newcluk006

The unique phenomenon of Athenian democracy, and its development as an viable institution during the fifth century BC, is a fascinating field for study, essential for our understanding of the emergence of our own modern political systems. In fact it may well be said to be the true yardstick against which all subsequent so-called "free systems" of governance should be gauged. The current task is to examine how the structures of state worked in practice and to what extent were these structures subject to manipulation or influence by powerful groups.

The measure of success of any political system cannot realistically be assessed purely in terms of the technical skill with which checks and balances have been carefully crafted into a constitution to prevent excesses and to avoid abuse by one section of the polity over another. Nor even, can this success be solely defined in terms of the implicit "fairness", of the social contract between the governors and the governed. No mere academic exercise of political philosophy can circumscribe a successful practical system and explain its viability and vitality. The system has to be right for its times, suitable for the society that will use it and more attractive than any conceivable alternative. Ultimately the only true measure of a success for a political system is the proven ability to survive through good times or bad, with essential institutions and vitality intact. The robustness with which a particular system normally functions in the course of ordinary daily business will be an accurate reflection of the strength of resources that it will able to marshal in to own defense when faced with a threat to the continuing survival of its institutions. In order to examine the machinery of the every day government we must first examine the structure of its constitution and how it came to be.

Regrettably, the contemporaneous fifth and fourth century literary sources that are still available to us, are somewhat limited for providing an understanding of the relative importance of the various elements of the political structures. Even less information is available for explaining the manner of the day to day implementation of democracy as a working system. Most ancient writers concerned themselves, almost exclusively, with dramatic events and the actions of the mighty on the main stage and were little interested in providing detail of the hum-drum workings of the system that sustained everything. Invariably the most relevant detail is usually omitted or glossed over. We have to read between the lines. Strangely enough, we probably owe more to the critics of democracy, than to its protagonists, for the surviving record of its achievements. This is a very relevant point to consider when investigating our topic regarding the supposed domination of politics by a few influential men. The oligarchic sentiments expressed, so frequently, by almost all of these writers, conveys the common thread of a great sense of frustration at the actuality of a heavy-handed practice of democracy, which they claim was often poorly led by inadequate leaders, or demagogues. The writer of The Athenian Constitution, the pseudo Xenophon, or Old Oligarch, typifies this attitude. In his opening words he sets the climate of criticism. "And as for the fact that the Athenians have chosen the kind of constitution that they have, I do not think well of their doing this inasmuch as in making their choice they have chosen to let the worst people be better off than the good". His sentiments are echoed by almost all of the other writers, who were generally members of the aristocratic or affluent class, who had the leisure time available to write. This often-expressed frustration is clear evidence that the direction of state policy cannot usually have been as amenable to successful oligarchic manipulation as many modern analysts would have us think. If it were so there could hardly be any cause for this frustration. However this conclusion is only relevant for the second half of our period, as the writers were closer to this point in time and still emotionally involved in the issue. Moreover circumstances had undoubtedly changed, following the reforms of Ephialtes and Pericles in mid-century.

As always for the second half of the fifth century our principle literary source is Thucydides, though not a true democrat himself, nevertheless was the keenest observer of the system in action. Xenophon, writing in the early fourth century also supplies important detail. In this context he is best described as a disillusioned democrat, who turned his sympathies towards the Spartan constitution, after witnessing the excesses of the demagogues and military defeat of Athens. His younger contemporary, the sophist and historian Isocrates, although otherwise enlightened and cosmopolitan in outlook, seems in his treatise Areopagiticus (355-4 BC) to have preferred an archaic form of semi-democracy closely regulated by censorship and by the, the Areopagus. This was anachronistic as Ephialtes, with Pericles' backing, had in 462/1 B.C instituted radical reforms, stripping this heredity council of any realistic political power. Almost alone among the earlier sources, Herodotus writing in mid fifth century, is sympathetic towards democracy and attempts to explain the system (Ref III 80-82: The debate of the Persian nobles). However according to Ehrenberg (Origins of Democracy) there is a disquieting vagueness as to what actually constitutes democracy and especially regarding what should be the role of leadership in this system

A few extant inscriptions also provide documentary evidence, in the form of decrees and other official records dating from this period. Beside the textural information the style or format of these inscriptions gives an indication of the relative importance of such institutions as the Boule' and of the Demos (assembly). Non-historiographic sources, such as the work of playwrights Aristophanes and Euripides and others cast light on how the system worked in practice and what were the attitudes of the general population towards these institutions. The various political and philosophical treatises of Aristotle Ath. Polit. and those of his mentor Plato (ca. 427-347 B.C), especially The Republic, written just outside this period, are very critical of democracy for encouraging bad rulers and excesses. Plato shows strong preference for a form of benign autocracy or rule by the enlightened. However he provides useful commentary and insight on the politics of democracy and its failures by way of contrast with other systems. Secondary sources, such as the first century AD biographer Plutarch (ca. AD 46 -120) and also the historian Polybius (ca. 202-120 B.C), add useful detail and sometimes clarify the picture with the advantage of greater perspective.

