Introduction to Citizenship and Australian Democracy

	1.1Why Democracy and Citizenship
	1.2 Australian Democracy
	1.3 Australian Citizen ship and Political Struggles
	1.4 Civics Education

This Study Week aims to introduce you to key themes in the study of citizenship and Australian democracy. We set the broader historical context as well as the political and intellectual rationale for examining this topic. In particular, we consider citizenship and democracy as an evolving problem which is subject to tension and political struggle. Your learning objective this week is to consider briefly:

why democracy and citizenship have become a source of public contention in Australia,
two models of citizenship and democracy,
two competing views on the virtues of Australian democracy,
how the study of these topics has been conducted in the past, and
how leading critics think such study ought to be conducted now .

By this means, you will be encouraged to see citizenship as a type of ideology that specifies the ideal form of political community and the ideal citizen.

1.Why Democracy and Citizenship?

For many observers, there appears to be a growing disillusionment with Western liberal democracies. One of the criticisms is that that government do not, and cannot, respond adequately to the needs of the people they are governing. Critics point to a lack of accountability of governments to their citizens, a distrust of politicians, an increasing lack of interest in voting for elections, and in some countries a disturbing growth of official corruption. All this suggests that something may be wrong with modern democracies and that reform is needed. This apparent loss of faith in Western liberal democracies has prompted various analyses and a search for remedies. Such projects are evident in Australia where it is also thought that there exists some kind of 'democratic deficit', and that we need to rediscover our democratic heritage and possibly reinvent our democratic practices for a new political context.

The Greek origins of the word democracy may offer a way of beginning to think about these topics. The term is derived from two Greek words, 'demos' meaning people and 'kratos' meaning rule . Originally, therefore democracy meant rule of the people. This meaning raises two questions: 'Who are the people?' and 'How should they rule?' The first question is one about who is, or ought to be, a citizen. The second question concerns the nature of democratic institutions and processes. As an organising principle we shall refer to two different ways, or 'models' of thinking about citizenship and democracy, namely civic republicanism and liberalism.

Civic republicans put an emphasis upon citizens exercising their public responsibilities or civic duties, and having concern with the public or common good. Ideally, civic republicanism is characterised by a strong sense of belonging to a political community in which individuals are encouraged to share in a common civic life. For civic republicans, an interest for the common good and one's civic duties tend to override one's private individual interests and the concerns of one's private life which are seen as secondary. In this tradition, citizenship is understood as direct participation in a self-governing community, along the lines evident in ancient Athens.

By contrast, citizenship participation in liberal democracy is indirect and the main task is that of electing parliamentary representatives to govern. Liberals usually have a weaker sense of belonging to a political community and they tend to emphasise their individual rights to freedom rather than social responsibilities. Liberal rights are designed to give protection against the arbitrary use of power and government incursion into one's private life. For the liberal, public affairs are not usually primary, and it is assumed that the best government can hope for is to contain political conflict. Public life and government are necessary evils for the protection of activities in one's private life and family. That is, citizenship is necessary to protect the conditions for personal fulfilment, but it is not a sufficient condition. This model has become the dominant one in Europe and for much of the rest of the world.

As we shall see in later weeks, this brief account of the two models oversimplifies their features and exaggerates their differences. But many aspects of the problems confronting modern democracies may be understood better with reference to them. We may see these two models as lying at the opposite ends of a political continuum and in tension with each other. These models may also enable you to engage in a more systematic critique of the values and assumptions underlying contemporary debates. For example, the two models offer different perspectives upon the civic rights and responsibilities considered necessary for a healthy democracy and the possible remedies for the current problems facing democracy. To reduce the alleged 'democratic deficit', do we want more active citizen participation in politics and public life, or do we simply want our representative system to be more accountable and leave us free to participate in our private activities? Some critics want a balance of liberal and civic republican values in political life.

2.Australian Democracy

The first reading by the conservative writer John Carroll offers a positive account of Australian democracy, but one which deliberately understates the debts to liberal ideas. Carroll draws attention to the importance of both public and private life. He points out that 'democracy is not just parliament'. Australian democracy comprises a range of different institutions, including government, parliament and the courts. He also argues that democracy depends upon other social and cultural factors such as the media, popular culture and social capital. He supports his case with reference to the work of Robert Putnam who will be treated in more detail in Study Week 8, and the 19th century French writer Alexis de Toqueville.

