Interest in learning about the United States, its culture, history and political system, has increased dramatically over the past.  The interest in the United States is easy to explain.  Throughout the world people encounter America, whether they like it or not, on a daily basis.  We have invaded their popular culture through film, music, television; American tastes and preferences dominate consumer goods -- it is the American market that determines the design of automobiles and electronic equipment and that sets the pattern for fashions in clothing; the policies of the United States, domestic as well as foreign, affect local political decisions; and, perhaps, most importantly, it is Americans who set the worldwide standard for computer architecture and software, and it is American scholarship that dominates academic research in the social sciences.  You cannot escape us, even if you so desire.  For the most part, people respond ambivalently towards America.  Some things they admire and like, and other things they regard as destructive to their own way of life. In either case, they are driven to try and understand the United States, and, in so doing, they inevitably find some things about America that they would like to emulate -- they look to America as a model.

For its part the United States sees itself as a model that the rest of the world should emulate.  The idea of America as a model goes back to the 17th Century when the first substantial group of Puritans emigrated from East Anglia to what is that section of the United States now known as New England.  In 1630, the leaders of the Puritans, John Winthrop gave a speech in which he envisioned the new settlement as a «City Upon a Hill.»  Leaving what they regarded as a corrupt society, they envisioned building a new society that would bring man closer to god and to god’s purpose.  They believed that this new society would serve as a model which would lead to the reformation of the rest of the Christian world.

The belief in America as a model for the rest of the world was reinforced by the American Revolution which, in the view of the colonists, created a new political order that would inspire others to seek political freedom.  In his Farewell Address in 1800 to the U.S. Congress and the American people, George Washington, the first President of the United States stressed the importance of keeping the United States free of the corruption of the old world in Europe so that it could continue to perfect its government and serve as an example to others in the world.  The millions of immigrants who came subsequently, escaping the old world in search of a better life in the new world, reinforced this image of America as a place that is worthy of emulation by the rest of the world.

By the middle of the 19th century, Americans had come to identify democracy, America’s democracy, as the main contribution that the United States could make to other nations.  They began to speak of the «Democratic Faith.»  By this Americans meant three interrelated ideas: 1) everyone is equal; 2) everyone had something positive to contribute  to society; 3) and that each person should be free to develop his potential to the fullest extent possible.  The Soviet Union, of course, had its own faith, faith in the «socialist man» and the «socialist society.»  It was the clash of these two faiths that shaped a good deal of the conflict during the Cold War.  In some ways, the clash between the U.S. and the USSR was not unlike that between Christianity and Islam in the Iberian Peninsula and in East Central Europe, a clash between two proselytizing faiths infused with the confidence of self-righteousness.

It should not be surprising, then, that at a time when there has been a worldwide trend towards democracy, the United States has identified the promotion of democracy as one of its main foreign policy objectives.  Americans have argued  that democracy is essential to "sustainable development because it facilitates the protection of human rights, informed participation, and public sector accountability...Repression, exclusion of marginalized groups, human rights abuses, disregard for the rule of law, corruption, and autocracy are antithetical to development."  This policy reflects a conviction that shared democratic values, and functioning institutions informed by these values, are the necessary foundation for national and international security and stability.  The underlying concern, of course, is that a resurgence of  anti-democratic forces will pose a threat to world peace and American security interests.

I have no quarrel with the idea of promoting democracy, and, in fact,  have participated enthusiastically in several U.S. government funded projects, including a three year project in Belarus, which were designed to facilitate democratization.  Democracy, of course, can be defined in a number of different ways and has a many different meanings.  Among American political theorists, for example, there is a whole literature that has appeared in the last few years dealing exactly with the question of the definition of democracy, and seeking to identify the minimum requirements in terms of individual rights and political freedom for an operational democracy.  Some theorists now distinguish between «liberal democracy» and «illiberal democracy.»   The point is that there are many different kinds of democracy, even in the traditionally democratic west, and the question of what kind of democracy the United States out to promote is subject of considerable debate.