Although outside our time frame, the record of how democracy functioned in fourth century Athens is much better documented and could be used, with discretion, as a useful guide to the earlier period. By this time the institution of democracy was certainly more developed and apparently, more open and less subject to partisan manipulation from behind the scenes. mainly due to the near extinction of the aristocratic blood lines. The orations of Demosthenes and of his rival Aeschines are especially worthy of noteAccording to tradition Cleisthenes gave Athens the definitive form to her institutions in 508-7 BC. In a bold and revolutionary reorganization, he separated the political structures of the state from traditional clan or regional blood loyalties. He set up a purely artificial arrangement to replace traditional structures, consisting of a set of ten new electoral groupings (tribes) derived from a deliberate mix of thirty geographical areas (trittyes), each of which was made up of a few local sub groups (demes). Each tribe was structured, so as to diversify the social interests within the voting group, by selecting each of its three trittyes from one of three different geographical regions. These regions were defined as being the city, the coast and the hinterland of Attica. Both the tribes and the demes had a corporate structure of assemblies and officers, with duties such as maintaining citizen lists etc. The trittyes was, however, merely a sub grouping of demes, which needed to be retained purely to ensure diversity within the tribes and it had no function as a political unit. Membership of a deme was hereditary, irrespective of changes in domicile. Each of the tribes had to provide a regiment of heavy infantry (hoplites) and squadron of horse, led, in the field by an elected general (strategos). This office became increasingly politicized, in time becoming pre-eminent in political influence.

Cleisthenes disbanded the existing council and reconstructed a truly representative council of five hundred (the Boule') consisting of fifty members from each tribe, appointed by lot. This council was the supreme administrative body of the state, with control over finance, responsibility for debating and preparing legislature, some judicial powers and the important right of review of the performance of the executive (archons and other magistrates). The Boule' conducted business through rotating committees (prytaneis) with each tribe holding office for a tenth of a year (prytanies). The archonships or higher offices of the executive, as before, were reserved for members of the aristocratic families. The Areospagus was maintained as an aristocratic council of ex-archons with strong judicial powers. The Assembly of the people (Ecclesia) was the actual legislative authority, voting on motions, prepared by the council and on such issues as declaration of war and ostracism. Ostracism was Cleisthenes' safeguard against the rebirth of tyranny. Ehrenberg refers to a similar provision in the oath of office for members of the Boule', whereby they vowed to denounce a member who proposed unsuitable legislation (Aristotles Ath. Pol 22,2). The Ecclesia (periodic assembly of all adult male citizens) was the actual ultimate sovereign authority of the state and for this reason became the medium of democratization. However as it was merely a gathering, with no continuity between sessions, it was obviously subject to the opinions prevailing within the Boule', as this council had had the leisure to debate issues, before putting them to the assembly for voting. As motions were "prepackaged" before reaching the Ecclesia the outcome was usually predictable though not always. Thus with a strong inflluence over the direction of political direction and also control over finances, it is indeed fair to say that the Boule' was set up to be the senior partner in government. The corollary is obvious. Any attempt by powerful individuals to influence state policy had to be initiated in the Boule'.

Ehrenberg (Origins of Democracy) convincingly argues that Cleisthenes' did not originally have any intention of setting up a democracy, although this developed, in time, as a result of the system that he had initiated. He quotes Herodotus (V 69) to show that Cleisthenes was caught up in a struggle with Isagoras, in the aftermath of the fall of the tyranny of the Pisistratid family. He used his reforms as a means to enlist the power of the people to help him defeat his rival oligarch and thereby ensure the predominance of his own "extended family" or genos, the Alcmaeonids. If we accept Ehrenberg's premise, then right from the very outset, even as the fifth century came into being, the basis for the future democratic system was already flawed by oligarchic manipulation of the political structures. Arguably the system continued to evolve, steadily become more democratic in time. This trend was strengthened as a result of changing social influences, brought about by the acquisition of an empire, increasing wealth and especially as a result of the effects of the long drawn-out Peloponnesian war. However all these changes, towards a more progressive political climate, were essentially developed within the original framework that had already been set up. We know that on most occasions the system worked well for Athens, raising the city to her most glorious periods of brilliance and yet it was also responsible for paving the way to her most abject disasters. It is through examination of these two extreme outcomes that we can investigate how the boule' was truly representative of the "will of the people" or merely a foil for the influence of dominant individuals or groups.

The miracle of Athenian democracy was that, as it evolved from the time of Cleisthenes, throughout more than a century and a half of turmoil, the vigor and robustness of the trend managed to continually regenerate and renew itself against all the odds. It survived an unending string of military defeats, loss of empire, plagues and several coup d' etats. It even managed to survive the worst excesses of the demagogues who are the unfortunate corollary (or bastard offspring) of democracy in its rawest form. However these incredible setbacks in the fortunes of the state did sometimes promote a consequent regression in the mood of the populace causing swings away from the democratic movement towards oligarchy. For example the short-lived seizure of power in 411 B.C by the oligarchic "Council of Four Hundred", which was in reaction to the excesses of an expansive foreign policy, promoted by unfit demagogues. These disastrous policies, which lacked coherence, had expanded the war and led to disaster at Syracuse in 413 B.C and revolts of the allies in 412-11 B.C. The oligarchic reaction had been sponsored amongst the politically active social clubs (hetaireia) that were a feature of the affluent or aristocratic portion of society. However Athens had become too used to the freedoms of democracy by this time and were not comfortable with the arrogance of the oligarchs and the more moderate council of five thousand was set up which paved the way to a return to the status quo.

