Abstract: A host of institutions in Turkey have devised human rights and democracy educational programs and initiatives. Studies and observations show that these efforts have not sufficed in establishing a culture of human rights and democracy at different levels of the Turkish society. In this context, the purpose of this study was to examine Human Rights and Democracy Education (HRDE) work in Turkey from holistic point of view. It is hypothesized that the desired level of efficacy in HRDE efforts in Turkey has not been achieved due to a lack of coherence among the many aspects of these efforts.

INTRODUCTION

Concepts of “human rights” and “democracy” are 2 highly important products of the human civilization. They have received increased attention particularly in last few centuries (Suarez, 2006; Rotabi et al., 2007). History of human rights shows that awareness about human rights leads to improvement while lack of it coincides with stagnation or regression.

Both in Turkey and in the world at large, Human Rights and Democracy Education (HRDE) has received as much attention as theories of human rights and democracy (Prime Ministry’s Chairmanship of Human Rights, 2006; Suarez, 2006; Magendzo, 2005). The need and importance of HRDE is consistently emphasized in national and international conferences and seminars (Reid, 2007; Dewey, 1996). At the present, the struggle for improvement of human rights and democracy has become analogous with education for human rights and democracy.

HRDE work in Turkey: At the present, there is wide range of work at different spheres of the Turkish society aiming at prevention, promotion and appreciation of human rights. Contemporary states striving towards improved democracies have ongoing efforts toward integrating human rights in various aspects and processes of the functioning of their societies (Suarez, 2006; Rotabi et al., 2007; Magendzo, 2005; Langlois, 2003). Education for human rights and democracy is an integral component of these efforts. A number of researchers (PMCHR, 2006; Ilkkaracan and Amado, 2005; Yesil, 2002; Kepenekçi, 2000) have catego-rized HRDE work in Turkey in the following 6 domains:

Legislative work: The Constitution, the related laws and international treaties Turkey has been part of all constitute bases for and the government’s obligation to human and democracy education.

Awareness raising: These efforts involve informing individuals on human rights and democracy. It is not quite likely that humans can identify with or abide by something they are not knowledgeable about.

Socio-cultural activities: These efforts are consisted of social and cultural activities (visits to institutions and competitions and theater plays) and awareness raising activities (campaigns and advertisements, etc.).

Participation and observance in democratic processes: In addition to sociacultural activities, taking active role in how democratic principles are applied in real life democratic processes (political elections, discussion programs on television, etc.).

Research and publications: Part of HRDE work involves research and publications. A great deal of research and publications has focused on human rights, democracy and education for the two (master’s theses and doctoral dissertations; various books; translated work and journals).

Work towards institutionalization: Work by legal institutions, governmental bodies (i.e., ministries), schools, civic organizations, foundations, trade unions and media are examples of such active involvement.

Perhaps due in part to current events in Turkey and the world, these efforts have been far from implementation of democracy and human rights in individual or societal life to any satisfactory degree (Ilkkaracan and Amado, 2005). Improvement in HRDE can be accomplished by; enhancing the existing work with new and innovative strategies. Without such improvement successful implementation of human rights and values of democracy do not seem feasible. A publication by the Prime Ministry’s Chairmanship of Human Rights (PMCHR) and the British Council summarizes Turkey’s effort as an attempt to bring about “a silent revolution” which involves mental, legal and institutional restructuring (PMCHR, 2006). The purpose of this study was to examine the efforts toward HRDE, to identify reasons for their lack of efficacy and to establish a framework which can guide future efforts.

