Portugal, along with other European countries, experienced an intensive dictatorship that is objectively considered as one of the longest in Western Europe and in the XXth century. Consequently, this transition to democracy had a  profound impact on different social fields on which it is stressed the transformation of political institutions, as well as the emergence of a strong emphasis on the role of education towards a democratic European citizenship, particularly since the nineties (Azevedo & Menezes, 2008).

Despite its registering in a globalized and democratic society, where fast changes occurs and where it is enhanced the remarkable progress in educational levels of population, Portugal still presents some fragilities. These ones highlight the field of education, qualification and certification of scholar and professional competences of the active population, as an inheritance of its historical and political past that still keep us distant from other European countries.

It is in this context that emerges a new guideline of learning, in consonance with globalization trends that, instead of circumscribed in a formal educational system, punctuated by age limits, recognizes the importance of the diversity of contexts in which learning is acquired, assuming it as crucial both to individuals and society, through all their life time, once that it recognizes education and training as a “passport for life” (Castro, 2011).

Departing from the field of adult education and training, this paper aims to understand whether there is a décalage in conceptions and perceptions of both concepts of citizenship and participation through a multifaceted view that comprises adult education policies and the acquisition of its prescribed curriculum by adults. Therefore, it makes particular sense to question prior learning devices, highlighting the explicit social-political project and its impact on adult citizens. How is citizenship conceived by political actors and adults? Should citizenship be focused on the transmission of values, rules and knowledge about society, playing a function of mere social control (Sultana, 1992), where citizens are considered to be “spectators who vote” (Walzer, 1995, p. 165) or should it conceive citizens as authors, with conditions and opportunities to make choices and decisions, as well as acting actively in his own life (Eisenstadt, 2000, p.7)? Does the shadow of the authoritarian past still accounts in an actual conception and practice of citizenship in the sense that citizens can think and behave autonomously as actors in a democratic society?

Azevedo, C., Menezes, I. (2008). Transition to Democracy and Citizenship Education in Portugal: Changes and Continuities in the Curricula and in Adolescents‟ Opportunities for Participation. Journal of Social Sciences Education, 9, 1, 131-148; Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101; Castro, J. (2010). Aprendizagem: ao Longo e em Todos os Domínios da Vida. [Metodologias de Reconhecimento e Validação de Competências Chave]. Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação. Universidade do Porto; Eisenstadt, S. (2000). Os regimes democráticos: fragilidade, continuidade e transformabilidade. Lisbon: Celta; Gil, J. (2004). Portugal hoje: O medo de existir. Lisboa: Relógio D‟Água; Sultana, R. (1992): Personal and social education: Curriculum innovation and school bureaucracies in Malta. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20, 2, 164-185; Walzer, M. (1995). The civil society argument. In: R. Beiner (Ed.), Theorizing citizenship, 152-174. Albany: State University of New York Press;