Ever since the organisastion of societies in different forms came about, conflicts in the manner of assuming, conferring or exercising of authority and rights and contingent duties for the accepted ideals have been considered in great detail by eminent thinkers. Accordingly, concepts like democracy, liberty, equality, fraternity, state, nation, privileges and forms of governments ranging from absolute monarchy to militarism to democratic functioning in different mores have been analyzed, given shape and systematically followed by different peoples in different climes and times in different manner. The greatest legacy of the 20th century has been to disseminate information on these aspects of civilized life to those who aspire to carve out for their communities, the finest ideas and ideals that the best minds have bequeathed to posterity and for which successive generations of mankind had struggled and shown the pathway.

Democracy

In fact, the connotation of the word 'Democracy' itself has undergone great changes from the very early times to the present. For the purposes of this article, we will confine ourselves to the generally accepted modern usage of western liberal approach. Similarly 'Rights' -acquired, conferred upon or claimed to be of divine origin - has many attributes. Here, too, we will follow what has been the outstanding contribution of British Parliamentary evolution's gift go humanity as a whole, once again nurtured by such great turning evenings of history as the French Revolution, American War of Independence, liberalism of different hues down to the claims of the proletarian revolution, Afro-Asian-Latin American resurgence and traditions of modern democratic states in general, which by mutual consent between the governed the government, have in theory at least, accepted certain rights as indispensable for the functioning of the state.
Unity of mankind

The world today largely presents a different picture from what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Enormous and incredible changes brought about in various facets of life due to scientific advancement have touched upon the lives in all the continents, though in varying shades. Similarly information on the way of life of other people, now instantaneously reach all parts of the globe giving scope for reaction, assimilation, adoption or adaptation. Man appears to be truly moving towards the common goal of "One World', a very distant but distinct perspective of a Tamil bard who had said several hundreds of years back, "The whole world is mine, all are my brethren."
The economic prospects of globalization of not merely trade and commerce but educational and employment mobility and opportunities, the tremendous scope of reaching out almost anywhere in all areas of human endeavour, have given rise to globalization of thinking on human values as well. Gone are the mere talk about something happening in distant parts of the world. Along with many great strides in positive advancements, negative thinking leading to catastrophic events attempted by nihilists, terrorists and anarchists also pose a change to modern states and citizens in not just protecting their narrow domains but to think in terms of global security, growth, prosperity, sharing and a concern for the entire humanity, unprecedented in dimensions in earlier times. And as the micro will show the path for macro or the micro and macro have together to tread cautiously to elude different forms of violence, it is easier to understand the implications of a well-knit individual unit of modern state to pay attention to the human rights to its citizens, with a view to appreciate similar aspirations of people everywhere so that collective protection becomes inherent starting point of all civilised states to come together to enrich humanity. On the assumption of viable modern states and citizens striving for harmony and global peace, inevitable interaction between national and international events, we shall now concentrate on human rights in a democratic form of state.

Modern States

Organisation of modern states was not a smooth task. Even in the past and medieval times, monarchy or any other type of government involved use of force to create, sustain and often enlarge the domain of the state. Philosophers from the time of Socrates down to Bertrand Russell in modern times have dwelt at length on the consent of the governed, participation of the governed, opportunities of the governed, enlargement of the scope of the governed in the process of government for the betterment of individuals and institutions, societies and the world at large. Many modern states have attempted to incorporate in their political constitutions the noble ideals of different nations so that the benefit of collective wisdom is shared and applied in detail to avoid pitfalls encountered by others.

In brief, we have to assume that a modern state has to be concerned with appropriate rights and duties of the citizens who constitute the state. After all, governments are but reflections of the people composing the state. As the heritage of  humanity is common, as indeed scientific and literary delights have been shared, so too the political values need to be imbibed by people to look forward to a betterment of their lives. For we have not reached the stage of people as a community without the burden of the instrument of a state, which essentially has to have some coercive powers to enforce the collective ideals.

This brings us to the complexities of the modern organisation of state itself. It is occasionally possible for a small state to have a sense of great identity in language, religion, culture, way of living, economic moorings, racial characteristics and a desire to live together under the banner of a state. But even very small countries do have problems with minorities of various descriptions and, therefore, care is to be taken to ensure that rights are had by all who are members of the body-politic. If even the small states with great cohesion do encounter such problems, nothing need be said about multifarious constituents in larger states where diversities are the order due to historical and contemporary factors. Nevertheless, the story of the past sixty years or so, ever since the founding of the United Nations with all its shortcomings and glories, the mergence of nation-states in large parts of Africa and Asia from the clutches of colonialism and imperialism, the story of the majority of human population to rise from the ashes of the enormous burden of the past in its varying and suppressive legacy of the past, to look forward to a better life, is a pointer to the need for assigning dignified human rights to a democratically functioning state. We have enough evidence to state that such human rights in a democratically embedded state have led to all-round development of the people and an urge towards extending such benefits to every group of human beings with a view to help realize the value of not just an inherited legacy but the norms of material comforts enjoyed by advanced nations.