Read:J. Carroll, 1995. Democracy. Quadrant XXXIX(4): 19—26.

Although Carroll demonstrates the importance of several institutions to democracy, he also points to the threats they may present if they work in what he thinks is the wrong way. The key problem is that Western liberal democracies are now run 'like feudal fiefdoms'. Here he includes business as well as government, both of which tend to erode any local sense of civic responsibility.

In the first of our controversies, Max Teichmann takes strong issue with Carroll's favourable view of Australian democracy. Teichmann argues that on a number of key indicators, Australian democracy must be found wanting. He thinks that the Australian parliament, for example, is a 'charade' in which the Prime Minister and ministry are rarely accountable to it. Teichmann claims that the political influence of local voluntary associations has been exaggerated and that when they are measured against the power of large national and multinational institutions, 'small is irrelevant'. Because Teichmann sees modern sport as more about money, he also rejects Carroll's claim that sport is a 'moral educator'. For these and other reasons, Teichmann provides a far less complimentary account of democracy. You may wish to judge for yourself whether the high colour of Teichmann's prose is supported by sufficient argument and evidence.

Read:M. Teichmann, 1995. Carroll on democracy. Quadrant XXIX(7—8): 94—7.

These articles do not exhaust the range of issues relevant to Australian democracy, but they are important for two reasons. First, they offer a general introduction to the range of topics that will be explored in more detail in later weeks. Second, they indicate the types of controversy that surround different appraisals of Australian democracy. In this regard, you will note the different kinds of argument, evidence and rhetoric deployed in political debate.

In your next reading Paul Kelly, who is a leading Australian political commentator, broadens the context of critique beyond Australia. He draws attention to the larger historical forces at work in the world and their implications for democracy. He addresses the question of whether democracy has a future and briefly canvasses (a) the 'wellsprings' in the evolution of democracy, (b) the rise of 'interactive politics' and (c) a range of contemporary threats to democracy. Kelly identifies three main threats to democracy, observable in contemporary politics that are likely to increase in significance in the twenty-first century. As you will note, he refers to a number of writers, ancient and modern, some of whose ideas will be treated in more detail in later weeks.

STUDY EXERCISE 1.1
Read:P. Kelly, 1998. Can democracy survive? Australian Magazine 30—31 May: 24—6.
Answer the following questions:
1.What does Kelly identify as the most important threats to democracy into the twenty-first century and why? Answer
2.What are the three 'wellsprings' in the evolution of democracy? Briefly describe each. Answer
3.Describe 'interactive politics' noting its principal features. Answer
4.What is the 'challenge of libertarianism'? Answer
5.Briefly summarise the 'two facts' of constitutional democracy. Answer

Kelly points out that democracy is a relatively recent, even primarily a 20th century, phenomenon and three main factors combine to undermine confidence in the operation of contemporary democracies. These factors include the decline of state power, the rise of the corporation and the scientific method of winning government. A further challenge arises, however, from the growth of 'libertarian' philosophy which gives priority to the rights of the individual and the value of individual freedom. In a roundabout way, Kelly concludes that we must seek to retain the balance between individual and community. Otherwise, he thinks that we will all be the losers. In this reading, we can see the tension between the liberal (respect for individual) and civic republican (respect for community) traditions.

3.Australian Citizenship and Political Struggles

These commentaries on democracy in Australia and elsewhere are part of a growing interest in issues of democratic citizenship. Here we may begin by asking: why has public interest in citizenship increased in recent years? In the following reading, James Walter lists three possible reasons for this trend.

The first reason Walter gives is that the renewed interest in citizenship is prompted by the breakdown of older bonds of community. Such decline in communal ties is characterised by a rise in political disillusionment, voter apathy and the loss of political cohesion across different communities. (This feature is what we referred to above as the 'democratic deficit' argument.) Its origins lie in the rapid economic changes that have occurred over the last few decades and the globalisation of world trading and financial markets. Those writing on such subjects have turned to the study of citizenship as a means of finding new strategies for securing greater political and social cohesion.

In association with the rise of globalisation has been a shift within public policy debates to the view that all social and political problems have an economic origin. This second source of interest in citizenship has occurred as a reaction against the tendency to interpret every major problem as an economic one. As Walter argues, such moves have generated calls 'for a language to address collective problems that recognises that community relations are not just economic relations'. Many critics have suggested that the political discourses surrounding citizenship might provide such a language.