Inevitably, Americans like myself tend to define democracy in terms of our own experience with American democracy, and when we become involved in democratization projects we promote an American version of democracy and democratic practices. We do so unconsciously, even though our way may not be in accord with the traditions and values of the society within which we are working.  It may be worthwhile to examine democracy in the Untied States, the oldest continuous democracy in the world, as a basis for comparison.  But it is misguided to expect other countries to simply adopt our democratic practices without significant modification in the belief that we are the model that they ought to follow.  Each country must find its own way and draw on its own resources and traditions in establishing democracy and teaching its citizens how to participate in a democracy.

With this in mind I would like to review some of the recent efforts of Americans to promote democracy in the former Soviet Union, including Russia, and suggest some of the ways that the American experience might be of use to educators in your country.

There is a growing consensus in the United States that the way to strengthen democracy in former Soviet Union is to promote the development of a culture of democracy.  What this involves is learning the principals of democratic governance, the rights and responsibilities of citizens in a democratic society, and understanding how these principals and rights actually function in a democratic society.  In pursuing these objectives the U.S. has sponsored a wide range educational activities to support some of the following: the development of election systems, at both the national and local levels;  independent print and television media; grassroots, non-governmental organizations that foster citizen participation; the rule of law;  the capacity of local government to respond to a decentralized system of governance; political party building; programs and curricula in citizenship training.  These are all part of a major effort to foster a democratic culture through civic education.

The basis for the American belief that democracy depends on the development of a national culture that embraces democratic values is not entirely clear.  But it probably has something to do with America's experience as one of the major international power after WWII.  Convinced that unchecked totalitarianism was the primary cause of WWII, America dedicated itself, as it had periodically in the past, to promoting democracy throughout the world.   In pursuing its post WWII democratic mission, the United States experienced some significant successes and failures.  The main  success was in establishing stable democracies in Germany and Japan; but, of course, the United States had the advantage of being able to implement democratic reforms while it occupied both countries, and, in the case of Germany, the underlying culture and political traditions were not very different from those of America.  The main failure of the United States was in promoting democracy in Latin America and in newly created nations that had been colonies.  In both cases, the efforts of the U.S. to promote democracy focused on institution building rather than values and culture.  Increasingly, foreign aid experts attributed our failures to our lack of attention to the value structures in these societies and to the educational reforms needed to changes these values.

The emphasis given to building a culture of democracy in Russia and the other Newly Independent Nations is also based on the belief that democracy is an essential prerequisite to economic development.  There is a broad consensus among American social theorists that market-oriented economies flourish in countries where democratic institutions have existed, and that socialist countries with predominantly state-owned centrally directed command economies have usually been ruled by authoritarian dictatorships.  Conservative economists, such as Milton Friedman, have argued that economic freedom and political freedom are both an expression of the same impulse of individual autonomy against the coercive power of the states.  But even liberal social theorists, such as Gabriel Almond and Peter Berger, have concluded that in the modern world the historical, logical and statistical evidence for this positive relation between capitalism and democracy is convincing. Accordingly, a major objective of the Clinton Administration is to enhance local democratic governance, by promoting participation in problem solving and decision making, so that individuals will take full responsibility for the development of a market economy.  Convinced that civic structures and a civic culture are necessary for free enterprise and a market economy to thrive, this Initiative looks to democracy as the route to long-terms sustainable development.

The connection drawn between democracy and sustainable economic development seems to be based less on evidence than on an optimistic reading of American history.  Evidence to support the belief that democracy is essential to market capitalism and sustainable development is far from convincing.  First of all, there are a number of successful developing nations, especially in East Asia, that have authoritarian governments or had them while their economies expanded most rapidly; this would be the case with Korea and Chile, for example.  Secondly, as democracies depend on popular support they often adopt economic policies to satisfy the short term goals of particular constituencies; and, as in the case of agricultural or wage subsidies, this frequently leads to policies that actually deter overall economic development.  Democracy can also provoke internal conflict, based on ethnic or religious differences, that undermine development.  Finally, some theorists have argued that democracy supports development only in those countries in which there is already a fairly even and equitable distribution of economic resources .  A stronger case about the relationship of democracy to development can probably be made that the lack of economic development impedes democratization.  Accordingly, there are a number of critics of American foreign aid who argue that we should emphasize the alleviation of poverty and the development of market-oriented economies before diverting resources to democracy building activities like civic education.

