) curriculum framework focuses strongly on civics and citizenship competencies through six ‘levels’ with this field being established as a key ‘domain’ under the new system.  

Under the VELS system the Civics and Citizenship agenda embraces the study of “human rights and social justice issues at local, national and global levels” providing a “vehicle for students to challenge their own and others’ views about Australian society and to formally participate in and practice activities and behaviours which involve democratic decision-making”. http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/downloads/vels_standards/velsrevisedcivics.pdf  

It would seem proponents of civics and citizenship education agenda have reason to be well pleased, but nevertheless there remains a strong case for further reform.

Civics and citizenship education is one of the most important fields of education available to secondary students.  Concerning ‘civic knowledge’ of institutions and processes, as well as knowledge of contemporary social issues challenging Australian and international citizens, it enables students to understand these and thus better participate as active citizens, enhancing a democracy wracked by apathy and demobilization.

Unfortunately, however, even since the landmark delivery of the ‘Discovering Democracy’ curriculum kit to Australian schools, civics and citizenship education has nevertheless struggled to find space in a ‘crowded curriculum’ – especially in the latter years. (11-12)   Also, the ‘institutions and processes’ model largely incorporated in the ‘Discovering Democracy’ kit is in of itself insufficient to meet a broader and more progressive civics and citizenship agenda.

What is more, the lack of any compulsory civics and citizenship content in the latter years has left in question the seriousness with which civics and citizenship education is regarded by government even despite the significant achievements of the ‘Discovering Democracy’ initiative.

In Victoria, and nationwide, it is time to re-evaluate the importance of the civics and citizenship education agenda.   Civics and citizenship education requires ‘streams’ of subjects (humanities and social sciences)  dedicated to the realization of its aims as well as the establishment of compulsory civics and citizenship studies through Studies of Society and Environment and/or History in years 7-10.  Already, in NSW, Studies and Society and Environment has been mandated as a compulsory subject in year 10. http://www.abc.net.au/civics/teach/articles/jdickson/currentsit.htm

We need, now, to replicate this move and progress further, allowing for compulsory study of SOSE and/or History in years 7-10 nationwide.  

Additionally, civics and citizenship competencies need to be embedded in compulsory humanities and social sciences ‘streams of subjects’ for years 11 and 12, one of which must be chosen for any given year.   The provision of ‘streams’ of humanities and social science subjects, including politics, a proposed ‘political economy’ subject, history and sociology, what is more, provides a level of choice unavailable in previous ‘experiments’ such as the ill-fated introduction of ‘Australian Studies’ by the short-lived Kirner Victorian Labor government.  It is this element of choice and diversity that ensures the viability of such an amended curriculum.

Unfortunately, as things currently stand, SOSE attempts far too much with too little time available, combining the study of history, geography and society.  This effectively ‘crowds out’ the critical study of society.  Restructuring the SOSE curriculum to provide further political, historical and sociological content is thus also a central component of any programme to revitalize civics and citizenship education, preferably including separation of the broader SOSE agenda from geography.

Ideally, a restructured SOSE curriculum, as well as revitalised humanities and social science curricula in years 11 and 12, ought to give pride of place to the following objectives:

• critical analysis of how identity and social relations are constructed and contested on the basis of class, ‘race’, ethnicity, nationality, gender and religion, as well as a consideration of whether or not said social relations are just or unjust

• critical analysis of how citizens organize to pursue their interests and ideals both through conventional political forums and ‘from below’.  (including lobby groups, unions, political parties, social movements and media)   Such an analysis would range from traditional lobbying methods such as rallies, petitions and letter writing to more radical measures such as revolution, civil disobedience, occupations, direct action and general strikes, posing the question of what kind of action is and is not legitimate given various social circumstances, including the prevalent ‘social contract’, social stratification, and the ‘rule of law’.   Specific contemporary examples for study could include the anti-monarchist rebellion in Nepal and the revolt against ‘labour market reform’ in France.   Historic examples could include the French and Russian revolutions – already included in the Victorian Certificate of Education ‘Revolutions’ history unit.