Walter cites increases in global migration as the third reason for recent increases in the study of citizenship. Here, Walter notes that both political theorists and governments have sought a new language of unity that might draw together political communities featuring a range of different ethnic minorities. In the reality of multicultural societies such as Australia, debates surrounding citizenship have been oriented towards finding the grounds for maintaining some sense of social and political cohesion that does not suppress cultural difference. It is argued that citizenship may provide a way of affirming political unity without discriminating against peoples on the grounds of race or ethnicity.

STUDY EXERCISE 1.2
Read:J. Walter, 1996. What does Australian citizenship mean today? Review Paper. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
Answer the following questions:
1.From Walter's account, briefly summarise the three categories of rights contained within T.H. Marshall's definition of citizenship? Answer
2.What factors does Walter list as being important in the post-war shift away from 'anglo-centric' conceptions of Australian citizenship? Answer
3.How, according to Walter have debates surrounding welfare, gender, race and ethnicity influenced contemporary conceptions of Australian citizenship? Answer

Walter defines citizenship as a political identity. Citizenship is a discourse of belonging that seeks to locate individual citizens within the broader social, political and cultural community understood as the nation. Citizenship, moreover, is a way of talking about the individual's entitlements and responsibilities. As Walter stresses, citizenship 'encapsulates the bargain of the individual with the nation: what must I do for the collective, what I am entitled to demand'. Citizenship may, therefore, be understood fundamentally as a bargain between individual citizens and the state. It determines the rights and obligations of each party to the agreement and sets out what citizens may claim from the state. This bargain also indicates what the state may expect of its citizens.

In summary, conceptions of citizenship provide an ideology, discourse or framework of ideas for understanding and guiding both (a) public behaviour and (b) who qualifies as a citizen. For example, some practices such as recourse to law and discussion and peaceful resolution of differences are encouraged. Other practices are ruled out, such as the use of violence to solve political problems. On the one hand, citizenship indicates what kinds of people, such as those born in the country, or those who meet certain qualifications, are designated or may become citizens. On the other hand, citizenship criteria, often defined by immigration laws, rules out certain categories of people from becoming citizens. In the past, the White Australia Policy ruled out Asian migrants.

Essentially, citizenship involves at lease two kinds of related struggles over (a) the nature of a civic identity as well as its associated rights and obligations, and (b) who to include and exclude from citizenship.

The first type of project is that pursued by the nation-state to impose a particular kind of political identity, a civic identity, upon the people who comprise the state. An identity is a means of recognising who one is, who is a member of the community and who is not, what one shares with others. Citizenship is one of many identities, but is usually intended to be the overriding political identity of a country. That is, a civic identity is supposed to involve a higher source of loyalty than that of one's identity as a political party member, one's identity as a member of a local community ethnic group, or one's identity as a citizen of a State such as Victoria or Queensland. Civic loyalties and values are usually higher than more partisan local loyalties. Such an identity indicates not only the rights or entitlements we may claim but also the kinds of responsibilities, duties and obligations we must undertake. A few of the questions of civic identity that have arisen since 1788 include the following:

Should the civic identity be a British one, or a specifically Australian identity?
Should Australians see themselves more as subjects under a constitutional monarchy, or more like citizens who live in a republic?
Should Australians aspire to a homogeneous national identity, or a multicultural identity?
Should Australian citizenship be limited to that provided within the nation state?
Is there potential for Australians to take on a global citizenship identity that values its links with humanity?

Conflict and contest occurs over what kind of civic identity that ought to be and who has the capacity to fulfil its requirements. When people have been unfairly excluded from access to citizenship status this becomes a stimulus for political struggles for inclusion.

In Australia there have been numerous such struggles. Questions have arisen over what kinds of immigrants, British, Europeans, Asians, or Pacific Islanders, ought to be allowed into Australia. A related question concerns what kinds of civic rights and resources to allow the different kinds of people who live in the country. Arguments have also arisen over whether particular kinds of individuals (transient labourers, women) or members of distinct cultural groups (e.g. Aborigines, Chinese) have the capacity to become a citizen. That is, for some, the issue becomes whether such people have the ability to cast aside or repress other gender, cultural or tribal identities and assume the type of civic identity thought appropriate for the country.