These criticisms notwithstanding, the United States has adopted a foreign policy towards the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union that emphasizes democracy building through the development of a democratic culture.  The main objectives of this policy include the following:
- better informed citizens' participation in political and economic decision-making;
- legal systems that better support democratic processes and market reforms;
- more effective, responsive, and accountable local government;
-  and transparent processes for selection of poli-tical leaders.

A major component in the efforts to achieve these objectives is civic education in the schools. For it is widely believed that the schools are the key to cultivating a cultural of democracy that will sustain the establishment of democratic institutions.

It has long been an article of faith among American educators and political leaders that democracy depends on civic education in the schools.  The schools, it has been argued, are on the frontlines of the breakdown of civility in society, the place where violence, intolerance and suppression of free inquiry and debate make their most penetrating assaults, and, accordingly, an appropriate battleground for the struggle to advance democratic culture.   A democracy depends on schools to foster a kind of character which respects the law, is willing both to offer and accept criticism, and respects the value of the individual.   From this perspective democratic ideals are not known instinctively, but must be purposely taught to form an educated, informed citizenry.  This assumes a positive correlation between education and political participation, and regards education as the decisive determinant of  political attitudes.  If democracy is to work, therefore, it is up to the schools to provide the citizens with the political competence basic to a democratic society.

There is a considerable body of research spanning more than one-half century that provides evidence that democratic schooling is possible and effective in educating young citizens for a democratic society.  Bolstering this research are a number of recent studies by Richard Niemi of the University of Rochester, Jane Junn of Rutgers, and Richard Brody of Stanford who demonstrate what is taught in the schools in civic education  is retained and can contribute to respect for political rights, civil liberties and other beliefs, values and attitudes essential to a functioning democracy.  These studies show that democratic values can be taught.  But they also show that to be effective civic education should be taught to students from experiences that relate democratic values and norms to the actual behaviors and practices found in the society around them.

The evidence that civic education in the schools, when relevant to the students' lives, supports the maintenance and retention of democratic institutions is persuasive.  Far less convincing, however,  is evidence on what kinds of  civic education are most effective in  societies in which traditional authoritarian behaviors and values continue to pervade the political culture.  Most of the research on political attitudes, behavior and socialization comes from studies of schooling in the United States and other western democracies.  We know little about the impact of political and economic constraints on civic education  in Russia today.  Nor do we fully understand how civic education for democracy might be related to the traditions and history of the Russian people.  We do know that in the former Soviet Union civic education was more often than not taught separately from the academic components of what constitutes the social studies (history, politics, economics, geography, etc.) in the United States, and that one of  its main purposes was to indoctrinate students in Marxist-Leninist ideology.   Just this difference by itself suggests the limitations of Russia simply adapting American approaches to curricula and teaching materials.

To assist your country, and other new democracies, in the development of civic education programs for demo-cracy it is essential that we turn for guidance to people like yourself, educators who understand the challenges they face, what their greatest needs are, and what would provide the most effective support for their reform efforts.

Another  indication of the gap between the American experience and the Soviet experience is in their different conception of rights.  Civic education materials prepared in the United States regard rights as fundamental freedoms which supersede governments because they are human rights, natural and inherent.  Laws do not confer rights, but rather recognize and guarantee natural rights that make the individual sovereign over his/her own life.  We believe that the individual should be free from encroachment by others and from encroachment by government.  In the former Soviet Union, there is a different conception of individualism.  Individualism is often identified with egoism, and communal or collective responsibility with altruism.  Accordingly, individual political and civic rights historically have been subordinated to collective social and economic needs.  So in America, rights are possessed by individuals, determined prior to and opposed to the state, enforced through individual claims against the state, and observed through absence of interference by the state. In Russia rights traditionally are held by groups or classes, defined by and activated through the state, enforced through administrative action, and achieved through positive actions by the state.  The individual must always take account of the needs of society.