Religious differences

So we are concerned with the problem of a modern democratic state but have to address the problem of religious differences as well. For, there are many modern states where one religion is declared to be an official one. We will assume that we are concerned with those states only to the extent of these giving rights to religious minorities. There have been many states paying lip sympathy to some religion or the other, without really caring much for the metaphysical needs of the people. We shall assume that it is largely left to the individuals to cater to themselves without being bothered by the state about the pursuit of their religious beliefs. Also we have a number of states coming out with the concept of secularism, though the term is interpreted in different fashions. For our purposes this is very important because we are largely interested in giving norms for a democratically inclined societies where rights include the right to practise one's religious inclinations without being disturbed by the members of the rest of the society or from the instruments of the state.

This is not some idealistic norm as the events in Israel and Palestinian states of any number of other tragically juxtaposed communities longing to find security and harmony would indicate. We are not for a moment suggesting that theocratic states have in-built opposition to other religious practices. But we do know that by and large, many countries with strong religious base do not come forward to accord liberal permission for citizens with different faiths to practise theirs without interference.

Secularism

Accordingly we are concerned with a modern, democratic, secular state : this is a contemporary theme. A few words on modernism would not be out of place. Here we mean largely the socially accepted ideals of transition from some outdated conceptions of the past and a passion for looking forward to fresh, rational approach susceptible to the good changes coming from anywhere without necessarily sacrificing what a people consider as intrinsically indispensable for their need to protect their cultural or other identities. In this sense secularism not merely indicates a non involvement of the state with reference to religious beliefs and practices of the people but would enforce that such an approach is had by all the members of the society, whether in a majority or minority religious milieu. Secularism would imply that people reach out to others to form a state, fully knowing that individuals have the right to hold on to their cherished values. Secularism implies that these differences do not affect the progress of the state and its people as a whole towards betterment of their material comforts and other cultural pursuits so that the purpose of coming together, subordinating other variations, is fulfilled. It also encourages all its citizens to understand that the beliefs and behaviour of others in respective religious spheres should be respected, appreciated and at no stage ridiculed, denigrated or slighted. Secularism has this great positive impetus to impart so that harmony is cultivated as a mater of course and with due regards to the attitude of others.

Accordingly, a modern state has a given territory, people, a constitution to lay down the norms of relationship that fundamentally should subsist between the government and the people, a government as an instrument of state's sovereignty to implement the policies and programmes of the people. This requires an explicit laying down the rights of the people -and correspondingly the duties as well - so that this living together can serve a better purpose. The framers of the constitution must take into consideration the unity or diversity of the people and should forge values which would hold them together. Without the guiding principles, there would be discordant notes. With specific guaranteed rights, the government of the state and the people know the respective duties and obligations so that any threat to harmonious balance is averted. All modern constitutions, therefore, contain regulatory provisions for the governance. We shall now look into the need for appropriate definition of human rights in a democracy.

Democracy, not merely a political tool

While this much abused word 'democracy' has the potential of distorting even good intentioned ideals, it cannot be denied that despite many difficulties, it is the best devised form of government. The reason is obvious. There has to be a sense of understanding true democratic norms. Democracy is not merely a political tool to bring together people for economic betterment but it enhances the quality of the life of the people by enabling them to pursue individual course of life to the full and integrating it with those of others so that collectively benefit is shared by all. This is a safer method of government, for in this, the rights to discuss, dissent, disseminate views are recognised and larger the participation of the people, the better for the state as a whole.
Common ideals inspire people to come together and in order that this togetherness leads to enhanced quality of life, there should be vigorous efforts to remove any obstacles. There are bound to be differences as to the methods for reaching the goals but the basic idea that others too are genuinely interested in the goals must be understood. In this context, democratic norms are not merely for just political settings but are applicable to other areas of human activities as well. They invest in the community a sense of belonging together, to understand others' point of view so that harmonious working together for welfare of all is the concern of all. The aims are laudable. It is not mere head counting to settle vexatious disputes. It is putting heads together to find solutions to complex problems and assure that dignity, fairplay and justice would be ensured to all. It may sound platonic but it is true that very ignorant people have been inspired to raise themselves to very great heights through proper lead given by their committed leaders. When Abraham Lincoln declared that the then civil war would decide the great issue that all men were created equal, he laid down a noble norm implicitly followed by people elsewhere too. People like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela and a host of others had this passion for serving the common people. We find in all the newly independent countries in the post-second world war era, people clinging to the liberalist ideals and democracy of the European hue. And to overcome violent means to sustain democratic practices, states have carefully incorporated in their constitutions the basic principles which would guide the people in active participation in community life.

