Search

Covenant pluralism is a concept that, even for its sympathizers, is not always immediately clear. However, a practical example shows that it is sometimes implemented in very concrete ways, even unconsciously. The case study takes place in the Netherlands, which is striking, given that the country is generally at a crossroads when it comes to covenant pluralism. Although a precursor to it, principled pluralism, has to some extent emerged there, the social and political support for further developing it into covenant pluralism remains limited due to various factors.

The practical example in question concerns the formulation of so-called core objectives for citizenship education in secondary schools. Although this education has been compulsory since 2006, such core objectives have been lacking until now. As a result, schools had considerable leeway to interpret this education in their own way. A factor here is that, due to principled pluralism, the Netherlands has many Catholic, Protestant, and Islamic schools in addition to public schools. However, on August 1, 2021, legislation to sharpen the citizenship education mandate came into force, intended to provide schools with greater clarity on this issue.

The citizenship component was subsequently included in a comprehensive review of the core objectives commissioned by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science in 2022, as the existing core objectives have been in force since 2006. The task of updating and specifying the core objectives was carried out by the national center of expertise, Stichting Leerplanontwikkeling (Slo). This center did so in close consultation with the education sector, so that, in addition to experts, teachers and various interest groups also had a say. The citizenship learning objectives were also tested in the classroom for a period of time.

Of course, it is not possible to provide a complete overview of the proposed learning objectives for citizenship here. Instead, I will highlight just a few elements that are particularly relevant to the notion of covenant pluralism in educational practice. The three learning objectives for secondary education are: “The school shapes the democratic training ground,” “The student learns about living together in a democratic constitutional state,” and “The student gains experience with democratic and societal engagement.” For all three, one or two sub-objectives have been formulated, which are then elaborated with a few sentences.

The first objective is for schools to stimulate pupils’ social and civic competences. In elaborating on this, it is noted that the knowledge and skills to be taught about the basic values of the democratic constitutional state and the “diverse” society must be aimed at “respectful” interaction and communication with each other. This also includes offering activities that promote “social cohesion” and “active citizenship.” What strikes the eye is how the classic theme of civic education is given a contemporary interpretation, thereby, without saying so in so many words, creating the social preconditions for a pluralistic society.

The second core objective, concerning living together in a democratic constitutional state, aims not only to provide insight into the basic values of such a state. Pupils must also learn to deal with, once again, diversity in society. The basic values of the democratic constitutional state mentioned here are “freedom,” “equality,” and “solidarity.” Interestingly, thus, equality has not been chosen; rather, the more broadly acceptable concept of equality has been adopted. Solidarity, to balance with freedom, refers to a “sense of connection, togetherness, and support between individuals, groups, or communities and concrete actions to help others and contribute to the well-being of society as a whole.”

It is also noteworthy that attention is paid to the possibility that the basic values mentioned and the constitutional freedoms that derive from them may conflict. It seems so obvious. Nevertheless, in December 2025, the Dutch House of Representatives passed a motion instructing the cabinet to investigate how the principle of non-discrimination in Article 1 of the Constitution can “always take precedence over the philosophical identity of the school in the interpretation of the core learning objectives for citizenship and the citizenship education mandate.” In the Netherlands, however, the existence of a so-called hierarchy of fundamental rights, notably between non-discrimination on the one hand and the freedoms of education, expression, and religion or belief on the other hand, had traditionally been denied by the legislature.

One concrete example of learning to deal with diversity in society, mentioned in the proposed learning objectives for citizenship, is worth noting here as well. Possible forms that this diversity can take include “religion, belief, political affiliation, origin, gender, disability, and sexual orientation.” Students should reflect on their own identity in relation to these forms of diversity. This is reminiscent of the principle of covenant pluralism, which is distinct from philosophical relativism. It also contributes to the “inclusiveness” that the draft learning objectives aim for (p. 47), albeit perhaps in a way that differs from how this concept is usually used.

The third and final learning objective, gaining experience with democratic and social engagement, involves exploring opportunities for democratic action. This includes, for example, learning to “exchange views, compromise, and deal with majority and minority views.” Another objective is to learn how students can make a concrete contribution to society. In this context, the “duties” of citizens alongside their rights are also discussed. Gaining experience “in taking responsibility for and contributing to the well-being of others” is also mentioned. Once again, however, the emphasis is on “contributing to society based on one’s own ideals or convictions.”

In my recent article in The Review of Faith & International Affairs, “The Netherlands at the Crossroads,” I argued that historical principled pluralism fulfilled the first condition for the transition to covenant pluralism, namely, religious freedom and equal treatment. However, it proved less successful in creating the other two conditions, namely religious literacy and the practical virtues of multireligious engagement. Strictly speaking, the three draft learning objectives for citizenship are also lacking from this perspective. Nor is it realistic to expect citizenship education to fully establish these conditions on its own, without, for example, adequate additional religious education.

Nevertheless, the way in which citizenship education is organized can certainly contribute to this. As shown above, this is indeed the case with the current draft core objectives. By accepting the diversity of society as a fact, including its religious and philosophical aspects, students are prepared for their role as citizens in a democratic, constitutional state with a pluralistic character. Thanks to expert input, the drafters have considered diverse views on citizenship, including liberal, communitarian, and republican perspectives (pp. 43-44).

Viewed in this light, the proposed core learning objectives for citizenship also indirectly point the way for integration policy regarding newcomers, which, as I argue in my article, the Netherlands should ideally tighten to increase support for covenantal pluralism. Moreover, the desired social cohesion and solidarity can only be achieved if uncontrolled immigration is finally ended. Politicians would do better to focus on this than to disrupt the careful compromise reached in a typically Dutch manner by the education sector itself regarding the draft core objectives, by flexing their ideological muscles over the introduction of an undesirable hierarchy of fundamental rights.[1]

[1] Cf. this reaction to the proposed draft objectives from the side of Reformed Christian education: https://www.vgs.nl/nieuws/nieuwe-kerndoelen-burgerschap-goed-bruikbaar-als-checklist/.