Effectiveness of HRDE depends to a great extent on its philosophical basis. As articulated below, it is the claim of this study that an integrative framework to HRDE in Turkey can enhance coherence in the various aspects of the existing efforts and thus improve their efficacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, the data was conducted with literature research. Some of thesis, books and articles were included about HRDE works in Turkey were examined. At the end of the researches it was found out that there was a lack of coherence on HRDE works in Turkey. Therefore, sub-dimensions of coherence matter were determined and it was tried to form a structure to find a solution related to this matter by studying on the researches made in Turkey and all over the world.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The need for an integrative/holistic approach to HRDE: The concept of ‘the whole’ has long been part of discussions of scientific disciplines and philosophy (Cevizci, 1997). A holistic approach recognizes interrelations of the parts of an integrated entity and viewing them within the context of the whole. On the other hand, such view does not overlook the elements composing the whole. As indicated by Gestalt psychologists, the whole is bigger/different than the some of the pieces (Cevizci, 1997). Even if the pieces were subject to examination, they should be viewed within the context of the whole and inferences should be made accordingly. Therefore, an integrative frame of reference should be used while evaluating outcomes of HRDE and while making recommendations toward improving future practices.

Democracy has relevance to all domains of human life (Dewey, 1996; Yesil, 2002). Life hosts immense variations and should be viewed from a holistic (integrative) perspective. Since democracy encompasses all domains of human life, it can be thought of as a living system integrating all these variations.

This is applicable to human rights as well. After all, it is humans that give meaning to life and democracy. Given that there are diverse aspects to humans who live in a variety of places/conditions and who operate from varying developmental stages, human rights work should make effort toward capturing the diversity and totality of such variation.

An integrative (holistic) approach can be applied to human rights, democracy and education since these phenomena operate within systems. A system refers to an integrated whole thus examination of its parts necessitates viewing them within the context of the whole (Cevizci, 1997). Hence, success of discourses and practices of systems organizing all domains of human life depend on the degree to which such a systemic approach is utilized.

Coherence in HRDE: Coherence is not only applicable to concepts of human rights, democracy and education individually but also to their combination: “HRDE.” An integrative (cohesive) approach to HRDE can have different interpretations. For instance, Tibbits (1994) recommends that integration of educational content leads to effectiveness in human rights education. Collaborating with students in projects such as preparing theatretic plays or artistic activities on human rights can bring about integration. Likewise, establishing well coordinated specialized entities within classes or schools can also contribute integration of HRDE. This is at least partially done in Romania, Poland, Slovenia, Middle and Eastern European countries. Semi-governmental Educational Sciences Institute of Romania works in collaboration with Helsinki Committee of Holland to develop complimentary instruments and materials for different grade levels (Tibbits, 1994).

Stomfay-Stitz and Wheeler (2005) emphasize the need for integration of concepts and contents in HRDE. For example, education for peace and education for human rights should be introduced in complimenting fashions. Content integration by itself is not sufficient. There should be consistence in theory and practice in daily school life as well.

In the light of knowledges above, this study view on coherence incorporates the above mentioned approaches. It furthermore, offers an-8 dimension model for unifying efforts for HRDE. How these dimensions are conceptualized is articulated below. The case of HRDE in Turkey is examined according to each dimension. Practices in other countries are also provided.

Construct integrity (coherence between formal and informal education): Depending on whether they involve structured or non-structured procedures, educational activities are categorized into formal and informal education. Some of the life-long learning experiences are through planned (formal) education and some are by means of unplanned (informal education). Both avenues of education are indispensable. Moreover, consistency between them can improve effectiveness of HRDE. On the other hand, neglecting either one of them will hinder effectiveness of human rights and democracy.

A close look at Turkey’s HRDE shows considerable negligence in utilization of informal education. While a variety of sociacultural activities are held by governmental and nongovernmental entities and schools offer courses on human rights and democracy (Ilkkaracan and Amado, 2005; Yesil, 2002), interventions for informal education in the family, street, workplace and other areas of public life lack in quantity and quality. Given that a great deal of research (Gordon, 2006; Kincal, 2000a; Rasuly-Paleczek, 1996) points out important influences of informal education through family, peer groups, workplace and other areas of social life have on individuals’ socialization and development, informal education should not be disregarded.

Furthermore, content and outcomes of formal education can be conflicting or contradictory with those of informal education. Messages conveyed by older family members, superiors or co-workers can be conflicting with those learned through HRDE at schools. For instance, students are informed about freedom of thought and speech and women’s rights at schools, however when they attempt claiming these rights out of school they are faced with various obstacles (Ilkkaracan and Amado, 2005). HRDE efforts through formal and informal education should be consistent and complementing one another (coherent).

