The idea of citizenship does not have an unambiguous design, as different factors (time, ideologies or social characteristics) have influenced its dynamic nature throughout history. Initially, Thomas H. Marshall gave it the qualifier of status and differentiated three components inherent to its exercise: the civil, necessary for the freedom of the individual; the political, which aims to boost participation in the political dimension; and the social, responsible for social and economic well-being (Gaitán, 2018b; Seguro, 2016). A universal vision that was gradually eroded by the social, economic and cultural changes that took place in the 20th century. Two events emanate from this concurrence: 1) the recognition of special rights for historically silenced groups; and, 2) the reconceptualisation of the idea of citizenship. In the latter case, conceptual twists claim the (re)emergence of a new political and social actor: children and adolescents (Gaitán, 2018b; Llena and Novella, 2018).

Westheimer and Khane’s (2004) proposal differentiated three types of citizenship: personally responsible, participatory and social justice-oriented; considering social participation essential to achieve citizenship status and to favour democracy and social justice (Seguro, 2016). Guichot (2013, 2014) affirms democratic citizenship to be an educational experience that enables participation in the political, social and economic spheres; a citizenship that —in contrast to the tradition and authority of the dominant (neo)liberal current one (Doganay, 2012)— must be critical, in order to implement actions that respond to collective responsibilities and encourage the participation of all citizens (Esteban and Novella, 2018).

Following this perspective, Ramírez and Contreras (2014) consider citizenship as the practice that materialises in a space where people —paying attention to their uniqueness— organise diverse actions that generate learning opportunities. However, despite this critical and inclusive nature, young people are sometimes left out. In this regard, Gaitán (2018b) differentiates two definitions: active citizenship and differentiated citizenship, which will identify the discrepancies and/or dilemmas related to its consideration for children and young people.

In turn, Lister (2007b) warned that two trends coexist, brought together in different platforms: those that identify children and adolescents as ‘apprentices of citizenship’, in the education process; and those that affirm that they are social actors with a sense of agency and with different competencies (Cano et al., 2021). But this dichotomous polarisation can be reductionist, as there are intermediate positions (Figure 1); hence Gaitán and Liebel (2011) established a classification that identifies citizenship as:

Similarly, Lister (2007a, 2017b) alludes to other citizenships: 1) lived citizenship, understanding the meaning of personal experiences; 2) inclusive citizenship, as an alternative to the traditional inclusion/exclusion binomial; and 3) active citizenship of children, adopting a critical stance due to the neglect and materialisation of children and adolescents’ citizenship rights.

Other studies encourage constructing a critical, participatory and transformative citizenship from an early age under the framework of democratic and inclusive societies (Esteban et al., 2022; Mata et al., 2013; Melero et al., 2021); taking into account recommendations that demand greater involvement and political commitment in relation to their rights (Gaitán, 2018a, 2018b):

In this regard, Novella et al. (2013) suggest moving forward on two fronts: 1) recognising that children and adolescents are citizens of the present; and 2) recognising them as citizens and educating them in this. Child participation is an inescapable factor in crystallising responsible and involved citizenship (Esteban and Novella, 2018); which is substantive —as Ramiro and Alemán (2016) would say— and lived (Pauliina et al., 2020). Achieving this requires institutional approval to transform the adult-centric policies that oppress the agency of younger generations (Gaitán, 2018b).

Participation being the common denominator of the theories of children’s citizenship, Hart’s (1992) theoretical position stands out in which —in the form of a ladder— it differentiates eight steps, categorised into two large blocks: non-participation and genuine participation. In the first block are the first three steps (Manipulation, Decoration and Symbolic Performance), while genuine participation comprises the top five, representing the scenarios of real and effective participation of children and adolescents.

Starting from this metaphor, Trilla and Novella (2001) suggest four broader ways of characterising it: 1) simple: led by adults, with a symbolic and passive character of children and adolescents; 2) consultative: where they (deliberately) raise issues with the management teams; 3) projective: where children and adolescents are actively involved; and 4) meta-participation: where children and adolescents are at the centre of reflective and collegial processes. They all constitute scenarios for learning to participate by participating and promote the development of participatory competences, conditioned by four factors (involvement, information-awareness, decision-making capacity and individual commitment-responsibility) that give rise to complex, multi-dimensional, inclusive and feedback practices (Novella, 2008).

