Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Bhavan’s Leelavati Munshi College of Education

Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi
(Recognised by NCTE and affiliated to GGSIPU)
BACHELOR OF EDUCATION
2021-23
Semester-2

Course Title- Contemporary Perspective In Education

Course Code- BED 104

Topic- Democracy, Socialism and Secularism

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Dr. Indu Dahiya Vikas Kumar Sah
E.NO- 06955602121
Define the concept of Democracy, Socialism, and Secularism discuss the
democratic practices used in school

Democracy

A democracy is a form of government that empowers the people to exercise political control,
limits the power of the head of state, provides for the separation of powers between
governmental entities, and ensures the protection of natural rights and civil liberties. In
practice, democracy takes many different forms. Along with the two most common types of
democracies—direct and representative—variants such as participatory, liberal, parliamentary,
pluralist, constitutional, and socialist democracies can be found in use today.
Semantically, the term democracy comes from the Greek words for “people” (dēmos) and “rule”
(karatos). However, achieving and preserving a government by the people—a “popular”
government—is far more complicated than the concept’s semantic simplicity might imply. In
creating the legal framework under which the democracy will function, typically a constitution,
several crucial political and practical questions must be answered.
The notion of democracy has evolved over time considerably. The original form of democracy
was a direct democracy. The most common form of democracy today is a representative
democracy, where the people elect government officials to govern on their behalf such as in
a parliamentary or presidential democracy
The ancient Greeks are credited with creating the very first democracy, although there were
almost certainly earlier examples of primitive democracy in other parts of the world. The Greek
model was established in the 5th century BC, in the city of Athens. Among a sea of autocracies and
oligarchies – which were the normal forms of government at the time – Athenian democracy stood
out.
However, compared to how we understand democracy today, the Athenian model had two
important differences:
1. Theirs was a form of direct democracy – in other words, instead of electing representatives to
govern on the people's behalf, "the people" themselves met, discussed questions of government,
and then implemented policy.
2. Such a system was possible partly because "the people" was a very limited category. Those
who could participate directly were a small part of the population, since women, slaves, aliens –
and of course, children – were excluded. The numbers who participated were still far more than
in a modern democracy: perhaps 50,000 males engaged directly in politics, out of a population
of around 300,000 people.
Today there are as many different forms of democracy as there are democratic nations in the
world. No two systems are exactly the same and no one system can be taken as a "model". There
are presidential and parliamentary democracies, democracies that are federal or unitary,
democracies that use a proportional voting system, and ones that use a majoritarian system,
democracies which are also monarchies, and so on.
One thing that unites modern systems of democracy, and which also distinguishes them from the
ancient model, is the use of representatives of the people. Instead of taking part directly in law
making, modern democracies use elections to select representatives who are sent by the people
to govern on their behalf. Such a system is known as representative democracy. It can lay some
claim to being "democratic" because it is, at least to some degree, based on the two principles
above: equality of all (one person – one vote), and the right of every individual to some degree of
personal autonomy.
Socialism
Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or
control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live
or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that
people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the
production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at
least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership
of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how
goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to
unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who
emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power
to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where
and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such
as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only
ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As
socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that
provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point
in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the
condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among
themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property
that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except
personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the
society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other
socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms,
shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of
property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of
centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public
control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance
of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe
that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or
lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This
conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement.

The origins of socialism as a political movement lie in the Industrial Revolution.

Its intellectual roots, however, reach back almost as far as recorded thought—even as far as
Moses, according to one history of the subject. Socialist or communist ideas certainly play an
important part in the ideas of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, whose Republic depicts
an austere society in which men and women of the “guardian” class share with each other not
only their few material goods but also their spouses and children.