Having stated that in a modern, secular state people come together for advancement of material and other benefits, we shall briefly state the rights required for such advancement and the means whereby they could be furthered. We need not go into the details of governmental machinery as we shall assume that people had chosen what has suited them best. There shall be no discrimination based on race or language, religion or any divisive force to disturb the balance. Rights, accordingly, would be qualitatively stronger and greater than mere quantity. The position of different states with reference to education, resources, constraints of the past, the cobwebs of centuries will be different. Still, the beauty of democracy is that it preaches not just a political accommodation of diverse elements but a social and cultural emancipation together with better economic advancement. To enjoy the fruits of science and technology, no social or religious past deadwood need stand in the way. That is where democratic spirit, democratic outlook, a democratic concern and democratic way of life would go a long way than any other political system which could arrogate to itself the right to tell citizens what they must do.

Human Rights

Human Rights postulate, therefore, the attitude on the part of the people that would enable them to blend the fine values of the past with the fine elements from contemporary world, wherever good things could be absorbed. They would be embedded in the basic structure of the constitution as rights to be enjoyed by the people. The following are indispensable in the domain of rights.

1. Right to Health Care

The right to good health needs hardly to be stressed, though surprisingly overlooked. We often come across even in the relatively well-informed government circles people gathering for an occasion provided with bottled mineral waters while those whom they are supposed to govern do not have access to clean drinking water. If this condition prevails for water, one of nature's bounties, which must be made available to all, one can imagine situation in other basic health factors. We hear governments spending billions to explore space and go to moon but not much is done to slake the thirst of citizens! If health starts with water, then what of other medical facilities? Healthcare should be society's concern: more so in the emerging nations where money is had for any number of fancy schemes. Waster, clean environment, food, healthcare are indispensable tools for building a better society. We cannot perpetuate inequity and inequality even with regard to drinking water and health problems. To invest in human resources is to reap the benefits for all. The tragic sequence of events in Somalia is but a reminder to the conscience of mankind. Opulence in one part of humanity and utter poverty to the point of destitution in this age of advanced technology makes nonsense of scientific progress and universal humanism. So in this subsection under health, we suggest that all the basic needs from waster to clothing to housing to recreation form an integral first step to distinguish man from animals. No effort should be spared to declare this as "right" as distinguished from philanthropy or charity or humanitarian cause. To live first as decent human beings, basic health care for all must be conceived, developed and sustained.

2. Right to Education

Man is distinguished from the rest of the species but his capacity to learn and progress. Democracy is a form of government assuring equality and liberty for all the citizens and it would be a mockery if a large number of people go with proper education. Many oriental traditions are rich in literature but unfortunately until fairly recently education, the right to be literate, the right to have access to knowledge was limited to a few. We are not here concerned with sociological reasons and surmises. We are concerned with the present and the future and if we can go the moon, certainly we can make our brothers and sisters read and write, develop skills which would be true liberation. Educational rights should not be exclusive for the privileged alone. Educational opportunities must be had by all. It is one means by which the individual recognizes and develops one's capabilities. We may also note that in many newly emerging states gender injustice, that is, denying womenfolk to good education is denied. Education alone would pave the way for true advancement of the society. Education is a great equalizer. It clothes men and women with right attitudes, right conduct and right thinking. Education, general or technical is not a superficial acquisition. It is as important as fresh air and water for betterment. It is not a gift by a society or a government. It should be made the inherent right to gateway to knowledge. And from knowledge flows all other benefits. To deny education is to deny civilization: to deny values: to talk of democracy without assuring the citizens the right to be educated is a travesty of justice. Education is the most liberating influence on individual and society. Education truly is the guiding spirit for the success of democratic way of living.

3. Right to Employment

It is true that there are many problems confronting any society to provide all the citizens appropriate employment opportunities. However, science and technology have grown in such great dimensions, that the potentials of employment are staggering indeed. What is required is a socially conscious will to equitably apportion the work required for smoothly carrying out the functions of society. There are practically no limits to which the human mind is capable of devising measures, if the need arises, to overcome any obstacle. When such is the case, the problem of lopsided opportunities must be addressed to. When nature's constraints in food production could be overcome by scientific application of remedial measures, is it too much to expect the best minds to sit together and find that a situation is created whereby everyone can have 6 to 7 hours work per day instead of unequal longer hours for many, no work for some etc.? It is a question of planning, not throwing our doles or curtailing some benefits but to look at humanity in a collective manner: without discrimination and  the recognition of spotted talent. Here again, it is a question of proper application. If men could split atom and harness the energy for constructive purposes, they could easily split the inertia and lethargy and mindset of the past to usher in a rosy future where productive forces can be taken care of by the collective efforts of all. Planning is not necessarily an evil word: it is not regimentation. And certainly it is within the realm of possibility for people to understand that  many for ever should not live at the cost of a mass of impoverished population. Work is life; idleness is death. Work is positive: idleness is negation of values.

