Barcelona Metropolis

Faced with hate-filled and exclusionary rhetoric that threatens democracy, and with the declining role of the family as a space for socialisation, schools are becoming the first line of defence – a stronghold for teaching critical thinking and for learning to speak, listen and negotiate. Democracy, a historical anomaly that must be preserved, was the focus of the debate series En clau d’Educació: Educació o barbàrie [Through the Lens of Education: Education or Barbarism].

“Is democracy in danger?” This was the question posed to political scientist Pablo Simón at the opening of the debate series En clau d’Educació: Educació o barbàrie [Through the Lens of Education: Education or Barbarism], promoted by the Municipal Education Council of Barcelona, the Vocational Training Council of Barcelona and the Youth Council of Barcelona. This was the fifth edition of the series, which Barcelona City Council organises to address the major contemporary challenges facing humanity from the perspective of education.

Simón’s response went beyond the immediate moment, offering a historical perspective on what we today call democracy. “Liberal democracy”, Simón said, “is a historical anomaly”. It has rarely existed throughout history. Threats are constant and inherent, coming from sectors of society that do not share the values of what democracy aims to be. But what do we understand today by a democratic society?

According to Simón, it is crucial to distinguish clearly between societies where some rights are recognised, even if limited, and what we today consider genuine democracy. For example, the United States in the 1960s was often presented as a model democratic society, yet Black citizens did not achieve full recognition of their political rights until the late 1960s, thanks to the civil rights movement. Similarly, Switzerland in the 1960s claimed to be a democracy, yet it was democratically decided that women could not vote. They only gained this right in the 1970s following feminist mobilisation. Can these societies truly be considered democratic? We must understand that they cannot, precisely because they limited the rights of part of the population. We might also ask whether today’s so-called democratic societies suffer from deficits due to restrictions on rights.

In any case, Simón proposed that we view our democratic societies through the lens of comprehensive rights recognition and a fundamental principle: “Democracies are the only political system in which those in power can lose elections”. For Simón, this is the most concise definition of democracy, which must include alternation in power without violence. Historically, power has often been seized violently, rivals eliminated or criminalised. In a democracy, by contrast, the rules of the game must be respected and accepted.

Today, the weakening and erosion of democracies, as Simón points out, occurs due to a lack of respect for these rules, which are increasingly being challenged. These processes of erosion can ultimately lead us to stop considering these societies democratic. Some countries have shifted from being democracies to defining themselves as “electoral authoritarianisms”. When leaders such as Trump, Bolsonaro and others contest election results, we can see how they treat elections instrumentally: they only matter if they win, if they can use them for their own benefit. In a democratic society, elections should be respected and valued as a mechanism – and not only elections, but all the elements and processes necessary to enable democracy, including dialogue, discussion and argumentation.

The weakening of today’s democracies should prompt reflection on two fundamental issues, as Simón suggests: respect for pluralism and limitation of power. Respecting pluralism means accepting that there are people with whom we may disagree, but this does not make them enemies. We can question how far pluralism and diversity of positions should be accepted, including antagonisms and opposition. It is a complex yet essential debate. Respecting pluralism and difference is a cornerstone of any society that seeks to be democratic.

A second cornerstone is the limitation of power. We must recognise that a government arising from elections has a legitimate mandate to implement its programme, but not to pervert the state or cling to power indefinitely. There is a widespread tendency to attempt to dominate the media, state institutions and civil servants, to make legal changes or to persecute the opposition in order to maintain control. Democratic societies need governments that do not overstep their bounds, and they also need counterpowers. These counterpowers lose influence when they are criminalised, persecuted or poorly funded. Examples include NGOs, universities and the education sector, the media and satire or humour.

Today’s democracies are under attack, suffering wear and erosion that can jeopardise or destroy their fundamental pillars. If we do not work to safeguard their legitimacy, if we do not take care of them, they will cease to be democracies. In some places, this has already happened. Simón uses a metaphor: “We live like a frog in a pot of hot water. If we are boiled gradually, we will not notice all that is changing, and if one day we realise it, there may be very little democracy left”.

