Address by the President at the Council of Europe Standing Conference of Ministers of Education

Brdo pri Kranju, 4.6.2010  |  speech

Address by Dr Danilo Türk, President of the Republic of Slovenia, at the Council of Europe Standing Conference of Ministers of Education “Education for Sustainable Democratic Societies: the Role of Teachers”
Brdo pri Kranju, 4 June 2010


Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to express my pleasure and gratitude for having been invited to this conference to discuss with you the question of education for sustainable democratic societies and the role of teachers, something that is close to my heart and my mind, both as a former professor at the university and somebody who has worked with the Council of Europe on a number of projects in the past. I'm very pleased to see Ms Maud de Boer-Buquicchio with us who has worked tirelessly for Council of Europe, for improvement of human rights in Europe in general and who has been very friendly to Slovenia at the time of our formation and our initial period of membership and throughout our work within the Council of Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I was asked to say a few words about education for sustainable democratic societies and I was asked to say things in a manner, which goes beyond formal greetings or statements, which heads of state normally make. I took that challenge seriously because I think that education is the key to prosperity of sustainable democratic societies. Education is essential also for the intergenerational solidarity, which is so important in Europe at this historic period and it is, together with science and research, critical for the future development of Europe. I wish to make this emphasis very clearly at the beginning because we now find ourselves in Europe in a situation in which budgetary restrictions are the order of the day. Many countries are facing the question of budget deficits and the need to reduce those deficits. It is important to make sure that education does not suffer, that education is somehow preserved in its sensitivity so that the contribution that education makes to the future of societies will be guaranteed.

Obviously, this kind of questions are very high on the agenda of governments at present but we all have to think about education constantly and also more deeply, beyond the budgetary debates and other practical debates. For a thought on the deeper meaning of education it might be useful to recall something a great European philosopher of 18th century, David Hume, wrote when he insisted that in every dealing with a society and human condition one has to distinguish between what is and what ought to be. He gave an example and said: If one makes a statement that parents love children then this invites further questions. Does that mean that all parents love all the children? Probably not, but it does mean that parents ought to love their children. So there is a subtle distinction between what is and what ought to be. And of course there are serious implications of that distinction. First, it's important to understand the reality for what it is. And second, it's important to change that reality for the better. Education comes very much in the centre of both - learning and understanding the reality and changing the reality for the better.

These questions have to do with basic moral choices. One dimension of these choices is the morality of duty, which comes in when we talk about the understanding of reality as it is. In the educational context morality of duty would mean scientific rigour, methodological discipline, commitment to science. These are all moral imperatives in addition to being methodologically important for education.

But then, that is not where the discussion ends because one had to introduce in the educational process and discussion another type of morality - morality of aspiration, encouragement of freedom of thought, freedom of expression, creativity, belief in the ability to discover and the ability to use human talent. So, proceeding from this basic thought by David Hume one can clearly see the moral dimensions of educational process and the critical importance of questions, which arise in this context. All this has to do with education.

I took this somewhat general and perhaps abstract thought as a point of departure because I think that education always has this kind of problems and questions as a part of its agenda. That applies also to more practical programmes that have been discussed in Europe and which obviously have a great deal to do with the question of sustainable democratic societies.

Here we have to be critical. The Lisbon strategy, which announced the commitment of European Union to knowledge-based society has failed and many other efforts have not worked. Europe - and I mean here the entire European space - needs to restore what was once known as scientific optimism and innovation. We have lived in the past two decades at a period of time in which quick profit and quick satisfaction was given priority over serious work, hard work and scientific optimism. I think there is a need to change our attitudes in that regard and this obviously has to do with policies, policy-making including educational policies.

We also have a need to improve communication among educational institutions and young people in Europe. We are satisfied that there is progress in this area but probably that progress is far from sufficient. Removal of barriers to cooperation remains on the agenda and remains topical. The idea of creation of a European research area, something that European Union has announced in 2009, at the time of the Slovene Presidency of the European Union, remains a very important strategic direction for the European Union and obviously it has to do not only with European Union countries but with a broader number of countries in Europe. So, developing a European research area as a tool to develop a common intellectual space in larger Europe is something we have to aspire at. The European Research Area is an expression of the morality of aspiration and has to be seen in the context of an effort for sustainability of democratic societies.