4. Political Rights

Mere guarantee of political rights is not enough. It is undoubtedly true that political rights are hard won but they are harder still to be sustained and passed on to the future. The assumption that political rights such as equality and liberty, voting and elections would ensure permanency in the system is naïve. Any right has a corresponding duty. If people are invested with political rights, they have to be clearly told about their duties as citizens. Political rights are like two-edged weapons. Ignorance or indifference of the people would lead to disaster. Political rights of modern times largely rest upon the assumption of equality of opportunity and status for all. This equality presupposes a number of variables but for our purpose, it is enough to state that political rights have no meaning if they are just enshrined in paper. They require constant application by the people. Technically we can have a plethora of rights but when people are so disillusioned with the system, they do not care even to exercise the most elementary freedom of right to vote. Unaware of the tremendous sacrifices made by the forebears to gain these rights, indifference and cynicism of a people not appreciating their rights would invite disaster.

5. Economic Rights

This brings us to the most important right in a democracy. Economic rights are not much talked about though various 'isms' and theories are put for to bring about changes in the economic condition of the people. Liberty of equality or any type of political right is meaningless if a section of people to be for ever consigned to penury . The problem is deeper than mere ideological approach. It involves human values as well. Should there be a large number of people in despicable condition while some, by chance or choice, could get away with all the benefits of economic freedom? There is no need to be evasive about the answers. What must be understood is that there must be equity, opportunity for all to work and earn, curbing of exploitation, sharing of the gains of productivity by all, the right to retiral benefits, a dignified wage etc. There are realizable potentials. Technology is so developed it would be idle to pretend at this age of globalization of economic activities there should be lack of employment opportunities. What is required is a passion for social justice. Economic rights must include proper wages, holidays, right to advancement in the career, retiral benefits and finally a dignified old age. Again these are not day dreams. Some of the wildest dreams have come true. It is not too much to expect the collective wisdom of mankind to evolve conditions suitable for optimum working conditions and a respect for the right to work.

6. Social and Cultural Rights

When health care, housing, education, employment and economic rights are appropriately guaranteed by political rights, it would just be a matter of time before social and cultural rights are fruitfully conferred or enjoyed. The greatness of democracy is that it can be a great instrument in transforming the society from slumber to The greatness of democracy is that it can be a great instrument in transforming the society from slumber to The greatness of democracy is that it can be a great instrument in transforming the society from slumber to wakefulness, from inertia to dynamism and from darkness to light Political theory and thought have been enriched by great philosophers and their practice have benefited millions.

by Mary Ellen Daneels, Lead Teacher Mentor

Earlier this fall, I was part of a conference put on by Dr. Diana Hess, the Dean of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The conference t-shirts read, “Teach like our democracy depends on it — because it does.” The recent 98th Annual National Council for the Social Studies conference held in Chicago highlighted this message throughout.

IllinoisCivics.org and the Department of Social Science and Civic Engagement at Chicago Public Schools hosted a special strand of Illinois programming around “Inquiry as Engagement: Connecting Across Differences” had the message, <strong>“Engage students like our democracy depends on it — because it does.”</strong> Session attendees learned how deliberation, student voice, and informed action can be leveraged to connect classrooms across cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic differences in this diverse state to promote culturally sustainable teaching.

The day concluded with the first ever Better Arguments Project sponsored by Allstate, the Aspen Institute, and Facing History and Ourselves. Eric Liu from Citizen University led the Better Arguments workshop and modeled classroom tools teachers can use to engage students in critical conversations around compelling questions that face our communities.


#CivicsIsBack teachers had a plethora of workshop sessions to choose from at #ncss18. If you were unable to attend, visit the NCSS Conference web site where members can access materials from conference presentations. Here are a few to start with:

• Dan Fouts, an AP Government & Politics teacher from Illinois hosted a power session on using big questions in the classroom, highlighting ideas from his popular Socrates Questions blog.
• Chris Hitchcock, one of the #sschat hosts, shared resources to support The Power of Podcasts for Teaching and Learning, a great tool for students to communicate conclusions and take informed action per the Illinois Social Science standards.
• Street Law conducted SCOTUS preview including their latest SCOTUS case summary: MNCPPC v. American Humanist Association.

Were you at #ncss18 this year? What were your favorite sessions? What did you learn? Please comment below. Together, we can prepare students for college, career and civic life.

by Shawn P. Healy, PhD, Democracy Program Director

On November 1-4, 2018, the Journalism Education Association hosted its semiannual convention in Chicago. More than 6,000 student journalists and their advisers attended, including a cohort of Chicago Public Schools students and teachers sponsored by the Chicago Scholastic Press Association, an affiliate of Roosevelt University and longtime McCormick Foundation grantee. Sessions were standing room only and enlivened by enthusiastic student journalists. However, the lack of racial diversity among conference attendees was stunning, especially in a city where students of color compose 90% of CPS’ enrollment, not to mention a majority of K-12 students statewide.

Scholastic journalism is vital to the civic mission of our schools and serves as an important pipeline into the journalism profession, where people of color are also vastly underrepresented. The 2011 Scholastic Journalism Census produced by the Center for Scholastic Journalism at Kent State (OH) University found that schools with student media had an average minority population of 35%, while those without media programs are majority nonwhite (average of 56% students of color; see below). Similar inequities surface for schools serving a majority of students receiving free or reduced price lunch.