In another session, Enrique Díez Gutiérrez, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Education at the University of León, identified the main causes of these weakenings and attacks on democracy. He referred to “the tragedy of social democracy” to describe how Margaret Thatcher, former UK Prime Minister, expressed pride that Tony Blair, a Labour Prime Minister, had incorporated her core ideas: individualism, selfishness and privatisation. Díez Gutiérrez emphasised that the alliance between neoliberalism and neofascism is a serious problem due to the values and reference points it generates. With this acceptance, social democracy would have left a large part of society unprotected, the working class without reference points, and reinforced the “war of all against all” – the ‘us first’ mentality. The growing options are those of the far right (VOX, Alternative for Germany…), but it is also important to recognise that positions that limit or undermine democracy are not only found in movements we identify as far right. Others who do not consider themselves far right, and even claim to oppose it, may still support such positions. This contributes to their spread throughout society.

What kind of education is needed to make democracy possible?

Education is closely tied to the values that sustain democracy. The type of education we promote will determine the kind of society we have. It is therefore worth reflecting on what education can do – and what it is doing – in today’s context. According to Pablo Simón, the education system plays a much smaller role in transmitting values to young people than it did twenty, forty or eighty years ago. In his view, the reason lies in changes in family structures: families are smaller, with fewer siblings and cousins, and greater solitude. In this situation, algorithms capture attention through screens and become agents of socialisation. They are individualising agents, designed to promote confrontation, clashes and polarisation. Authoritarian actors thrive on social media. For young people, the online and offline worlds are inseparable. All the content received through screens shapes the reference points of today’s youth – and not just youth.

Enrique Díez Gutiérrez shares this diagnosis. Most adults are unfamiliar with TikTok or BeReal, or with influencers such as Llados, but young people are not. The “manosphere” is where a significant portion of young people spend time – a network of digital spaces from which content and messages are constantly broadcast that can foster hatred and values opposed to the idea of democracy: sexism, antifeminism, anti-environmentalism, racism, selfishness, consumerism… Bubbles have always existed, but social media now make it easy to live within them and experience them. Too much education today is founded on neoliberal and neofascist values. “We have normalised this model”, said Díez Gutiérrez. “We have normalised barbarity, whitewashed it, and, moreover, we are justifying it”.

The conversation between Assumpta Baig i Torras, Enrique Díez Gutiérrez and Milagros Pérez Oliva formed the second session of the series and focused on reflecting on the major challenges facing education in the context of growing far-right and hate-based positions. The key question posed was: “What role do teachers play in educating for debate and critical thinking, and in preventing uncritical adherence to certain role models?”

Assumpta Baig i Torras, President of the Fundació Marta Mata, called for rebellion. In response to these diagnoses, it is necessary to begin with personal awareness, which must be developed collectively with others. From this awareness comes the need for rebellion and teamwork: knowing how to speak and listen, reaching agreements – practices not necessarily modelled by the social figures we are most exposed to. For Baig, institutional politics does not educate as we need. Those acting as representatives often do not know how to speak, listen or reach agreements. Therefore, education must be a team effort, with families actively participating – not as clients. From the family, attention must extend to the wider community, recalling the important concept of Marta Mata: the educating city.

Díez Gutiérrez proposed a “pedagogy of disobedience” in the face of injustice and impunity. “We cannot educate in submission and obedience”, he insisted. “And teachers must be examples of what we defend: struggle also educates”. Teaching staff must be able to confront positions that attack rights and freedoms. Some view this negatively, seeing it as political. But education is political; it always has been and always will be – politics of one kind or another. Díez Gutiérrez recommends the excellent book by Jaume Carbonell, L’educació és política [Education is Political], published by Editorial Octaedro.

However, a democratic school should not be confused with one where students can do whatever they want. Baig stressed that freedom and democracy must be understood on demanding foundations that allow conditions to be created in which people can live freely and democratically. For her, democracy is about conversation, listening and speaking. “We must teach people to speak and to think”, she said. “The fast pace of life we lead is not healthy. Conversation, curiosity, science and creativity must be cultivated – these are fundamental components of education and democracy”.

Democracy-building practices

This series of debates has moved between reflections aimed at understanding and proposing responses to the reality we live in, and practical experiences aimed at achieving effective action. Two sessions highlighted some everyday practices designed to create and strengthen democracy. These are projects with varying degrees of continuity, depending on available resources, aimed at educating students in democracy and enabling them to experience it both inside and outside school. They include assemblies, elections, student governments and artistic projects in which students take the lead. The goal is for them to participate, take initiative, be heard, listen, argue and reach agreements. These are not simple or easy processes, but they bear fruit. We are not born knowing how to live in a democracy; we must learn. Schools recognise that they are the first line of defence against intolerance and authoritarianism. Schools are a bulwark: they cannot simply allow attacks on democracy to pass; they must create democracy.