And obviously, there is - and that appears in practically all the documents dealing with education and educational tasks - a need for the effort to strengthen the values based of societies. All societies function on the basis of a certain code of basic values. And Europe - again, talking about larger Europe - has to strengthen its effort to have a proper, solid base of values for its future development and prosperity.

Here we come to the area, which is at the centre of thought and actions of the Council of Europe - the area of human rights. I have seen the papers that were prepared for this conference. I haven't read thoroughly all of them but I have seen how often references to human rights are made. So I thought it might be appropriate for me that I spend some time in my presentation reflecting on human right in a slightly more critical way than is usually the case. Human rights are a serious matter. They are serious legal concepts, they are serious moral concepts and they are of fundamental importance for the sustainability of democratic societies. But in real life, in the reality as it is, human rights often become politics and sometimes become a matter of idolatry. And I think in Europe, including in the Council of Europe, we have to be aware of these dangers.

Europe has developed over time a degree of what Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian scholar and politician, termed human rights narcissism, a belief that the West has resolved human rights problems in essence and that what needs to be done is essentially civilising the others. That, of course, is a very dangerous approach because human rights should not be used in a political manner, especially not as a civilisational instrument for the others. They should be used as a constantly active instrument of improvement of ourselves. And that, obviously, is at variance with the notion of human rights narcissism. The narcissistic view should be rejected. Civilising others should be carefully avoided. Applying universal human rights standards is another matter, something that one has to think about critically in the context of organisations such as the United Nations, such as the OSCE and to a lesser extent Council of Europe. Here in the Council of Europe the basis, the common basis of values expressed in human rights instruments is to help to improve ourselves.

The other danger is human rights idolatry, an ideological interpretation of human rights, which sometimes define human rights more or less as a secular religion. Human rights are not ends in themselves. They are means to ends. And that’s something that also requires a great deal of critical reflection. Human rights should never be insensitive to the people whom they are supposed to serve. Sensitivity of human rights should be demonstrated in a way, which would not allow the language of human rights to become the language of power and authority. Human rights have to be understood as means to help people who need help. And I think that this again has a great deal to do with education. How do we use educational institutions and mechanisms for the purpose of making it understood that human rights are always there, that they are there to improve ourselves and to help those who need assistance the most? This may sound a bit general and not very necessary but I would suggest for your reflection to think about these aspects of human rights policies critically.

I also have a few proposals to make. First, with regard to the principles, which establish firewalls against ideological misinterpretation or simplification. There are two such principles, which I believe are critical: The understanding that human rights are essentially legal concepts, which are fundamental for the organisation of society. Therefore at all levels the legal aspect of human rights has to be taken seriously. An intelligent sample of case law is necessary in any serious programme of human rights education. But how does one do that at the levels of education, which are not yet prepared for consideration of legal concepts? There is a challenge, which I think requires further work. Second and even more important, the understanding that human rights are there to help the powerless irrespective of how little sympathy the powerless may enjoy in the eyes of the general public or the holders of power. Therefore dealing with different minorities, excluded groups is likely to be a priority.

Based on these two principles I would like to make a few further suggestions. The international community, including in particular the European institutions, needs a comprehensive and sophisticated human rights agenda for the future. That human rights agenda can be constructed on the basis of work, which has already been done and the important contribution that the Council of Europe has already made will be central. And the relevance of such a human rights agenda to the sustainability of democratic societies will be vital.

The elements, which I believe should figure highly in the effort to create such an agenda on the basis of what we already have could be the following:

First, cultivate the sensitivity for the downtrodden without reducing that to charity. Let us be aware that there is rising poverty in all parts of Europe and that modern poor are excluded and less visible than was the case in the past. So, the empowerment of that part of population may not be as obvious or easily definable as it was in the previous periods of history. Fighting social exclusion certainly has to be a priority for a human rights agenda attempting to assist the sustainability of democratic societies. And this, obviously, has a lot to do with the educational programmes, with what we teach in schools and how we develop our educational systems.