For these reasons we may conclude that citizenship provides us with an ideology of public action and legal status. The ideology of citizenship is one answer to the question of what is the ideal relationship (rights and responsibilities) between the individual and the wider society and political community. That is, it prescribes a normative ideal of political action as a form of civic activity. The ideology of citizenship supplies a model of the good polis or ideal political community. It offers models of ideal relationship between rulers and ruled, citizens and the state, as well as the nature of political obligations. Depending on the preferred concept of citizenship, the political action may require more or less participation in politics and direct or indirect participation.

5.Civics Education

Giving a political priority to the formation of a civic identity raises the problem of how best to do so. The primary Australian strategy until the late 1960s was that of excluding certain kinds of immigrants, namely those of Asian origin. More recently, with the rise of a more culturally diverse society, immigration controls have receded in importance. Although immigration barriers still exist, they are not based on race, but on economic and educational criteria. Because of the increase in cultural diversity, a prime task has become that of undertaking education and training in civics and citizenship. The aim has been to protect and enhance the public values and personal practices required by democracy. This strategy has provoked debate over how to develop the right kinds of civic competences among a population. What kinds of education are required, and in what kinds of knowledge and practices?

In the following reading Julian Thomas surveys the history of civics education in Australia. Thomas lists the major components and objectives of civics education in Australia. Perhaps most important, civics courses have contained information about political structures and processes. They seek to outline the institutional structures that make up the legal and administrative dimensions of government and the state. In addition to this, civics courses have examined the nature of our democratic processes, such as elections and voting, parliament and cabinet, indicating how such processes underscore good democratic governance. Civics courses have also traditionally explored important contemporary issues in public affairs, impressing upon the individual the importance of the responsibilities of the political and civil rights available to the citizen. Civics courses have also aimed to convey the idea that the responsible government of nations begins with the ethical self-government of individual citizens. It was envisaged that the good Australian citizen would be well schooled in the contemporary affairs of state and society, and also active in their participation within the politics of that society. The key values and assumptions in this philosophy of civic education are decidedly civic republican.

Study Exercise 1.3
Read:J. Thomas, 1994. The history of civics education in Australia. In Commonwealth of Australia. 'Whereas the People…' Civics and Citizenship Education: Report of the Civics Expert Group. Canberra: AGPS. pp. 161—71.
Answer the following questions.
1.Briefly summarise the arguments informing the early appearance of civics education in Australian schools. Answer
2.Briefly summarise Professor Scott's arguments regarding the three basic components of civics education in this country around the turn of the century. Answer
3.Briefly summarise the reasons Thomas lists for the decline of citizenship education in Australia after the 1950s. Answer

Thomas concludes that one of the main problems confronting civics education was that it had never been clearly delineated from associated topics. Its lack of standing within many school syllabuses had seen the teaching of civics and citizenship slowly eclipsed by a series of emerging disciplines and subjects such as legal studies and international studies.

The following readings introduce you to two historians who have contributed to setting the recent national agendas for civics education. Both have made an argument for the relevance of political and historical knowledge. Stuart Macintyre explains the decline in civics education with reference to the loss of a shared, monocultural, national identity. Without that assumption, the older civics education lost much of its relevance. Macintyre points out the lack of resources available for teaching in the field, and then outlines three areas that require attention in any new civics education namely, teaching about (a) the constitutional structure and government, (b) the history of our system of government and its guiding values, and (c) the limits of government and the importance of voluntary associations.

Read:S. Macintyre, 1994. How to turn out informed citizens. Australian 17 June: 19.

Macintyre concludes by suggesting that the Commonwealth level of government is best able to provide leadership in reforming civics education.

John Hirst addresses the decline in history teaching in schools. He takes issue with a new national curriculum in which history is to be taught, but not under that name. Hirst argues that under this curriculum, teachers would have no opportunity to provide a 'coherent history of any country', and that students would gain only a fragmentary knowledge of history.

Read:J. Hirst, 1995. Our schools neglect history at our cost. Australian 31 October: 13.

Hirst claims that without a knowledge of their past, people will 'will lack imagination and capacity'. This is not say that he advocates a single authorised version of Australian history. Hirst, however, argues that citizens of a democracy 'have a special need to know the history of the polity for which they ultimately are responsible.' That is, civics should not simply be directed towards learning about constitutional matters, but consider the broader range of processes by which people have governed themselves and the conflicts that have occurred over them. Here the discipline of history is central.

