As democracy is born anew with each generation (Dewey, 1916), an ongoing debate revolves around the type of citizens we aspire to create through education—whether they be reproducers of societal norms, future voters, responsible community members, or active participants in democratic processes. Within education systems of many countries, there exists a lack of consensus, leading to the coexistence of different and at times conflicting discourses on citizenship (Bickmore, 2014). Over the past decade, discussions within education have particularly reflected the tension between deliberative and agonistic democracy, with representatives advocating for different visions (Hanson & Howe; 2011; Ruitenberg, 2009; Tryggvason, 2018;). Agonistic democracy, proposed by Chantal Mouffe in 2000, stands out as an alternative that recognizes conflict as a typical and potentially beneficial aspect of democratic life. In response to global polarization and in deliberate contrast to deliberative democracy, agonistic democracy views conflict not as a threat but as a dynamic force propelling democracy forward. This approach is especially important in the contemporary landscape marked by widespread alienation and disconnection from democratic processes, emphasizing the pressing need to confront political challenges, particularly the surge in populist rhetoric (Tryggvason, 2018).Embracing a perspective that considers conflicts as opportunities for cultivating democratic citizenship within schools has the potential to bring about transformative changes in student participation and the learning process (Ruitenberg, 2009).

In Lithuania, the curriculum for democratic citizenship education was established three decades ago, following the country's regaining of independence after nearly half a century under totalitarian rule. From a study conducted by the Civil Society Institute a decade ago (Žiliukaitė, Stonkuvienė, Šupa, Petronytė, 2012), which argued that there is a need for a change in the approach to civic education (that it is not only about knowledge, but more about values, relationships, way of thinking, and the relationship between the educator and the student), we can assume (since no other studies have been done on this approach to civic education), that in the practice of education in Lithuania, the processes are moving slower than the global tendencies (Haste, Chopra, 2020). Given the absence of a robust tradition of democratic education, the post-independence era saw the implementation of foreign practices from older, more mature democracies without meticulous consideration. The educational system did not necessarily adopt a singular approach or democratic theory for integration into school life (NVO Švietimo tinklas, 2017). Therefore, this study will seek to find out how democratic citizenship education in Lithuania relates to the agonistic democracy approach.

Despite limited research into citizenship education in Lithuania, available insights suggest a notable shift, especially around 2004 during the country's accession to the European Union. In the present landscape influenced by the conflict in Ukraine, themes of patriotic education and military training gain prominence in public citizenship education. The crucial inquiry centers on the current state of democratic citizenship in Lithuania, seeking to discern inklings of agonistic democracy within the nation's citizenship education policies and practices. This study, by analyzing the democratic citizenship education landscape in Lithuania through the prism of agonism, aspires to offer a fresh outlook and unveil previously overlooked opportunities for enhancing democratic citizenship education in this country.

In this research, a qualitative approach was employed, utilizing semi-structured interviews to delve into the historical trajectory and features of citizenship education in Lithuania. Eight experts (representatives of different stakeholders: politicians, oficials, representatives of formal education and the NGO sector) within the field of Lithuanian citizenship education were deliberately chosen, each bringing diverse perspectives that enriched the overall depth and breadth of the comprehensive exploration undertaken in this research (Van Audenhove & Donders, 2019). The research instrument, comprising interview questions, was meticulously crafted from the theoretical analysis of agonistic pedagogy (Koutsouris et al., 2022; Sant, 2019). Through interviews, the experts provided nuanced insights, shedding light on the presence or absence of agonistic features within the country's education system. For content analysis of the interview data, a structured coding and categorization process was employed to systematically identify and quantify specific elements, particularly focusing on uncovering hints of agonistic pedagogy within the discourse surrounding democratic citizenship education. Ethical considerations were paramount, ensuring informed consent, participant confidentiality, and the respectful handling of sensitive information. This research adhered to ethical guidelines, allowing participants the option to withdraw at any point.

The anticipated outcomes of this research aim for a comprehensive understanding of the state of democratic citizenship education in Lithuania, delving into its historical trajectory and contemporary features. The study endeavors to unveil nuances in how the educational system either aligns with or deviates from the principles of agonistic democracy. From the analysis, it became apparent that democratic citizenship education in Lithuania is perceived differently by experts, indicating its multifaceted nature with diverse theories, perspective and the tensions that arise from the different goals of citizenship education, especially in the context of today's wars. While the mention of agonistic democracy was absent, subtle traces of agonistic principles were detected both in formal education practices and the broader discourse on the topic in Lithuania. This discovery signifies an opportunity to introduce and strengthen agonistic pedagogy within the educational landscape. In conclusion, this study yields valuable insights into the nuanced landscape of Lithuanian citizenship education, contributing to the broader discourse on democratic education. By utilizing the agonistic democracy framework, the research not only deepens our understanding of citizenship education in Lithuania but also establishes a foundation for future research endeavors and potential policy considerations, particularly in enhancing democratic citizenship education within the country.

Bickmore, K. (2014). Citizenship education in Canada: ‘Democratic’ engagement with differences, conflicts and equity issues? Citizenship Teaching & Learning Vol. 9, Nr. 3. Dewey, J. (1916/2013). Demokratija ir ugdymas. Įvadas į ugdymo filosofiją. Klaipėda: Baltic printing House Haste, H., Chopra V. (2020). The futures of education for participation in 2050: educating for managing uncertainty and ambiguity. Background paper for the Futures of Education initiative. Hanson, J., & Howe, K. (2011). The Potential for Deliberative Democratic Civic Education. Democracy and Education, 19(2). https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol19/iss2/3 Koutsouris, G., Stentiford, L., Benham-Clarke, S., & Hall, D. (2022). Agonism in education: A systematic scoping review and discussion of its educational potential. Educational Review, 74(5), 1029–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1889983 Mouffe, C. (2000). The Democratic Paradox. Verso. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking The World Politically (1st edition). Verso. NVO švietimo tinklas (2017). Pilietiškumo studija. Ruitenberg, C. W. (2009). Educating Political Adversaries: Chantal Mouffe and Radical Democratic Citizenship Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28(3), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-008-9122-2 Sant, E. (2019). Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review (2006–2017). Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 655–696. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862493 Tryggvason, Á. (2018). Democratic Education and Agonism: Exploring the Critique from Deliberative Theory. Democracy & Education, 26(1), 1–9. Van Audenhove, L., & Donders, K. (2019). Talking to People III: Expert Interviews and Elite Interviews. In H. Van den Bulck, M. Puppis, K. Donders, & L. Van Audenhove (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research (pp. 179–197). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_10 Žiliukaitė, R., Stonkuvienė, I., Šupa, M., Petronytė, I. (2012). Pilietiškumo ugdymo būklės kokybinis tyrimas: Tyrimo ataskaita.