Early Christian communities also practiced the sharing of goods and labour, a simple form of
socialism subsequently followed in certain forms of monasticism. Several monastic orders
continue these practices today. Christianity and Platonism were combined in More’s Utopia,
which apparently recommends communal ownership as a way of controlling the sins of pride,
envy, and greed. Land and houses are common property on More’s imaginary island of Utopia,
where everyone works for at least two years on the communal farms and people change houses
every 10 years so that no one develops pride of possession. Money has been abolished, and
people are free to take what they need from common storehouses. All the Utopians live simply,
moreover, so that they are able to meet their needs with only a few hours of work a day, leaving
the rest for leisure

Secularism

Secularism refers to a range of different ideas and practices which seek to balance freedom of (and
from) religion with other rights. In its broadest sense secularism is the idea that religious beliefs and
identities should not be privileged or discriminated against. From this the sociologist of secularism
and religion Jean Baubérot argues that three key principles emerge: 1. Separation of religious
institutions from state institutions, and a public sphere where religion may participate, but not
dominate. 2. Freedom to practise one’s faith or belief without harming others, or to change it or not
have one, according to one’s own conscience. 3. Equality so that our religious beliefs or lack of them
does not put any of us at an advantage or disadvantage. Since states have traditionally been the
most able to either privilege or discriminate, secularists have long believed that the state should not
interfere in religion and that religion should not interfere in the state. Historically the essence of
secularism has been seen as the separation of church and state institutions, such that religions are
not involved in governmental activities, and governments are not involved in religious or
ecclesiastical affairs. But the consequences of this separation go far beyond just institutional
arrangements. Allowing individuals to be free to believe whatever they wish without interference
from the state or dogmatic imposition by religious authority has been a powerful force for progress.
It has created an open marketplace of ideas in which anybody is at liberty to advocate whatever
claims about reality they believe to be true, and anybody else is equally at liberty to criticise,
challenge or reject these claims. In this way good ideas and bad ideas can be clearly distinguished
from each other on the basis of evidence and reasoned argument. This culture of free debate
underpins the huge advances in human understanding and technological capacity which have been
made in the last two hundred years. Secularists are anxious to safeguard this precious openness in
society and have constantly sought to challenge religious and ideological privilege in social structures
while at the same time defending the right of believers in religious and non-religious worldviews to
be free of discrimination against them. Secularists may differ in their perceptions of privilege,
tolerance and discrimination, or in their view of which other rights should be prioritised over issues
of freedom of or freedom from religion. What matters ultimately is the open discussion involved and
the decision-making based on rational argument. The resources below endeavour to engage
students and students in exactly this kind of reasoned discussion. Freedom of religion is the freedom
to practise your religion. Freedom from religion is the freedom from others’ religion being imposed
on you. (See 5.3.) Secularism derives from ‘secular’ – a contested term which comes from the Latin
word saecularis or saeculum meaning ‘the world’, ‘generation’ or ‘age’. Many religious traditions
draw a distinction between the temporal and the divine, or the worldly and the spiritual, considering
that both have their place. ‘Secular’ means religiously neutral or unrelated to religion, e.g. brushing
your teeth is a secular activity. No. Secularism is an approach to religion and to issues where religion
interacts with the rights of others. It involves no theological or supernatural claims and has no holy
books, priesthood or commandments. Secularism is consistent with a variety of religious, non-
religious and irreligious traditions. As an analogy, feminism is an approach to gender and to issues
where gender interacts with the rights of others, but is not itself a gender. Similarly, both supporters
and critics of feminism can be of different genders and secularists could be of any religion or none.
Just as feminism is a core but not definitive concept in the study of gender, secularism is a core but
not definitive concept in the study of religion and beliefs.

❖ Democratic Socialist and Secularist Practices Found in

School
1. Democratic practices
Over the years, we have accumulated knowledge of practices that can benefit the promotion of
democracy in schools. These practices can be beneficial no matter the approach (education
about/for/through democracy) we favour or the democratic principle (equality, freedom,
inclusivity, diversity, participation, justice, openness) we champion.

These practices are also beneficial to promote many (if not all!) of the competences for
democratic culture. What is very important for us is that these practices can and should be
considered by all teachers regardless of their level or specialism. All teachers can contribute by
engaging in six democratising practices.