Conclusion

As part of a national program to renovate education in citizenship at the university level, this unit also confronts problems of what content is most appropriate and what kinds of 'relevance' are important. Like the earlier subjects, this one examines a selection of political institutions and democratic processes. It also addresses controversial political issues. Nevertheless, it may be distinguished from earlier subjects in a number of ways. First, it puts an emphasis upon the historical evolution of democratic ideas and practice from their origins in ancient Athens to the present. By also examining Australian democracy from colonial times to the present, the aim is to show how distinctive Australian institutions emerged that combined different aspects of the political heritages of Great Britain, Europe and the United States of America. Another distinguishing mark of this unit is its concern to organise the material on citizenship and democracy within a conceptual framework that portrays tensions between of civic republicanism and liberalism. Although such topics fit neatly into the field of political science, they also require contributions from other disciplines such as history, philosophy, and sociology.

Several further questions need to be asked. For example, what kinds of imagination and capacities ought to be fostered? Should such an education seek to inculcate an uncritical allegiance to the Australian state and its reigning values, or should it encourage challenges to those institutions and values? This leads to the question of whether there are any justifiable limits to either civic loyalty or political criticism. In brief response, this unit is based upon the assumption that a civic education requires an understanding, not only of the historical evolution of the ideas and institutions, but also of democracy and citizenship as a series of political possibilities. Given that democracy has evolved over time and taken various forms, it would be a mistake to think of it as a fixed, unalterable system. Both a sense of history and the capacity for critical reflection is essential in democratic citizenship. For this reason, the unit includes a number of strong critiques of, and debates over, current political arrangements in Australia.

In this regard, one of the recurring themes is the conflict over efforts to extend and to curtail citizenship rights. A complementary focus is on the quest to broaden popular participation in different kinds of democratic forums outside parliament. Through these features a few of the political institutions and processes that may be needed in the future are canvassed. Perhaps the two most important challenges, that of the possible shift to an Australian republic and that of economic globalisation, also recur as themes. This makes the unit somewhat broad in scope, but it takes it beyond a celebration of past achievements or an exercise in instilling uncritical civic loyalties. A key assumption is that any attempt to think more clearly about democratic polities, and their possible futures, is central to citizenship education.

In the next Study Week you will examine in more detail the ideas and historical evolution of two different models of democracy and citizenship, namely, civic republicanism and liberalism.

Review for Week 1

Before proceeding, you ought to review your understanding of this week's topic by:
(a) checking your responses to the Study Exercises against those supplied in the Study Guide, and

(b) reading again the documents for this week and completing the related Study Questions in the Workbook, for which there are no answers provided.

References

Carroll, J. 1995. Democracy. Quadrant XXXIX(4): 19—26.

Hirst, J. 1995. Our schools neglect history at our cost. Australian 31 October: 13.

Kelly, P. 1998. Can democracy survive? Australian Magazine 30—31 May: 24—6.

Macintyre, S. 1994. How to turn out informed citizens. Australian 17 June: 19.

Teichmann, M. 1995. Carroll on democracy. Quadrant XXIX(7—8): 94—7.

Thomas, J. 1994. The history of civics education in Australia. In Commonwealth of Australia. 'Whereas the People…' Civics and Citizenship Education: Report of the Civics Expert Group. Canberra: AGPS. pp. 161—71.

Walter, J. 1996. What does Australian citizenship mean today? Review Paper. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.

Internet and On-Line Resources

Below is a list of web-sites relevant to this week's course material. These sites should be of use in completing the study and research exercises for this week.

Academics' Consortium Project in Civics Education
This site forms part of the Commonwealth Government's Discovering Democracy civics education program. It provides on-line resources for the teaching of civics, democracy and citizenship, providing links to other relevant sites.

Centre for Civics Education
Whilst this is a US based site, it should still be of some use in studying civics education in this country. The centre is a non-profit, non-partisan corporation providing on-line programs and curricula fostering the development of informed, responsible participation in civic life.

Curriculum Corporation
This is the website for the Commonwealth Government's Civics and Citizenship education initiatives.

National Centre for Australian Studies
The National Centre for Australian Studies (NCAS) is a key centre for teaching and research in Australian Studies. The Centre's homepage provides a series of on-line resources for studies in civics and citizenship, including links to other sites both Australian and international.

Open Learning Australia/Radio National
This site is based on the thirteen part ABC/Radio National series covering historical, political and cultural aspects of Australian conceptions of liberal democracy, citizenship and civics education. This site provides numerous links to other on-line resources for the study of citizenship and Australian democracy.