This difference does not mean that American civic education groups have nothing to offer educators like yourself.  Since the early 1980's, with publication of calls for educational reform like A Nation at Risk and The Paideia Proposal, there has been a resurgence of  interest in the United States in civic education.  Among the most extensive projects to revitalize the teaching of citizenship in the schools is CIVITAS, a curriculum framework developed by the Center for Civic Education in Los Angeles. Similar efforts include the Center for Civic Education's WE THE PEOPLE  and the lessons developed and collected by the American Federation of Teachers' Education for Democracy/International Clearinghouse.  Perhaps the most successful effort to integrate civic education materials throughout the entire social studies curriculum was the History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools, prepared in 1987 under the general direction of  Dianne Ravitch.  What all of these civic education projects have in common is an emphasis on the importance of teaching the fundamental values of a democracy ( unalienable individual rights, liberty, justice, equality, privacy, diversity, truth,  etc.) and the principles of government that support these values (the rule of law, the separation of powers, checks and balances, minority rights in the context of majority rule, civilian control of the military, the separation of church and state, federalism, political parties and elections, public opinion, the press, etc.).  These efforts grew out of a concern that Americans were no longer prepared to actively participate in the political process, and that the way to revive responsible citizenship was to give students a firm grounding in the theory of democracy,  based upon moral deliberation, knowledge, and reflective inquiry of democratic values and principles.

Almost all of the civic education materials produced in recent years in the United States assume that one of the main threats to democracy in America is the failure of the individual to act responsibly in terms of the needs of society.  The movement was a response to a dramatic decline in citizen political involvement, growing hostility towards the government, and tensions arising from racial and ethnic divisions.   Responsible self-government, it is urged, requires citizens to anticipate the consequences of their actions and to justify them in terms of the fundamental democratic values on which our society is based.  Assessing the extent to which proposed actions support fundamental social values involves moral deliberation, and such deliberation must be based on a thorough understanding of the fundamental concepts of democracy.

From these origins a number of American civic education groups have ventured into the challenge of providing emerging democracies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union with the content, skills and instructional strategies of civic education for a democratic society.  Several of these projects have succeeded in infusing existing curricula and developing new curricula that incorporate information on the fundamental values and concepts of a democracy.   Recently a consortium of American civic education organizations put together Teaching Democratic Citizenship: An International Guide.  Based on the assumption that " democracy is a universal and global phenomenon," the Guide stresses the adaptability of its concepts, principles of government, and teaching methodologies  to the local conditions of any society.  The document stresses the importance of instilling in students an understanding of the values and principles of a democratic system of government.  It further suggests that civic education should be incorporated in all aspects of the school curricula, that the school should adopt democratic methods of governance and serve as a model for society, and that teachers ought to favor participatory instructional strategies such as the cooperative work group, debates, simulations, role-playing, discussions, and case studies. The entire document is informed by the conviction that  there is much that civic educators in one society can learn from those in others.

While no one would dispute this contention, nor the achievements of some of the more successful projects in bringing democratic concepts and principles into the school curricula of emerging democracies, most of the instructional materials and curricula produced by this movement reflect American institutions, values, exceptionalism and history.  The concepts and principles (individualism, equal justice, privacy, etc.) can be easily understood on an abstract, theoretical level.  But it is far more difficult to understand what they actually mean without experiencing their operation in an American social context.  They will remain no more than abstractions unless they are related directly to the substance of everyday politics and social reality in your country and other countries to which we export these materials -- the ability to discuss controversial issues in the public domain, the extent to which law can protect the individual against government abuse, the way individual and social choices are made in an emerging market economy, the influence of non-governmental groups on public policy, the relationship between private behavior and the political system, the degree of tolerance for ethnic and economic diversity, etc.  The incorporation of American civic values and concepts is insufficient for a civic education that effectively strengthens the movement towards democracy in Russia or anywhere else.  What we need now are new formats for civic education that are specifically geared to the institutions, values, and history of Russia.

We have neither the resources nor the knowledge to overhaul civic education in Russia by modeling their curricula and methods on those of  American civic educators.   What we can offer is an opportunity to become familiar with recent American pedagogical materials in citizenship education, assistance in analyzing and relating these materials in a tangible manner to the social, political and economic conditions in the United States and Russia, and support in coordinating the implementation, testing and dissemination of new approaches to civic education.  Ultimately, strengthening citizenship is something educators like you must do for yourselves.