Classroom practices
All teachers can do this in their own classrooms by considering the first three democratising
classroom practices:

• Integrating democratic competences in subject areas. On some occasions, schools

have a dedicated subject area on citizenship education, political education or civics.
Indeed, whilst some countries have a relatively minimal provision for citizenship
education in the curriculum, in other countries, citizenship education is present across
all compulsory levels. On other occasions, the promotion of democracy is directly
considered within other subject areas such as social studies, social science, history or
geography. This is the case, for instance, in many other countries such as Norway, Spain
or Portugal. Research suggests that formal learning about citizenship might facilitate
those students embrace a democratic culture. You can harbour learning activities that
teach the values, attitudes, skills, and knowledge and critical understanding that
learners need to be able to contribute to a democratic culture. This can be done in
specialist subjects but also more widely. For instance, in mathematics, teachers may
convey the historical significance of contributions from different civilisations. In
language and literature, teachers can select texts that tackle social and political issues
such as race and gender discrimination. We will see other possibilities later in this
course.
• Considering the teaching and assessment methods you use in your
classroom. Some teaching and assessment practices (e.g. cooperative learning, peer-
assessment) are much better placed than others (e.g. traditional ‘master classes’, tests)
to promote democracy and facilitate that children and young people learn democratic
competences. We will explore these methods further later in the course.
 • Addressing the hidden curriculum. Research has largely shown that, in schools,
children and young people learn not only from what they are directly taught but also
from the way they are ‘treated’. The hidden curriculum can be defined as the messages
we learn from our educational experiences that are not directly explicit in the contents
we learn (or the official curriculum). The hidden curriculum includes issues such as
adults being more important than children or Western knowledge being more valid than
others. Students who experience an open classroom climate where they are listened to
and feel valued are more likely to embrace democratic perspectives. In contrast, no
matter the explicit curriculum, teachers or schools who discriminate against their
students or who take authoritarian stances are not promoting democracy. Teachers are
role models. It is not only about educating about democracy – democracy needs to be
practised.

Whole school approach

Teachers can work in cooperation with others to democratise wider school practices:

• Using cross-curricular approaches. Co-operation between teachers across different

specialisms can be very beneficial. Either in the context of the same classroom (team
teaching) or the whole school, teachers can organise learning activities to investigate
transversal topics relevant to democracy such as human rights, sustainable
development or linguistic diversity. For instance, in England, many schools participate
in the Black History month where students have an opportunity to examine Black
History from different disciplinary perspectives (e.g. History, English, Art, Science).
• Democratic governance. Schools are somehow mini-societies where different people
with different interests coexist. As with many other types of communities, schools also
have structures of governance in place. Whether or not these structures are democratic
has a major impact on the way children and young people learn about democracy.
Students who are directly involved in the school decision-making are more likely to
develop democratic competences. Schools with participative decision-making structures
and procedures, including powers for teachers, students and parents, are better placed
to promote democracy. The Council of Europe supports schools around Europe
committed to facilitating democratic structures of governance through the Democratic
Schools Network. Examples of activities undertaken by these schools can be found
here: Campaign free to speak safe to learn
• Working with the community. As educators, we often feel that learning finishes in
schools, but this is not the case. Children and young people do not leave their lives in a
compartmentalised way. Instead, all of their experiences do sum up in terms of whether
or not they will become advocates of democracy. Teachers can very rarely control what
happens outside the school, but they can co-operate with students’ communities in
several ways that can benefit more holistic learning. For instance, in Portugal, the school
alliance Visconde de Juromenha (Municipality of Sintra, in the outskirts of Lisbon) works
with a network of local agents in order to strengthen the involvement of community
partners in the educational project of its schools. In a context of cultural diversity, this
School Grouping works with Sintra’s Luso Caboverdiana Association and the Islamic
Community from Tapada das Mercês and Mem Martins, for the purpose of facilitating
the school-family relationship and increasing the potential of cultural diversity.
Teachers committed to promoting democracy should consider all these six-democratising
classroom and school practices in an integrated way. Indeed, whilst we acknowledge this is
very complex and it is not a one-day/one-person job, all these practices need to be considered if
we want to offer a rewarding and coherent democratic education for children and young people.
 2. Socialist practices
School policy and the principles underlying the organization of systems of education determine
the structure of these systems. Systems of public education in the European socialist countries
include: preschool education, general secondary education, out-of-school education, vocational-
technical education, secondary specialized education, higher education, and advanced training.
A very important task of the modern school in all countries of the world is to bring the
curricular content of education into line with the requirements of scientific-technological
progress. Ministries of education, special organizations and committees, and various study
commissions and groups of specialists at all levels are working to resolve this task. Now that
science is becoming a direct productive force, curriculum problems in the general education
school inevitably acquire both a national and global character. The interrelation between the
level of education in the school and level of the development of science and technology in any
given country, and the need for radical changes in the school curriculum, which for many
decades has been left quite unaltered, have become obvious. The need for profound changes in
the curriculum is acknowledged by all and is beyond question. But these tasks are carried out in
various ways depending on the social system and the direction of state school policy.