Part of underutilization of informal education for human rights and democracy is the difficulty inherent in monitoring it. That is not to say there cannot be any control at all over informal education. For example, through legislative change, media institutions can be required or encouraged to broadcast discussion groups, documentaries and movies related to human rights and democracy. Daily newspapers can emphasize human rights and democracy through articles or news coverage. Sociacultural activities such as surveys, theatres and cultural competitions can contribute to drawing attention to issue of democracy and human rights. Efforts in HRDE can be improved to a significant degree when there is sufficient coherence and complimentarity between formal and informal education.

Coherence in content: Theory and practice are two inseparable, complimenting entities. Practice without theoretical basis can lead to uninformed attitudes or behaviors while theory without practice is contemplation lacking tangible outcomes. As noted by Dewey (1996) any knowledge drawn from acts which are performed without thinking through is dead.

Human rights, democracy and education have both theoretical and practical dimensions. All three concepts are not fictional products theoreticians have come up at their desks. They rather came out of practical experience (Reid, 2007; Monshipouri et al., 2003). In order to foster sustainable behavioral change, educators for human rights and democracy need to treat theory and practice as inseparable entities (Nazari et al., 2005). Neither theory nor practice should be compromised for the other.

HRDE in Turkey has a heavy emphasis on theory and does not involve sufficient degree of participation and practice (Yesil, 2002; Kepenekçi, 2000). For example, legislative changes are made, new courses are placed in school curricula, seminars, conferences and training programs are held. However, these activities are not complimented by practical experience and their implications are monitored. Individuals as well as institutions do not focus on the degree to which theoretical interventions are put into life/practice. In fact, it is not rare to encounter circumstances in which the 2 contradict one another (PMCHR, 2006; Ilkkaracan and Amado, 2005). For example, studies show that teachers’ and school administrators’ attitudes and behaviors contradict what they convey in HRDE classes at school (Yesil, 2002; Kincal, 2000b).

Tezcan (1994) states that “through its history, the Turkish Republic, has made considerable progress in establishing institutions and legislative changes for human rights and democracy but has failed to a great extent in building generations of individuals with democratic attitudes and behaviors. Merely changing laws does not lead to progress in democracy and human rights. Democratic structures, exercise of power or the degree to which individuals internalize democratic values are also essential (Magnedzo, 2005; Langlois, 2003).

Compromising either theory or practice is the source/reason of various problems about human rights and democracy in Turkey (PMCHR, 2006; Ilkkaracan and Amado, 2005). Such an approach does not; allow expansion of human rights and democracy to various domains of life or their flourishing in daily affairs. Furthermore, when such values are not put into practice, citizens cannot witness their implications on individual and societal lives. This in turn can be a risk for creation and permanence of human rights and democracy. An approach incorporating (integrating) both theory and practice can foster expansion of human rights and democracy to all spheres of life, promote accurate understanding and appreciation and internalization of human rights and democracy as inseparable parts of a way of life capable of solving human problems.

Klecker (1982) observes that the majority of countries in the world have human rights education work which focus on theory and neglects practical education. On the other hand, Osler and Starkey (2005) report that in England human rights education places more emphasis on teaching through practice and experiential activities such. An example of these practices is students’ participation in school administration. Likewise, in American educational system HRDE takes place in the forms of class discussions, workshops and group projects (Magendzo, 2005). In other words, these 2 systems encourage experiential learning of human rights and democracy. Similar work can be done in Turkey in order to balance and integrate theory and practice and create coherence between the two.

Accordingly, it appears that there is considerable room and need for activities involving participation and practical/experiential learning. Therefore, theoretical aspects of human rights and democracy reflected in laws and regulation and in courses taught in formal education can be integrated with practices in various aspects of societal life. In other words, work of scientists, researchers and other thinkers can be encouraged along with activities involving implementation of value and requisites of human rights and democracy.

