In the liberal world order, democracy constitutes as an important prerequisite for sustainable development, for security and peace, and for the protection of universal human rights. Therefore, democracy promotion is a central element of the foreign policy of almost all OECD countries, including the Federal Republic of Germany. (Leininger 2015: 509) As indicated in the “Konzeption 2000” (see AA 2000), not only Germany’s Security and Economic Foreign Policy, but also its cultural and educational engagement abroad, the “Auswärtige Kultur und Bildungspolitik” (AKBP), aims to provide important impetus for stabilization, democratic development and the opening up of civil society. (AA 2011: 5)

Various actors are involved in implementing this policy goal. These include the German Schools Abroad (DAS), which hitherto have received only little attention in research, although the large network of 140 DAS is the oldest of its kind. (Adick 2014: 109; Mägdefrau/Wolff 2018; Herzner 2019: 25) In particular, § 8 of the “Gesetz über die Förderung deutscher Auslandsschulen” (Law on the Promotion of German Schools Abroad) requires that the DAS, funded by the German foreign office, need to take into account the democratic values of Germany. (Herzner 2019: 19) The DAS quality framework likewise demands that the DASs’ educational work imparts democratic values and promotes democratic action.” (translated by the author; ZfA 2018: 13)

Offering education that goes far beyond the teaching of the German language and seeking to realize the goals of the AKBP, namely the promotion of democracy, the DAS are unique in their nature. (Klingebiel 2018: 230) However, the DAS face particular challenges, as a large proportion of them are located in non-democratic countries. (Chahin-Dörflinger 2016: 8) For example, DAS in non-democratic countries have to deal with the discrepancies between the schooling and learning culture of the DAS and the formal education system of the host country, they are characterized by a highly selective student body and strong homogenization efforts while having to integrate into two cultures, and their potential to promote democracy must also be evaluated in light of the DAS' colonial past. (cf. Scheunpflug 2014: 31ff.; Eschborn et al. 2011: 7f.)

For the purposes of exploring the field of democracy promotion and education at DAS in non-democratic contexts, I examined the following questions in the framework of a single-case study of the German School in Nairobi (DSN), Kenya: 1. Which significance does democracy education and its aspects as indicated on the Degede (2017) catalogue on “Characteristics of democratic schools” have at the DSN? 2. How do these aspects of democracy education relate to the specific conditions of the non-democratic host country Kenya? 3. Based on the case study, what general "fields of action" for democracy education in the DAS can be identified?

In my presentation, I will first give an overview of the role of democracy promotion in the AKBP and present the state of research on system and typology of the DAS. I will then introduce the theoretical background which consists of, firstly, the discourse on the role of education in external democracy promotion led by mainly political scientists (Finkel 2003; Bush 2015), secondly, the role of schools in transition and transformation research and theory (Henze 2003; Merkel et al. 2019) and thirdly, theories of democratic pedagogy (Dewey 1916 [2016]; Freire 1971). After outlining the research method (qualitative content analyses of documents and expert interviews) and describing the case of the DSN and Kenya, I will present the main results and discuss with regard to their practical implications and theoretical added value.

Methodically, I followed a qualitative approach in the interpretative research paradigm. Given the very sparse literature on the DAS in general and the role that democracy education/promotion plays at the DAS, I explored the question mentioned above in an exploratory theory-generating single case study focused on the German School in Nairobi (DSN) in Kenya. According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (2022), Kenya is a “moderate autocracy.” The DSN is a school whose majority of students are German citizens and which offers only German degrees. However, the DSN offers scholarships to Kenyan students. With about 350 students, the DSN is above the average (225 students) for its type. (Mersch/Kühn 2014: 133) The data set consisted of basic documents of the school such as the mission statement on the one hand and eight interviews with experts from different positions relevant to the question of democratic practices at the school on the other hand. The interviews were conducted during April-July 2022. This period coincided with the "hot" phase of the 2022 election campaign in Kenya, which was likely to have an impact not only on everyday school life, but also on opportunities for political education. Using deductive-inductive qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz 2018), I examined relevant institutional characteristics and structures, practice patterns, and ideas about the effects as well as the conditions of success or failure of democracy-promoting educational work at the school. The code system consisted of the six deductive main categories based on the Degede (2017) catalogue on “Characteristics of democratic schools” – 1) Dealing with framework conditions, 2) School culture, 3) Leadership and management, 4) Professionalism of teachers and cooperation partners, 5) Learning and teaching culture and 6) Effects – and 35 subcategories representing the fields of action of democratic education at the DSN which I inductively derived from the data. Due to the long tradition that some German schools abroad have at certain locations, they have often developed a specific profile, resulting in an extreme heterogeneity amongst German schools abroad. (Kiper 2015: 150). Consequently, the generalization of findings from a single case study is generally difficult. The DSN thus rather represents a “per se interesting case” for which, in the sense of an exploration, all facets need to be described as exhaustively as possible in order to develop an in-depth understanding of the chosen case, thereby making the research object accessible to a possible incipient social science debate. (cf. Hering/Schmidt 2014: 529f.)

