ABSTRACT
This paper examines the interactions between citizenship regimes and education governance structures and policies in six post-Yugoslav countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia). Previous studies have identified the ethnocentric, multiethnic and civic dimensions of the citizenship regimes in these countries (Džankic,́ 2012; Koska, 2012; Krasniqi, 2012; Sarajlic,́ 2012; Shaw & Štiks, 2012; Spaskovska, 2012; Vasiljevic,́ 2012) based on the most salient features of their constitutions and functioning. In almost all of the post-Yugoslav countries, these studies have found a practice of ethnic engineering, described as the intentional policy of governments and lawmakers to influence the ethnic composition of their population in favour of their
dominant ethnic group, whether this practice is legally codified (as in the Serbian constitution defining Serbia as the state of Serbs and others) or pursued through various institutional and administrative practices set within or against the existing laws. Education is one of the public spheres in which ethnic engineering can be a powerful tool
for favouritism of ethnic core groups and the exclusion of others, since political socialisation of citizens is one of its core functions (Gutmann, 1987). Who belongs to the state, nation or homeland is often implied in ideologies, narratives and beliefs that can be officially or unofficially endorsed through education policies and practices. Some of the mechanisms through which inclusive and exclusive concepts of citizenship can be promoted include curricula and the use of languages in schools (Steiner-Khamsi et al., 2002), which shape the institutional arrangements for students’ experiences within education structures. Central to the exercise of full membership in a society are citizens’ rights and duties. EU
membership criteria and observance of the relevant international norms are an important driving force for adopting social inclusion and anti-discrimination principles. In their education-related legislation and policies, all post-Yugoslav countries have incorporated provisions protecting rights to and in education. The countries are signatories to a number of European and other international instruments1 that protect individual rights, as well as grant various group rights, such as cultural and linguistic minority rights. For example, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child grants individuals the right to equal access to compulsory and free primary education, free access to secondary education and higher education accessible to all (Art. 28).2 The key instrument protecting minority rights is the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM), which covers education on culture, language, history and the religion of minorities (Art. 12-14). Some studies from the region identified overemphasis of group over individual rights
(Pantic ́ et al., 2011; Krasniqi, 2012; Sarajlic,́ 2012; Spaskovska, 2012). Other studies from the Central and Eastern European countries (Agarin & Brosig, 2009) point to the tensions between upholding ethnic and linguistic minority rights, and developing inclusive education systems while respecting diversity. This paper examines how the ethnocentric, multicultural and civic dimensions of citizenship operate in education governance structures and policies. In particular, it explores the ways in which these structures and policies encourage inclusive and exclusive concepts of citizenship, officially or otherwise, and the ways in which relevant ‘European norms’ are consolidated locally, for example, whether groups are favoured over individuals in their entitlements to education rights. A qualitative comparative methodology is used looking for cross-cutting themes that can
be illustrated by all or some of the country cases. The data are collected through analysis and close textual interpretation (Merriam, 1998) of education policy documents, while informal interviews with the members from academia, governmental and non-governmental sectors were used to check the accuracy of these interpretations. All data have been collected between January and June 2012. The analysis involved an interpretative approach to determining meaning, salience and connections (Ritchie & Spencer, 1994) and identifying ‘themes’ by looking at the logics of particular country contexts as part of a wider regional context (Scheppele, 2004).