Coherence in methods: Through its history, the field of education has accumulated remarkable knowledge and experience part of which are methods of instruction. Incorporating various methods can lead to superior outcomes (Magendzo, 2005). Thus, use of a diversity of methods and techniques can enhance introduction, practice and internalization of values of democracy and human rights.

HRDE in Turkey is commonly conducted through instruction (providing information) without incorporating methods that can enable the target population (i.e., students) learn through feeling, doing and experiencing. In schools, lecturing, demonstrations and didactic methods, which involve providing information, are more prevalent than methods encouraging experiential learning (i.e., discussions, problem solving, group work and drama work). Likewise, in education for human rights and democracy, methods such as conferences and seminars are more frequently used than those that involve active participation of learners (i.e., trips, observations, research and partaking in organizational activities) (Yesil, 2002; Kepenekçi, 2000).

On the other in the British educational system, HRDE is done through social activities instead of merely providing students with theoretical information (Osler and Starkey, 2005). Similarly, human rights education in Germany has significant emphasis on research for improving teaching methods, training of teachers and developing educational materials (Shafer, 1987). In Canada, Canadian Human Rights Foundation orchestrates work involving participatory methods from the planning through application to evaluation phase of human rights education (Nazzari et al., 2005).

Dewey (1996) asserts that endurance of teaching and learning methods depends on the degree to which thinking (theory) and testing (practice) are incorporated. He was of the belief that an essential mistake by educators is merely focusing on theory (information) and neglecting practice or leaving it solely up to the student.

In sum, HRDE should on the one hand involve informative methods; on the other hand, incorporate observation, learning through experience and participation (Magendzo, 2005; Rainer and Guyton, 1999). Methods such as lecturing and observation, discussion and group work should be consistent and complimentary to one another.

Coherence in instruments/means: For the purpose of the current research, any object, person, equipment or circumstance that directly or indirectly contributes to attainment of educational goals is considered “means/instruments”.

There is diversity to means used in the service of HRDE. Schools, curriculums, teachers, educational materials, governmental and non-governmental organizations, internet, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, journals and books are all means through which significant contributions can be made to HRDE (PMCHR, 2006; Monshipouri et al., 2003).

Suarez (2006) points out that human rights education work by human rights organizations in Latin America has been done increasingly since the 1970s.

In addition, the Helsinki Committee in Holland puts special effort in coordinating human rights efforts by governmental and by non-governmental organizations (Tibbits, 1994).

Many governmental and nongovernmental institutions have been established to foster human rights and democracy in Turkey. However, there is not sufficient coherence and collaboration among them. In fact, they can be considerably contradicting one another at times (PMCHR, 2006). Messages and practices of individuals or institutions can be inconsistent among themselves and with those of others. For example, media institutions often emphasize freedom of press as an essential aspect of human rights and democracy, yet they easily disclose information about individuals’ private lives. Again, while a governmental or non-governmental organization considers a certain behavior, attitude or occurrence as democratic, another might view it as antidemocratic. Families’ and schools, teachers’ and parents’ messages and expectations pertaining to human rights and democracy should not be conflicting (Ilkkaracan and Amado, 2005; Kincal, 2000a). These examples illustrate that there are inconsistencies (a lack of coherence) among potential means of HRDE.

Different means used for HRDE can have varying contributions to attainment of educational goals. However, this contribution can be optimized by coherence, consistency and coordination among them.

Some of these means can be particularly influential on certain individuals. Coherence and consistency among means can contribute to uniformity and thus improve effectiveness of HRDE. Therefore, there needs to be consistency, integration and complimentarity in purpose, function and contents of means (individuals, institutions, governmental bodies, civic organizations and other equipment and materials) that can contribute to HRDE (Monshipouri et al., 2003). In fact, in United States, there is legislative work underway to foster collaboration between schools and families on HRDE (French, 1996). Likewise, in Holland it is part of teacher’s duties to work in partnership with families (Kincal, 2000a). Functional institutionalization and coordination has been of considerable importance to HRDE in European countries since the 1970s (Rotabi et al., 2007).