Kent State intends to replicate the study in 2019, and I fear that scholastic journalism has lost further ground in the intervening decade, particularly in urban schools. My analysis of CPS’ course enrollment numbers for journalism courses reveals that only 30.1% (28 of 93) district high schools offer a course in journalism, print and/ or broadcast. When yearbook is added, the percentage jumps to 39.8% (37 of 93 schools). Yet only 1,038 students enrolled in these courses during the 2017-2018 school year, less than 1% of CPS’ high school student body of 107,352.

It’s likely that some CPS schools offer student media as an extracurricular-only option. This is of course better than nothing, but there is significant drop-off in the percentage of students that participate in extracurricular activities. Participation is also highly inequitable by race, where white and Asian students are much more likely to participate in extracurricular activities than their Black and Latinx peers.

We must do more to strengthen, resuscitate, and/ or reimagine student media in urban and underresourced schools. Some promising efforts already underway include:

• McCormick youth media grantees Free Spirit Media and Yollocalli Arts Reach partner with teachers at CPS schools and offer channels for public dissemination of student journalism.
• Loyola University’s School of Communications works with Senn and Sullivan High Schools on Chicago’s North Side to operate a storefront news bureau reporting on hyper-local news in Rogers Park and Edgewater.
• And Medill Media Teens brings together Northwestern undergraduate journalism majors and CPS high school students every Saturday at Medill’s downtown campus for a distinctive mentoring experience that focuses on journalism production and media awareness. Students receive extensive training on writing, reporting, and multimedia storytelling.

These pockets of excellence, alongside the 28 CPS schools with journalism courses, offer promise. The task before us is to achieve districtwide scale parallel to the success of CPS’ civic engagement initiative, and we have found a willing partner in the Office of Social Science and Civic Engagement. We’ll be sure to keep you apprised of our progress, and invite your support as we simultaneously seek to promote equitable youth civic development and a healthy, representative local media ecosystem.

by Mary Ellen Daneels, Lead Teacher Mentor

Every Monday from 6-7 p.m., social studies teachers from across the nation gather on Twitter to deliberate essential questions related to their craft on #sschat. The #sschat facilitators have declared this month “Novinquiry” as all discussions are designed to support student centered inquiry in the classroom.

IllinoisCivics.org joined Facing History and Ourselves and Chicago Public Schools Social Science and Civic Engagement Department to kick off Novinquiry hosting a chat on the topic of “Inquiry as Engagement: Connecting Across Differences” The seven questions that scaffolded the discussion were:

1. What does a great current and controversial issue discussion that engages students across differences look like, feel like and sound like?
2. What are your “go to” resources for inquiry that prepares students for these conversations?
3. What do we gain from difference in the classroom? What do we lose without it?
4. What would you say to a teacher that avoids controversies in the classroom because they fear being perceived as being too political?
5. How do you move students towards better arguments: From arguing to win, to deliberating for a shared, better understanding?
6. How do we find opportunities for difference in our classrooms when we are geographically and politically polarized?
7. How do we honor students’ identities and lived experiences within the inquiry process?

As an educator, I value the opportunity to use #sschat to enhance my own practice with candid discourse around the opportunities and challenges of being a social studies teacher in the 21st century. The exchange to the right is just a snippet of the conversations and connections that occur each week. Participants share wonderings, successes, struggles, and most importantly, strategies and resources—the best kind of PD!

You can visit an archive of the chat to learn more and see the responses to the questions.

You can continue celebrating “Novinquiry” at the National Council of the Social Studies Annual Conference at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Chicago November 30th-December 2nd. There is a special strand of programming on November 30th designed to support K-12 educators in implementing the new Illinois Social Science Standards and high school civic education requirement.

The day will begin with and opening plenary hosted by Dr. Diana Hess to address the opportunities and challenges in engaging students in dialogue in an era of political polarization. Workshop sessions that follow will highlight how deliberation, student voice and informed action can be leveraged to connect classrooms across cultural, geographic, and socio-economic differences to promote culturally sustainable teaching. The day will conclude with Eric Liu from Citizen’s University hosting the first ever Better Arguments Project in conjunction with Facing History and Ourselves and the Aspen Institute. For more information on this strand of learning, visit the online guidebook.

How are you celebrating “Novinquiry?” Please comment below. Together, we can prepare all students for college, career and civic life.

by Shawn P. Healy, PhD, Democracy Program Director

For the last four years, the McCormick Foundation has been privileged to partner with Sam Wineburg and his colleagues at the Stanford History Education Group (SHEG) to develop “critical online literacy” assessments. An offshoot of the category-leading work SHEG has done with “Reading Like a Historian” and its related assessments, the critical online literacy research attracted significant national attention in the aftermath of the 2016 Election and rise of the now ubiquitous term “fake news.”

Wineburg recounts this work within a larger, book-length narrative about the current challenges of teaching history titled Why Learn History (When It’s Already on Your Phone) [University of Chicago, 2018]. He begins by documenting century-long concerns about the lack of historical knowledge among our youth and the population as a whole. In modern times, the sporadic National Assessment of Education Progress in History reveals low levels of historical proficiency among students, results designed by modern tests to produce a predictable distribution of results.

