ANALYTIC TEACHING Vol. 26 No.1 21 Participation and Citizenship Education: Is the Citizen Free only during Parliamentary Elections? David Lefrançois Abstract In view of the inevitable confusion brought about by the extreme complexity of the decision-making process, and widespread indifference towards the common weal, what form, and what degree of civic participation are we to expect from citizens? In order to begin to unravel this question, we will proceed in two directions: (1) We will first assert that, in the context of liberal democracies, which evolve continuously and inter-generationally, the promotion of individual rights and interests is not entirely discordant with the growth of certain participa- tory virtues. (2) Following this, we will bear witness to how improving the depth of the citizen’s investment in the political field also means promoting, at school, the establishment of a strong program addressing civic edu- cation, and aiming at the enlargement of the future citizen’s argumentative and critical capacities. This said, if the school is to socialize students, contribute to their autonomy and encourage dialogue, program designers and researchers will need to know exactly which of democracy’s objectives are amenable to different interpretations and can be transformed by subjective, dependent and changing views. It is thus from this particular orientation that we should address, in the future, deficiencies in civic education. Introduction J.-J. Rousseau once said that “the people may think it is free, but it is greatly mistaken; its freedom occurs only during the election of the members of parliament, and once done, it falls back into slavery, it is nothing” (Du Contrat social, book 3, chap. 15). We know that Rousseau believed that the only remedy to this so-called democratic malaise lay in the full replenishment of a strong conception of citizen engagement, as inspired both by antiquity’s and the Renaissance’s small city-states. At the same time, we often tend to forget that Rousseau also responded negatively to the possibility of the birth, in a context of the great modern nation-states, of a radi- cally participatory democracy. Could the consequence of the reality of this negativism be an inexorable leading of citizens to the point where they neglect the necessity of their own political investment? We say “This is not in- evitable!” Indeed this remains, even today, the highest means by which citizens can protect their own rights, and hence prevent forms of domination between individuals, as well as the abuse of power by leaders. This is where citizens indeed can find the necessary motivation to participate actively in political society; for the majority, this may however present itself as a burden, if a necessary one (Kymlicka, 1992, p. 26, 28). Citizenship in a complex world cannot be conceived without a certain re-appropriation, by the citizen, of the delegation of power that he had to that point given over to mediators increasingly less capable of upholding their representative duties. The full exercise of individual and public liberties enhances citizenship’s value. Rights can be the means of expression of a more conscientious citizenship, when the embrace thereof improves transparen- cies in administration (legislation on information and liberties, exposure of the motivations behind decision processes, access to administrative documents and archives), or even takes the form of legal recourse against an abuse of power. Civil society now offers a vast diversity of social movements, clubs, associations and political parties, which are less hierarchically organized. Through the diversification of self-chosen combinations of social engagements, and since the choice remains his, the citizen is, therefore, allowed a more flexible structuring of citizenship (Le Pors, 1999, p. 97-98).