Secondly, cultivate tolerance without cultural relativism. The West now includes a large area, larger than ever before, the West meaning community of states, which are based on the values expressed in human rights. The problem of interaction with other civilisations, in particular with Islam, is vital. That dialogue is necessary and must be tolerant. But it must tolerant in a fashion, which doesn’t concede to moral or cultural relativism. Human rights are a solid and comprehensive platform, a secular platform, which should be handled as a basis for such a dialogue in a manner, which makes agreement possible across divergent cultural viewpoints. This is particularly relevant in dealing with different ethnic and religious minorities. Dialogue is critical. But dialogue has to happen both within those groups and between those groups and the larger societies.

This may sound very simple and very obvious but in reality it is not always as easy to pursue this kind of approach. Let us just think about the moral traditions in some of the minority groups, newly immigrant minority groups, which do not respect the rights of women to a level, which is achieved in Europe in general. For that reason alone it is important to understand that tolerance without cultural relativism requires a clear hierarchy, that human rights standards have to have priority over traditions and that there should be no compromise on this matter. Dialogue within minority groups and between them and the rest of societies has to be conducted on the basis of a clear understanding of that hierarchy. Human rights have the priority. That, obviously, does not make human rights a religion but it does make them the platform upon which decent and productive dialogue is possible.

The third element, which I see as a priority for a human rights agenda for the future, is a focus on immigrants. And here I would say – let us focus on immigration and immigrants without fear and without prejudices. Europe is an aging continent. Immigration is likely to be an ever more important element of its policy-making and its future prosperity and sustainability. But Europe is not yet fully prepared for a proper policy of integration of immigrants. Education is likely to be the key in many ways. It is likely to be the key in preparing the societies, which will be expected to absorb larger flows of immigrants. Furthermore, it is a key to upward social mobility of immigrants and for their successful integration into the mainstream of societies into which immigrants emigrate. So, social mobility as the key of integration requires high quality of education and the educational system must be developed in a manner, which allows full inclusion and full development of personality of immigrants for the purpose of their integration and for the purpose of sustainability of democratic societies in Europe.

These are important tasks. In general they are also largely accepted but in reality there may be and there is still much room for improvement. There is a need for a public debate in these matters and sometimes public debates on this kind of issues are not easy and are susceptible to manipulation. Therefore a debate on how does one conduct a public discussion on the issues of human rights in culturally pluralist society and how to integrate immigrants is necessary and what is particularly necessary is the capacity to bring success stories to the attention of the public. There are success stories and some of them are reported. But much of that is not and therefore the task for proper handling of public debate related to the integration of immigrants and their upward social mobility through high quality education remains a priority.

And finally, cultivate the importance of rule of law and the principle of legality without reducing this to bureaucratic formalism. I have referred to the legal nature of human rights, the fact that human rights are expressed in terms of legal pronouncements and enactments several times in my remarks. I would like to say this once again: yes, we have to find ways of bringing legal concepts and the importance of law closer to everybody including those of young age who do not have a proper base for legal education.

These are the kind of priorities, which I see as priorities for a human rights agenda in the context of developing our educational systems, so that those educational systems will serve the need for sustainable democratic development of our societies. These are important issues but they are there, I’m sure, something that you are familiar with. You are much better qualified than me to deal with methodological policy aspects of these questions and your experience allows you to come to practical conclusions.

Europe must be ready to lead in matters of human rights and quality of societies in the future. There is a need for a higher degree of sophistication of our human rights discourse and its inclusion into the educational system. Education will be critical for our future, education will have to involve innovation, better communication and creation of a common intellectual space in Europe. Europe has for a long time been under the influence of divisions, some of them ideological, others coming from the mere fact that Europe has been organised in the form of nation states. There is obviously nothing wrong with nation states and I, as president of one of them, certainly shall not speak against nation states. But what is needed is a sense of common purpose. A sense of common purpose, which is defined in terms of sustainability of democratic societies, in terms of the role of educational systems in that context and the role of human rights as a very valuable substance that can be brought into the systems of education with an extremely powerful effect on the quality of our societies and for the better future of our societies.

This is the thought with which I would like to end my remarks. I would like to thank you for your attention, I would like to wish you a successful work here in Slovenia and I hope that you will come again and that you will continue this important engagement for the benefit of Europe as a whole.

Thank you very much.