• critical analysis of Australian and international political institutions and processes including the relativisation of dominant political narratives and incorporating a critical assessment of international political, cultural and economic social relations

• consideration of political ideologies and national and international social and political movements: their values, history and objectives – with the aim of engendering ‘ideological literacy’ of such traditions as conservatism, liberalism and socialism – and how such traditions can be practiced or even blended in the current day

• a critical consideration of political economy, including consideration of the values that inform a range of economic theories and perspectives

• development of an orientation towards active citizenship, including individual and collective social action, as well as independent value formation informed by ideological literacy and understandings of history, processes, identities, social relationships and social movements.  Students would be encouraged to involve themselves in active citizenship, examples of which could include writing articles for a student paper, taking part in student representation, writing a ‘letter to the editor’ of a paper or magazine, engaging in internet forums on social issues, or joining a political party or social movement and involving oneself in its activities.  Additional studies could include, for instance, an evaluation of relatively low levels of party political participation in Australia compared with countries such as Sweden, analyzing the causes of civic demobilization and disenfranchisement, and considering means to revivify democratic collective decision making processes.

• critical appreciation of ‘civic megatrends’ such as multiculturalism and globalization, including the deconstruction of such trends –  eg: is ‘globalisation’ really a new phenomena, how much does it truly constrain national government, and can any such constraints be overcome through internationalism?  OR – does multiculturalism imply cultural relativism and can cultural relativism be justified?

Obviously the content thus considered would need to be channeled through in a highly simplified form in the early years, but in years 11 and 12, during a period of significant intellectual maturation, there would be great potential for empowerment through the above agenda.

The above model for civics and citizenship education could best be referred to as the ‘active/critical’ model – often referred to by educators as a ‘maximalist’ model.   Rather than simply seeking to ‘hammer home’ selected tid-bits of civic knowledge about political processes and leading historical personalities, such an approach encourages students to engage in political processes and struggles, and to relativise hegemonic processes, movements and ideologies in the process of independently forming their own social and political values and identities.   

Despite the probable conservative charge of ‘bias’ it ought be reinforced here that such a curriculum would seek to encourage critical thinking with regard to all ideologies, allowing students to independently form their own values systems regardless of whether or not this involved ultimately adopting conservative, liberal, socialist or other positions and personas.  

The model thus considered would also expand the definition of the ‘civic deficit’ considered most commonly in civics and citizenship education debates beyond the commonly accepted domain of institutions and processes.  Rather it would seek to critically interrogate dominant social practices, assumptions and relations as well as those practices and relations that would seek to challenge the dominant ideology.  Lack of knowledge of social practices, assumptions and relations would in of itself be considered a kind of ‘deficit’ in dire need of address.  The aim, here, is to create ‘citizens of social vision’ whose broad and critical knowledge of ideologies, processes, institutions, practices, social relations and social assumptions, is sufficient to provide for truly informed and active participation in civic life.

Ideally, the Federal government ought revitalize the ‘Discovering Democracy’ initiative by providing additional material with the aim of supporting the ‘critical/active’ agenda.   What is more, additional curricular material ought also be provided by state governments with the aim of enhancing teacher choice in years 7-10 and deepening civics and citizenship content in years 11-12.   Mandating of the ‘active/critical’ model of civics and citizenship education in years 7-12 needs also to be achieved by state governments nationwide. 

Finally, there is no need to limit civics and citizenship education to the primary and secondary years of education.  Through progressive subsidization of the humanities and social sciences at a tertiary level, powers of critical thought and analysis could be encouraged through optional ‘streams of subjects’ throughout the course of any degree, enabling such content to complement the mainstream content of any given degree.  Such a move could be achieved through government subsidies and HECS discounts and would provide a significant boost for the humanities and social sciences, and thus for the widespread critical understanding of history, literature, culture and society.

Ultimately, it is a question of what value we put upon the values and social engagement that must be present for the success of any robust democracy.  Do we want to educate purely for vocation or do we want to educate for the ‘whole person’, including the rights and responsibilities that underpin citizenship, even including the capacity to interrogate the very category of citizenship itself?   Increasingly, the consensus amongst educators is that civics and citizenship must move to centre stage in the curricula of education systems nationwide.  

Ideally the options in this paper ought be open to cross-partisan consensus as all political parties ought support the endowing of aptitudes necessary for critical thought and informed citizenship.   With Labor governments the country-over - we should be taking advantage of the situation to implement a ‘critical/active’ agenda nationwide.

 by Tristan Ewins

Tristan Ewins is a qualified teacher, freelance writer and grassroots member of the Australian Labor Party

Bibliography

• Ewins, T, ‘Chapter 7 – Citizenship Education in Australia – Beyond Consensus’ in Patmore, G (Ed) (2004), ‘The Vocal Citizen’, Arena Printing and Publishing, Fitzroy, pp 100-115 
• http://www.abc.net.au/civics/teach/articles/jdickson/currentsit.htm
• http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/downloads/vels_standards/velsrevisedcivics.pdf