These tests, and our obsession with declarative knowledge about history and civics, distract us from more meaningful ways to teach and learn about history. It’s true that the modern textbook, while more inclusive than in the past, provides superficial, even inaccurate, accounts of history, and it remains central to many current classrooms. Some teachers have experimented with alternative accounts of history like Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States (Harper & Row, 1980), but Wineburg is sharp in his critique of Zinn’s own one-sided and empirically-thin tome.

The key, according to Wineburg, isn’t to seek truth through a plethora of ideological and superficial sources, but instead engage students in the process of historical thinking and debate through examination of primary documents and accounts of pivotal events. SHEG has gained incredible traction among social studies teachers using this approach, and the pivot to critical online literacy is natural given that history (and seemingly everything that is knowable) is “Googled.”

The challenge of teaching history in the Information Age centers on discerning the accuracy of sources accessible in a millisecond at the command of our fingertips. It’s true that students are digital natives and have mastered the intuitive features of their handheld devices. The natural reaction of teachers who are a generation or two older is admiration and delegation. But we mistakenly conflate students’ digital prowess with their ability to scrutinize the sources they are encountering.

SHEG’s critical online literacy assessments are helpful to this end and have since been integrated into the work of media literacy organizations like the Center for News Literacy in partnership with Maine East High School in Park Ridge, IL. SHEG is also busy designing a curriculum to assist teachers with classroom instruction called MediaWise. It will be tested in partnership with the Poynter Institute in classrooms across the country in the coming months.

Teacher professional development has long been central to the McCormick Foundation’s work in Illinois to strengthen school-based civic learning, and we plan to recommend a grant to SHEG in February to develop online teacher professional development modules for dissemination of the MediaWise curriculum.

Wineburg’s book is a must-read for social studies teachers and other educators seeking to integrate media literacy across the curriculum. The parallel work he oversees at SHEG is also of utmost importance and should be immediately considered for classroom adoption. Perhaps ironically, historians have a great deal to offer in helping to navigate the Information Age. Tried and true tactics of multiple, primary source scrutiny translate incredibly well to the digital domain.

by Shawn P. Healy, PhD, Democracy Program Director

At the conclusion of the most divisive midterm election in memory, “Blue America” is riding a state of ballot-driven euphoria, while “Red America” licks its wounds and prepares for its next battle in two years. Election 2018, like those of the previous quarter century, falls into the fractured paradigm framed by Mark Gerzon in his 2016 book The Reunited States of America, where “liberals are right, and if elected, will strengthen America.” The 1994, 2000, 2004, 2010, 2014, and 2016 elections reversed this tired narrative, substituting “conservative” for “liberal.”

These winner-solves-all mantras have instead produced policy paralysis and political polarization at levels unseen since the Civil War. For 2018 to represent a departure, Tuesday’s victors and all citizens must instead embrace the precept that “Americans can work together with people different than (them)selves to find common ground that can strengthen the country we all love.”

The Illinois #CivicsIsBack Campaign and our long-standing Democracy Schools Initiative have embraced this latter promise through offering students equitable exposure to best practices in civic learning, including current and controversial issues discussions and simulated democratic processes. Mary Ellen wrote just last week about civics classrooms as the local for conversations on how we live together.

Early returns for students taking the new required civics course offer strong evidence that students embrace Gerzon’s preferred third path. Across racial and ethnic groups, a strong majority of students surveyed last spring agreed or strongly agreed with the notion that by working with others in the community, they could affect positive change (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: By working with others in the community, we can help make things better  (percent agree/ strongly agree)

While dysfunction and stalemate characterize the policy environment in Washington and many state capitals, Springfield included, signs of democratic revival spring eternal at the local level. James and Deborah Fallows penned a marvelous tome titled Our Towns that documents their four-year journey to cities across the fruited plain. In places as geographically and politically polar as Burlington, VT, and Greenville, SC, they find common elements of a better future that disavows our toxic national political discourse and instead embraces our founding creed of e pluribus unum.

These local revitalization efforts are led by local champions the Fallows label “patriots", a plethora of public-private partnerships that embody the best elements of progressive and conservative positions relative to these two sectors, and a common local narrative of civic revival. These cities have revitalized downtowns, are often home to research universities and/ or community colleges and innovative K-12 schools, are welcoming to new residents, and have big plans for continued evolution and growth. Deborah Fallows also surfaces the centrality of local libraries to these communities, modernized hubs of civic energy welcome to all residents.

Outside of Columbus, OH, Pittsburgh, PA, and Louisville, KY, the Fallows visited and profiled medium-to-small towns, so the translation of their findings to a city the size of Chicago may be more difficult, yet there are elements of universality. Moreover, although they did not touch down in the Land of Lincoln, they did mention both Batavia and Moline as future sites for exploration. I would add the Bloomington-Normal and Champaign-Urbana areas to their itinerary.

Are you a “patriot” for your local community? Do you know its civic narrative? And how can you and your students transcend the dueling zero sum national narratives of the left of right to contribute to democratic revival from the bottom up?