Likewise, Turkey should put specific emphasis in functional institutionalization and coordination among means and efforts of HRDE which should be orchestrated by professional individuals and institutions. Coherence among means of HRDE will greatly improve the existing efforts.

Integration and coherence in targeting change in affective, cognitive and behavioral domains: Humans are multifaceted and complex beings. Hence, efforts geared toward change in humans should match this complexity. Education should involve cognitive, affective and psychomotor aspects of the individual (Morgan and Saxton, 1994). These domains are interconnected and do not operate separately.

Consequently, human rights and democracy should target change in cognitive, affective and psychomotor aspects of human beings (Yesil, 2002; Reid, 2007). The cognitive aspect is associated with the theoretical information on human rights and democracy; appreciation and internalization of their values and having the desire and will to practice and participate in them is related to the affective domain while putting them into practice has to do with the psychomotor aspect (Morgan and Saxton, 1994).

HRDE in Turkey relies heavily on merely targeting individuals’ cognition (PMCHR, 2006; Yesil, 2002; Kepenekçi, 2000). Such an attitude is evident in schools, conferences for the public, programs or publications by the media and by research activities. This approach relies on the idea that individuals cannot behave according to something they do not know about. While such presumption is accurate in essence, it lacks recognizing the fact that knowing is not analogous to awareness and internalization of what is being learned or does not guarantee behavioral change.

Contemporary education recognizes that integration of thoughts with feelings can lead to changes in behaviors (Morgan and Saxton, 1994). A publication by PMCHR points out the difference between gaining information and gaining awareness, which is indeed the desired outcome of an integrative approach to HRDE. Acquiring knowledge does not always mean awareness which is more likely to have behavioral implications (PMCHR, 2006).

This claim is confirmed by the fact that Turkey is yet to establish a culture of human rights and democracy. Studies show that a considerable number of people in Turkey know human rights but do not comply with them (Ilkkaracan and Amado, 2005; Yesil, 2002; Kincal, 2000b). Therefore, perhaps the human rights and democracy problems experienced in Turkey are not due to a lack of information but rather to a lack of awareness which involves integration of knowledge into affective and behavioral domains. Awareness has to do with internalization of the learned material.

An important mistake made by educators is assuming that by merely providing information they have accomplished the desired outcomes. On the other hand, by simply introducing new information to individuals’ cognition does not guarantee the sincere appreciation of and adherence to principles communicated to them. Hence, there should be coherence in content, means and processes with which HRDE is conducted and the purpose of such education should be desirable change in cognitive, affective and behavioral domains of target populations.

A cohesive approach to target populations: Human beings can be categories in terms of their various attributes. Occupation, social status, economic status, education, gender and developmental level are only some of those characteristics. Any intervention or approach to a particular category of individuals should include every individual in the category.

Human rights, democracy and education are universal concepts and should be for all. Every individual in the society should be targeted for HRDE. Students, teachers, police officers, scientists, judges, etc all should be viewed as target populations of such efforts (Suarez, 2006). Yet, one could argue that teachers, students, law makers and state workers (civil servants) should be given priority in receiving HRDE (Yesil, 2002; Kucuradi, 1998).

A careful examination of HRDE in Turkey reveals that these efforts are far from being sufficiently inclusive of all strata of the society. The work usually involves teachers and students in the educational system and some intellectuals and thus neglects large numbers of the public (Yesil, 2002; Gülmez, 1996).

Participation in courses at schools and to conferences for the public is not satisfactory. Media or nongovernmental organizations fail to expand HRDE to various parts of the society. Nongovernmental organizations have trouble recruiting members. Thus, along with lacking financial resources, these organizations do not have sufficient human resources. Media coverage for human rights and democracy is limited and so is the public interest in the existing coverage (Yesil, 2002; Gülmez, 1996). These claims are evident in surveys on media programs.

