United by their realistic approach to the study of democratic politics, Hans Kelsen and Joseph Schumpeter similarly sought to de-ideologise ‘classical’ accounts of popular sovereignty. Both developed an analytical framework to explain how modern democracy, based on parties and the electoral selection of representatives, functions and realises its ideals. Both emphasised that democracy lasts only if it successfully generates a ‘compromise’ between the contingent majority and the temporary minority (in the terminology for Kelsen) or if current majorities exercise ‘self-control’ (in the language of Schumpeter). However, neither explained the mechanisms that induce democratically elected majorities to limit themselves in the practice of governmental power. The chapter first charts the innovations introduced by Kelsen and Schumpeter into our understanding of democracy; then, it teases out their views on how majorities abstain from aggrandising their power beyond some limits. For both, such limits must be self-enforcing and observing them must constitute an equilibrium. Yet, a proper understanding of how this equilibrium emerges remains one of the greatest challenges for contemporary scholars of democracy. ‘Compromise’ or ‘self-restraint’ is almost definitionally a requisite of democratic politics, but it cannot be imposed from outside, and it cannot just follow from agreements about certain rules, unless those rules are self-enforcing. As the chapter explains, it must be in the best interest of the democratic rulers to stop monopolising power given the potential reactions of the opposition, and it must be in the best interest of the opposition to participate peacefully given that the incumbent stops. Despite the significant progress in the normative and empirical study of democracy over the past several decades, the greatest challenge faced by Kelsen and Schumpeter has not been completely resolved.

This manifesto argues that education should incorporate philosophical exploration to help young people address existential questions and find meaning and purpose in their lives. The manifesto suggests that to understand the meaning of one’s life, one must consider personal existence and consciousness and the reality beyond the here and now. It proposes that education should provide a neutral forum for discussing these big questions, without bias towards any particular belief system, and incorporating both scientific and spiritual perspectives. By engaging in such philosophical discourse, young people can develop a clearer sense of self and purpose, fostering resilience, mental well-being and a commitment to values and moral behaviour. This can support them to survive and thrive through the opportunities and challenges of the future.

This collection of manifestos and practitioner responses presents a compelling and multifaceted vision for the future of education. We hope that readers will engage critically with the ideas contained in them, adopting or adapting them to create their own visions for education, or rejecting them to clear new space for dialogue.

Our aim has been to present chapters that grapple with complex and interconnected issues, highlighting the need for a fundamental shift in how we educate children and young people in a world struggling with unprecedented social, political, environmental and technological change. What would it look like if you were to accept and explore the complexity of interconnected fields of learning? How might you exploit these interconnections to better prepare children for their future lives – both their challenges and their opportunities? We encourage educators to stop and reconsider what they do, and how and why they’re doing it.

This chapter addresses Kelsen’s democratic theory through the distinction that he established between ideal and real democracy. Starting from a reconceptualisation of Rousseau’s definition of democracy as full political self-determination, Kelsen negated the feasibility of ideal democracy as direct democracy while stating that heteronomy was impossible to overcome. Kelsen thus posed the problem of how heteronomy and freedom were reconciled in real democracy. By differentiating between the ideal and real significance of concepts such as the people and parliamentarism, Kelsen argued that such a reconciliation was made possible in the form of a ‘government by’ the people, based on freedom rights, parliamentarism, political party pluralism and respect of the minority. The chapter also shows how Kelsen critically addressed a series of political projects, movements and figures, from Lenin to Neo-jusnaturalism, passing through the supporters of corporative representation. Kelsen retained that their common objective to go beyond what he meant by real democracy was destined to create a political system characterised by heteronomy without freedom. In this respect, Kelsen developed a theory of democracy that was both a theory on how freedom and heteronomy could be reconciled and a defence of democracy against ideologically and politically connotated targets.

Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie is certainly Kelsen’s best-known contribution to democratic theory. To be adequately understood, however, it must be seen not as a one-shot theoretical effort, but as the epitome of a decade-long inquiry into the foundations of democracy. Indeed, the book was not written at a single stroke: it was first published in 1920 as a short essay and reappeared in 1929 in a revised and significantly expanded form. This chapter unearths the forgotten genealogy of Kelsen’s seminal work by comparing its two editions and exploring their profound and overlooked differences; by doing so, it unearths, contextualises, and unpacks the transformations, both normative and practical, that took place in Kelsen’s democratic theory between the two versions of Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie. A careful textual and contextual analysis shows that Kelsen’s most famous publication on democracy was a response to the multiple challenges that gradually emerged throughout the 1920s. It also reveals how Kelsen’s analysis of party democracy grew out of a careful study of actual democratic institutions and their fragile stand in the intellectual and political landscape of interwar Europe.

The response describes how transdisciplinary approaches can be adopted in the classroom to support skills such as creativity, innovation, adaptability and problem solving and to foster a more holistic and engaging learning experience. The first case study, ‘Constellations’ at the University of Cambridge Primary School, explores the night sky, the solar system and stars through scientific, historical, creative and literary lenses by combining real-world experiences with classroom activities. The second case study, ‘The Selburose’, connects computational thinking, programming, mathematics and arts and crafts by having students design and create a traditional Norwegian knitting pattern using Scratch programming and various craft materials.

This manifesto explores the biological effects of toxic stress, triggered by strong, frequent or prolonged adversity, on childhood development and long-term health. It highlights how emotion coaching, a form of responsive relationship, can mitigate those effects, support the healthy development of children and improve outcomes for children, young people and families. Emotion coaching involves being present, validating the child’s feelings and helping them understand and manage their emotions. The manifesto advocates for integrating the science of stress and the practice of emotion coaching into educational systems and communities, including strengthening skills and capabilities in the core life skills of adult caregivers. In this way, educators and communities can help children thrive.

This manifesto argues that education is crucial to equipping people with the knowledge and skills, confidence and optimism to navigate the challenges of the twenty-first century. Human-induced environmental change - including climate breakdown; species extinction; pollution of the air, soil, freshwater and oceans; and resource depletion - is destroying the very systems that humans need for life. When these effects are coupled with a set of global economic constraints that prioritise unsustainable consumption, and interact with underlying social inequalities, the challenges we face are severe. The manifesto stresses the importance of fostering values-based education that promotes active citizenship, creativity, resilience, knowledge, compassion, systems thinking and local action with global impact.

Decidedly understudied and still unavailable to Anglophone readers, Die Staatslehre des Dante Alighieri (1905) was Kelsen’s first monograph, published one year before his doctoral graduation and six years before the release of his Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre (1911). His incisive book, which would become a reference point for the study of Dante’s political thought among German legal and political theorists, offered a comprehensive, historically situated, and critical account of the Poet’s recipe for global peace: namely, a universal and – most importantly – secular monarchy capable of bringing order into a world plagued by factionalism, institutional instability, and the competing aspirations of the two universal authorities of the Middle Ages (the Pope and the Emperor). Without falling into anachronistic readings, this chapter unearths and explores Kelsen’s first book to ask whether we can discern, in the flow of its analysis, an embryonic anticipation of notions, thoughts, and frameworks that he would articulate over the following decades. It argues that Kelsen’s later work on legal cosmopolitanism and pacifism, with its critique of the dogma of nation-state sovereignty and its emphasis on the unitary nature of the legal universe (and on the primacy of international law therein), pushed in new directions two concepts at the core of Dante’s De Monarchia: the monistic construction of a legal system free of contradictions and the creation of an impartial global authority that would solve disputes among contending parties and thus ensure lasting peace on a planetary scale. Both elements mesmerised the mind of the young Kelsen and left an enduring mark that is today worth revisiting and contextualising to recover his first steps as a political and legal theorist.