CHILDREN’S IDEAS ARE shaped from their early experiences, from their family, from the TV
and so on, but it is in schools where planned and systematic learning takes place. However,
like every other aspect of life under capitalism, schools are part of class society. The history
of education, of what and how ideas are taught, is also part of the history of struggle between
classes.
Calls for educational reform have formed an important part of the demands of working-class
movements. As Britain industrialised and the labour movement grew, workers formed
education groups to educate themselves and their workmates. They wanted to read about
the literature, science and art that their class had been kept in ignorance from. In the words
of the Chartist leader, William Lovett, they also wanted the skills to be able to organise their
‘pursuit of bread, knowledge and freedom’.
The Chartist movement in the 1840s included in their demands the call for a national,
universal, free and compulsory education system. They also challenged the rigid rote-
learning methods carried out in the existing elementary schools, wanting the classroom to
become a place of ‘lively and interesting enjoyments.
While workers’ pressure helped to win educational reforms, ruling-class concessions were
driven by their own class interests. The increasing complexity of industrial production
demanded a workforce with at least some rudimentary general education as well as
particular vocational skills. As today, politicians warned of the need for a workforce that
could successfully compete with ‘foreign rivals.
But schooling and ‘facts’ can never be separated from ideology. Both the curriculum and
teaching methods were consciously designed to make sure young workers were taught their
place in society as well as the discipline and routine the bosses needed from them in their
working lives. Robert Lowe MP, responsible for introducing ‘payment by results’ into
Victorian schools, spelt it out: "The lower classes ought to be educated to discharge the
duties cast upon them. They should also be educated that they may appreciate and defer to a
higher cultivation when they meet it". (Robert Lowe, Primary and Classical Education)
How much has fundamentally changed today? Few politicians would risk voicing such clear
class prejudice. Few parents or teachers would accept it either. Yet, despite the gains of the
post-war comprehensive education reforms, British education is still riven by class divisions.
 Through the school’s inspectorate OFSTED, the national curriculum, and now the national
literacy and numeracy strategies, Tory and Labour governments have increased central
control of what, and increasingly how, children are taught. Although concealed, the different
class interests are as clear as ever.
THE NEW LABOUR government represents a capitalist class that wants to consciously shape
education for its own interests. The White Paper states that "to prosper in the 21st century
competitive global economy, Britain must transform the knowledge and skills of its
population. Every child, whatever their circumstances, requires an education that equips
them for work and prepares them to succeed in the wider economy and society".
In practice this means two new developments. Firstly, getting children to ‘specialise’ - in
reality pigeonholing them to their particular role, and secondly, ‘modernising’ the curriculum
- emphasising the role of business and concentrating on what that child needs to become a
useful worker.
‘Citizenship’ will become a statutory part of the secondary curriculum. This is meant to
"promote political literacy" and "understanding of the democratic process". Secondary
education will also see "a new era of engagement with the worlds of enterprise, higher
education and civic responsibility". Of course, the reality of working-class experience may
not match with what New Labour wants teachers to teach!
New Labour’s plans to introduce "a coherent phase of 14-19 education" could lead to a
further twist to the class divide in education. The White Paper states that from 14 "the
purely academic route will still of course be very important for some" but "there will also be
the opportunity for a predominantly vocational programme" that "might include a significant
element of work-related learning from 14".
While such an approach might seem attractive to some youth alienated by the present
curriculum, it means reinstituting the academic/vocational divide of the pre-comprehensive
era. The White Paper talks of breaking down "the traditional prejudice against vocational
education" but these ‘prejudices’ stem from the very different career opportunities available
to school leavers who follow either academic or vocational routes. Once again, they
reproduce the division between mental and manual labour that is rooted in the division of
labour in capitalist society.
A socialist education policy must oppose the creation of different vocational and academic
‘pathways’ at 14. We stand for a broad ‘polytechnical education’ for all children, an idea
raised by Karl Marx himself.