The results are on two levels: On a meta-level, through the analyses, I have further refined and extended the Degede catalog, which was developed for schools in Germany, for the case of the DSN. Given the methodological limitations, this refinement does not represents a catalog that is exhaustive for all schools abroad but provides important insights that are likely to be highly relevant for other DAS and responsible policy makers. Concretely, the study showed that building bridges to the host society is a challenge in all six categories. One reason is that two of the main goals of DAS seem to be at great odds with each other: referring to and strengthening ties with Germany on the one hand, and the need for the school to develop a context-appropriate understanding of democracy (education) on the other. The institutional and structural framework of DAS, including the strong role of the parents or the curricular framework for example, represent both a challenge and an opportunity for democracy education. Both the teachers and the management have a crucial role to play in leveraging these opportunities and those created by the specific educational landscape of the school abroad for democracy learning. In addition, the data showed that a substantial reflection on the extent to which Germany can serve as an ideal norm is needed when negotiating educational practices, especially for DAS located in the Global South. Against this background and with regard to its size and limited prominence, however, the DSN’ democracy promoting effects is very small. Nevertheless, in the sense of a socialization effect, the DSN will even reach parts of Kenyan society, if the DSN considers itself not only an educational institution for students, but for the entire school community, which includes local staff, parents and various cooperation partners in the educational landscape surrounding the school..

Adick, C.2014: Deutsche Auslandsschularbeit –Thema oder blinder Fleck in der Vergleichenden Erziehungswissenschaft?, in: Tepe, M./Kiper, H.(Hrsg.): Transnationale Bildungsräume in der globalen Welt. Herausforderungen für die deutsche Auslandsschularbeit; Dokumentation der Fachtagung; 11. - 13. Oktober 2013, Frankfurt am Main, 109-122. Auswärtiges Amt (AA) 2000: Auswärtige Kulturpolitik – Konzeption 2000, Berlin. Auswärtiges Amt (AA) 2011: Auswärtige Kultur- und Bildungspolitik in Zeiten der Globalisierung. Berlin. Bertelsmann Stiftung 2022: Kenia, in: https://bti-project.org/de/reports/country-dashboard/KEN; 16.5.2022. Bush, S. 2015: The Taming of Democracy Assistance, Cambridge. Chahin-Dörflinger, F. 2016: Grußwort: Interkulturalität und Demokratie, Frankfurt am Main, 8. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Demokratiepädagogik e. V. (Degede) 2017: Merkmale demokratiepädagogischer Schulen. Ein Katalog, Berlin/Jena. Dewey, J. 1916 [2016]: Democracy and education, Lexington, KY. Eschborn, N./Holländer, M./Krahe, N. 2011: Herausforderungen und Perspektiven für die demokratiepolitische Bildung in der politischen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, in: ZEP 34: 1, 4-10. Finkel, S. E. 2003: Can Democracy Be Taught?, in: Journal of Democracy 14: 4, 137-151. Freire, P. 1971: Pädagogik der Unterdrückten [Pedagogy of the Oppressed], Stuttgart. Henze, J. 2003: Ergebnisse der Transformationsforschung zum Wandel von Bildungssystemen in Übergangsgesellschaften [Results of transformation research on the transformation of education systems in transitional societies], in: Tertium Comparationis 9: 1, 67-80. Hering, L. /Schmidt, R. J. 2014: Einzelfallanalyse, in: Baur, Nina/Blasius, Jörg (Hrsg.): Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, Wiesbaden, 529-542. Herzner, D. 2019: Deutsche Auslandsschulen in Spanien. Kiper, H. 2015: Arbeit in der Weltgesellschaft – Deutsche Schulen im Ausland, in: Maaß, K.-J. (Hrsg.): Kultur und Außenpolitik, 149-159. Klingebiel, T. 2018: Motor der Integration Deutsche Auslandsschulen sind globale Knotenpunkte der kulturellen Infrastruktur Deutschlands, in: Zimmermann, O./Geißler, T.(Hrsg.): Die dritte Säule: Beiträge zur Auswärtigen Kultur- und Bildungspolitik, Berlin, 229-231. Kuckartz, U. 2018: Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse, Weinheim, Basel. Leininger, J. 2015: Demokratieförderung [Democracy promotion], in: Kollmorgen, R: /Merkel, W. /Wagener, H.-J. (Hrsg.): Handbuch Transformationsforschung, Wiesbaden, 509-518. Mägdefrau, J./Wolff, M. 2018: Deutsche Auslandsschularbeit im Spiegel der Forschung, Frankfurt am Main. Merkel, W./Kollmorgen, R./Wagener, H.-J. 2019: Transformation and Transition Research: An Introduction, in: Merkel, W./Kollmorgen, R./Wagener, H.-J. (Hrsg.): The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation, 1-14. Mersch, S./Kühn, S. 2014: Deutsche Schulen im Ausland – Analysen und Perspektiven aus Sicht der empirischen Bildungsforschung, in: Tertium Comparationis 20: 2, 125-152. Scheunpflug, A. 2014: Bildung in der Weltgesellschaft, in: Tepe, M./Kiper, H.(Hrsg.): Transnationale Bildungsräume in der globalen Welt. Herausforderungen für die deutsche Auslandsschularbeit; Dokumentation der Fachtagung; 11. - 13. Oktober 2013, Frankfurt am Main, 28-37. Zentralstelle für das Auslandsschulwesen (ZfA) 2018: Auslandsschulqualitätsmanagement; 10.6.2022.