Despite all the above mentioned shortcomings and obstacles, with its effort toward membership to European Union, Turkey intends to expand its target population for HRDE. For instance, City Human Rights Councils have been established. To date, the members for these councils have been arbitrarily chosen state workers. These members will soon be replaced with persons selected from different spheres of life. These groups will partake in projects aiming at spreading educational activities to all parts of the society (PMCHR, 2006).

Various governmental and nongovernmental institutions in Latin American countries have done considerable work in HRDE (Suarez, 2006; Hinkley, 1997). The American Scientific Development Institute which had 146000 members in 1997 works with a host of occupational groups to educate large numbers of scientists and citizens (Chapman et al., 1997). The Canadian Human Rights Foundation views human rights education as a process of transformation of every individual in every strata of the society. Furthermore, the Foundation embodies the International Human Rights Training Program which strives toward reaching individuals from all over the world and fostering a culture of human rights and expanding it globally (Nazzari et al., 2005). Governmental and nongovernmental institutions and persons in Turkey should also operate from such an inclusive perspective and view every strata of the society as their target population for HRDE.

Integration in phases of human development: Education is a life-long pursuit. Indeed, lifelong education is one of the prominent principles of contemporary education. Although some periods of human life can be more productive for certain educational activities, education and learning take place throughout the human life-span.

HRDE must involve activities and content for all age groups. Thus, it is frequently pointed out that educational programs around the world need to target all stages of human development (Rotabi et al., 2007). After all, each stage might necessitate learning and exercising (using/claiming) of unique rights and compliance with certain democratic values. Moreover, human rights, democracy and education evolve with time.

HRDE efforts should include the totality of the human life-span. As cautioned by Selçuk (1998), focusing on human rights and democracy only at specific times such as during elections or on the International Human Rights Day (10th of December) will not bring about the desired change.

A close look at HRDE work in Turkey reveals that preschool times or adulthood stages are not included nearly as much as the formal school years (Yesil, 2002; Kepenekçi, 2000). Perhaps some could claim that HRDE can be more productive at critical developmental stages of childhood and adolescence. However, this does not undermine the significance of educational efforts for early childhood and adulthood because human beings learn and interact with one another at every stage of development.

In Turkey, educational activities for raising awareness are particularly focused on special days such as International Human Rights Day or International Women’s Rights Day. However, educational work targeting the totality of the society should not be limited to these days. Considering that there is constant change in the individual as well as in concepts of human rights and democracy, education for human rights and democracy should be expanded to all stages of human life. There needs to be consistency and coherence in HRDE through all stages of life in order to facilitate continuity and permanence (Suarez, 2006). Accordingly, along with biological maturation, sophistication and maturation in human rights and democracy can also be accomplished through time. Hence, the United Nations declared the period of 1995-2004 as “Action Plan for Decade for Human Rights Education” in order foster continuity in human rights education.

Coherence in spaces/locations: Following the advances in the field of education, “education everywhere” has gained significance. This principle is based on the premise that education can take place at any time and any place during the human life. Every place (spatial context) has some sort of contribution to human learning. Therefore, there needs to be consistency and harmony in educational activities taking place at various locations.

Family, schools, streets, work places, hospitals and other institutions are some of the places in which humans dwell. These places are spaces at which humans “spend” not only their lives but also their educational lives. In order to enrich individuals understanding of and active participation in democracy and human rights, educational activities should effectively utilize various spaces and locations where humans spend their times. Diversity in spaces, domains and providers of HRDE and establishing consistency and coherence (complimentarity) among them can enhance likelihood of attaining desirable outcomes considerably (Suarez, 2006; Gordon, 2006; Osler and Starkey, 2005).

An examination of HRDE in Turkey shows that educational activities taking place at different spaces and locations are far from cohesive. Moreover, they often contradict one another. Contradictory discourses and practices can be found between families and schools, families and work. For instance, a student who learns importance of active participation for democracy might face considerable obstacles when he or she attempts to be part of family decision making. Likewise, messages and practices by governmental and nongovernmental institutions can be disagreeing. For example, when a person, who thinks that freedom of thought and freedom of speech are essential elements of human rights and democracy, attempts to voice his or her opinion he or she can be punished by family or work or can be isolated from the society (Yesil, 2002; Rasuly-Paleczek, 1996). While, schools encourage students toward voicing their opinions, at home they might be taught to behave according to traditional norms and conventions which require silencing of their voices.