3. Secular practices
Minority students are made to live with dominant and majority narratives and symbolisms
in educational institutions. It always happens at the cost of learning.
Like many secular nations, India had its challenges in deciding the place of religion within
its education system. After independence, Indian secularism aimed to separate religion from
State. However, the Indian variant of secularism retained a complex and “multi -value” laden
character. This complexity gets reflected in the education system, partly because of the
State’s position and partially considering demands of effective learning.
In his book, Social Character of Learning, former National Council of Educational Research
and Training (NCERT) director Prof Krishna Kumar discusses how the educati on system is
intertwined with the social identity of a student. Bringing the learners’ home and
community values into the classroom has a constructive role in learning.
Educational policies in India recognise the relationship between education and communi ty
experiences, which explains the emphasis on culture in classrooms. The National
Curriculum Frameworks (2000, 2005) and the National Education Policy (2020)
acknowledge and endorse respect for all religions and speak of inculcating awareness about
different faiths among students. The institution of District Primary Education
Programme (DPEP), the School Management Committees (SMC), and several other
programmes have a similar aim: to include the participation of and sensitivity to local
conditions in the school curriculum. Such a learning atmosphere in schools has two
overlapping functions. One, giving examples of students’ real-life experiences creates a
stronger base for their conceptual understanding. The result is improved cognitive growth.
Two, bringing the students’ community experiences to the class also communicates that
they are welcome in the classroom with their entire being, not just for their calculative
brains. This aids engagement in the learning process without fear or apprehension.
A fearless and secure learning atmosphere facilitates the strengthening of neural networks
formed due to learning. The background experiences, in this sense, enrich learning rather
than disrupt or disturb the education process. Going by the same rationale, countries such
as Spain, Ireland, and Sweden teach religious values and morals or comparative religions
within their secular curricula. Going a step ahead, Spain accommodates children without
restricting religious attire or symbols within public schools.
An educational system that attempts to denigrate and exclude socio-cultural or religious
symbols from schools portrays minority cultures as deficient, inferior or substandard. This
exclusion inflicts psychic violence on the minority groups, limiting their access to learning.
In doing this, the education system that intends to reform the marginalised communities
ends up pushing them further away by damaging their sense of self. The United States and
France are two good examples of this. Although both countries aimed at total separation of
religion from education, researchers have found religious values and symbols are visible
within their schools. It has also been found that schools do not object to such infiltrations by
students who belong to majority groups.
This is also true for India. Religion has been found to be an integral part of state-funded
schools in the country. It is seen in several symbols such as pictures or idols of deities such
as Saraswati, Ganesha, and the gurus of various sects used to decorate the administrative
offices, classrooms, even principals’ rooms. A closer examination and description of day -to-
day practices would easily reveal many instances where religious values and eating habits
manifest in the school culture. At the beginning of any cultural festival or school event, we
find elaborate rituals such as lighting the lamp, poojas, and reciting the Saraswati Vandana
and Ganesha stuti are familiar sights. There are long designated vacations and breaks for
specific religious festivals such as Dusshera or Diwali.
Teachers, who serve as role models, also embody and profess the religion they are born
into. The ubiquitous presence of religious symbols within Indian education is normalised,
unnoticed and unquestioned. Such symbolism is not unusual for students from the dominant
or majority groups, as their daily lives outside the school are also marked by similar
religious values. However, for students belonging to minority or marginalised communities,
the display of such symbols and values results in alienation.
Schools are mini-societies where students are trained to be part of a future society. A
democratic structure in the rhythm of a school prepares them for their future citizenship
roles. Suppose a school or college, as a reformative unit, communicates that only certain
community practices are welcome. In that case, the teachers will establish and reinforce
these religious hierarchies in their engagements with teachers, each other, and the students.
The students who live these narratives of cultural and religious supremacy will surely
reflect that as citizens in the future.
Most importantly, members of communities who live in a miasma of cultural subordination
during their student days will grow up feeling desolate as adults and later. In a futile way,
the members of a minority or marginalised community will always get blamed for being
reluctant to “grow” and unable to access mainstream life. Furthermore, education of the
exclusive kind will only instil hostility between communities instead of teaching harmony .