In these projects, where teachers serve as role models, people from outside the school also participate. The aim is to educate away from total control, to develop processes that support young people, to empower them through motivation and to offer activities that are engaging. The goal is to listen, even when words and positions arise that may be uncomfortable for defenders of democracy, because they are part of society. Young people should not be criminalised or held responsible for the actions of adults. The aim is to intervene in hatred, misinformation and attacks. Training is offered, followed by opportunities for young people’s growth. Data alone is not always sufficient; safe spaces for dialogue are also necessary to share emotions and feelings. Fears and ideas that may be uncomfortable must be able to be expressed, because they exist and need to be addressed. The objective is to foster commitment to the school, the neighbourhood, the city and society as a whole. Positive outcomes are seen not only in changes among students and young people but also within the school itself and in other participating institutions.

The projects presented were showcased by the Institut Escola Castellterçol (with Pau Gaitán and Anna Gaja); the Institut Escola La Mina in Sant Adrià de Besòs (with Marta del Campo); IMCITIZEN, in the schools Els Porxos and La Pau, in the Sant Martí district of Barcelona (with Clara Ochoa and Sònia Burgues); the European Observatory on Memories (EUROM) (with David González); Verificat (with Alba Tobella); Esplais Catalans (with Martina Picas); and Versembrant (with Bittah).

Pessimism or optimism in the face of current hatred?

Pessimism was evident in some of the reflections during the debates, which is understandable given certain present-day realities. Yet the practical experiences brought a strong sense of optimism, showing how well initiatives can work despite difficulties in implementation. Pessimism is closely linked to polling data revealing concerning positions among young people, to electoral successes of far-right parties and to certain political behaviours. However, it is also important to emphasise that never before have so many people shared feminist, environmentalist, anti-racist and pro-diversity ideas.

In fact, the growth of these positions supporting democracy, equality, diversity and freedom over recent decades has triggered the reaction we now see and experience. But this reaction arises when patriarchal, antifeminist, anti-environmentalist, racist or anti-diversity ideas perceive their dominance as threatened. That they are now louder does not mean they are more valid or widespread.

It is also worth noting that, despite worrying data and antifeminist attitudes – particularly among young men – these same young people declare themselves in favour of equality between women and men. Discomfort with feminism likely stems from how it is belittled or even criminalised by certain sectors. But there is no opposition to equality.

Pablo Simón said: “We must support them and engage with them”. Young men are looking for their place in the world. Inclusive discourse is needed – a discourse that benefits everyone. Perhaps mistakes are being made if we fail to show them that a feminist society is better for all. Young men need role models of healthy masculinity. Several participants in the debates emphasised this point: role models of masculinity that are neither patriarchal nor antifeminist are essential.

It is also important to remember that optimism is often accompanied by a great capacity for transformation. History shows that the ideas which have progressed, materialised and gained traction are those that have inspired people. Now is the time to inspire, imagining other worlds in which we can live with greater freedom and democracy. However, pessimism tends to paralyse – a view widely shared during the debates. If we consider education, as well as other areas, the great challenge lies in responding to human needs. Schools cannot change everything, nor can education in a broader sense – but that should not make us pessimistic. We must recognise the good work that has been done and continues to be done through education to create democracy and resist barbarism. And we must not be complacent: we need to create a stronger democracy to make life itself possible.

The sessions:

Debate series: En clau d’Educació: Educació o barbàrie [Through the Lens of Education: Education or Barbarism].

I. What is the future of democracy? 20 February 2025, with Pablo Simón and Milagros Pérez Oliva, at El Born Centre de Cultura i Memòria. Museu d’Història de Barcelona. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3slrM7YcOQ

II. Defending democracy through schools. 13 March 2025, with Enrique Díez, Assumpta Baig, and Milagros Pérez Oliva, at El Born Centre de Cultura i Memòria. Museu d’Història de Barcelona. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE8xIt338M0

III. Democratising educational practices. 3 April 2025, with Pau Gaitán, Anna Gaja, Marta del Campo, David González, Clara Ochoa, Sònia Burgues and Milagros Pérez Oliva, at El Born Centre de Cultura i Memòria. Museu d’Història de Barcelona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuUXXELKMw

IV. Popular education against hate speech. 10 April 2025, with Bittah, Alba Tobella, Martina Picas and Jordi Mir, at Espai Jove La Fontana. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFeB3eL99Vs