The inconsistencies in expectations, norms and the content learned at different places can hinder effectiveness of HRDE. Hence, these educational activities should be tailored according to the unique aspects of each location or space (context). However, there needs to be sufficient uniformity and consistency in goals, methods and other properties of these activities.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Human rights and democracy are principles by which a certain way of life is organized and regulated. They embody implications for individuals’ attitudes and behaviors in every spheres of human life. Considering human rights and democracy for merely one of these domains of life is limiting them.

HRDE work in Turkey can be categorized in the following six dimensions: legislative work, awareness raising, sociacultural activities, Participation and observance in democratic processes, Research-publication and institutionalization. Efforts in these 6 areas have not yielded to desired outcomes though. Frequent occurrence of human rights violations is the most significant evidence for the lack effectiveness of these efforts. It is important to bear in mind that this is not due to the quantity of the work done but rather to its quality. HRDE work in Turkey often involves the following issues:

Thus, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the above mentioned characteristics of HRDE work in Turkey play significant roles in a lack of attainment of desired outcomes. Indeed, various authors have pointed out that such factors can hinder effectiveness of efforts for HRDE (Suarez, 2006; Nazzari et al., 2005; Langlois, 2003; Yesil, 2002; Kepenekçi, 2000; Dewey, 1996). Therefore, there needs to be an integrative approach to concepts of human rights, democracy and life and educational efforts should be tailored accordingly.

Attaining consistency and coherence among; contents, target populations, methods, means; expanding educational work to all phases of human life and all locations/spaces can greatly contribute to realization of goals set for HRDE in Turkey.

An integrative approach does not only apply to selection of work and activities for HRDE but also requires a holistic approach that recognizes the totality of human beings. Success of HRDE depends on consistency, complimentarity and coherence of contents, strategies and instruments. Guided by the principle, “HRDE everywhere- all the time” the educational efforts should integrate all spheres of the society, all domains of human functioning in ways that are consistent and complimentary.

However, when HRDE in Turkey is examined from an integrative/holistic point of view following recommendations can be made:

In addition, a lack of collaboration and coordination among the different activities and individuals partaking in them is also a chief reasons hindering effectiveness of HRDE (Monshipouri et al., 2003). This issue can be resolved through building professional teams and institutions which can orchestrate the intricate aspects of HRDE.

Indeed, European countries’ efforts toward human rights education began right after the 2nd World War. The work of the day was pragmatic thus focused on functional institutionalization and coordination (Langlois, 2003). In Latin America, during the 1970s governmental bodies and civic institutions were established to collaboratively work with schools and other institutions to offer human rights education (Suarez, 2006; Magendzo, 2005). Another example is the American Scientific Development Institute which in addition to its informative works, has centers (offices) that facilitate collaboration and coordination among individuals and institutions (Chapman et al., 1997).

In England, there is coordination effort to effectively benefit from institutions of science, history, geography and philosophy in the service of human rights education (Osler and Starkey, 2005). In Germany “The Bundeszentrale für Polische Bildung” (Central Office for Political Education) allocates an important portion of its budget for research and publication on HRDE and by so doing takes an active stance in coordinating and promoting such efforts (Shafer, 1987).

Likewise, the Canadian non-for-profit organization “Human Rights Association” consists of a professional team whose work exceeds borders of Canada and involves Asia, Europe and Africa (Nazzari et al., 2005). The Helsinki Committee examines work by states, organizations for human rights education, nongovernmental organizations and views improvement in coordination among those entities as a vital priority (Tibbits, 1994).

In short, institutionalization, development of professional teams and establishing coordinating institutions should be of emphasis and priority in Turkey’s work for HRDE.