Tresseder (1997) offers a circular interpretation of child participation, with all elements influencing each other; while Lansdown (2005) establishes three levels of participation (consultative, participatory and autonomous) between adults and children to become the protagonists in projects. This reading implies that opportunities for children’s participation have to be expanded from the private sphere to public spaces (UNICEF, 2003), identifying five scenarios of participation (Figure 2): 1) family: where primary socialisation takes place; 2) community, where daily experiences occur; 3) school, as the educational institution of reference for the promotion of student participation; 4) public policies, introducing children and adolescents into specific structures (Children’s Forums or Councils); and 5) society, specifying their contribution in electoral processes and mass-media.

Apud (2001) or Casas et al. (2008) pointed to other contexts conducive to learning how to participate democratically: social life (municipal or local), administrative procedures or organisations for leisure and free time. Other studies (Castellanos, 2022; Cho et al., 2020; Novella et al., 2021b), allude to digital environments as new contexts for political participation; however, there are trends that consider digital media as a poor strategy for participation at these ages (Dias and Potter, 2016; Murden and Cadenasso, 2018) due to the potential risks to which they are exposed (Pavez, 2014).

The study by Novella et al. (2021a) points out three types of governance scenarios from the institutional sphere driven by children and adolescents, as an organised and self-managed collective. The first identifies the municipal bodies for child and adolescent participation (participation forums, local children and youth councils, etc.); the second includes participatory initiatives of a consultative and projective nature; and the final one includes experiences promoted and led by children and adolescents. It is therefore necessary to promote spaces and opportunities for participation in different contexts (families, schools, municipalities, etc.) from an early age, as well as to encourage education for responsible citizenship with children’s rights, in order to promote their inclusion in municipal public policies.

Selecting the municipalities was based on two criteria: 1) belonging to the network of Educating Cities (EC) and/or Child Friendly Cities (CFC) of UNICEF-Spain; 2) voluntary participation in the project. The singularities of each case allowed for a certain heterogeneity in the sample, identifying common elements that contributed to sustaining the quantity and diversity of the information obtained. In this way, it was decided to include (2) experts in boosting child and youth participation, (3) people with elected posts and (3) municipal technical figures as agents in charge to promote the participation of these groups. In addition, 36 children and adolescents participated and their stories complemented and contrasted the information provided by other actors (Table 1).

According to INE data (2024), the municipality of A Coruña has 247,376 inhabitants, making it a large city³. Tomiño —with13,836 inhabitants— represents a medium-sized town; and Moeche is the smallest territory, with 1,206 inhabitants. Beyond these differences, others are evident: number of municipal departments, population dispersion/concentration, territorial condition (city compared to rural), means and/or services of communication with the youngest groups, as well as strategies to manage their participation in the municipality.

Although all three have a proven track record in child participation, the town council of A Coruña has been a member of the International Association of Educating Cities since 1996, creating the local body for child and adolescent participation (CLIAC) in 2023; while Tomiño and Moeche have been part of the Child Friendly Cities network (UNICEF-Spain) since 2018 and have local councils for children and adolescents (CLIA).

The instruments used in this study were designed ad hoc by the research team, in collaboration with experts in children’s rights; they were validated by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Barcelona.

The semi-structured interviews (E) aimed to learn about the experiences and reflections on the dimensions and categories addressed; a total of eight interviews were conducted —with the prior consent for recording and subsequent transcription— during the months of February to July 2021 using an online platform, depending on the availability of the informants. The interview was divided into 4 thematic blocks: 1) Contextual data, professional profile and trajectory in children’s participation; 2) Social representation of children and adolescents; 3) Children’s citizenship; 4) Forms of participation. This article presents the narratives related to thematic block 3, which included the following questions: What does citizenship mean for children and adolescents? In your view, do these rights and responsibilities translate into practice? Do children and adolescents have the same rights and responsibilities as others? What opportunities and difficulties do you identify for this exercise of citizenship by children and adolescents to become effective in the municipality?

The discussion groups (DG) were intended to include the voices and views of children and adolescents regarding their participatory citizenship, as well as to create a space for opinion to learn about their perceptions, feelings, thoughts, beliefs and/or experiences (Haumi and Varela, 2013). Four DGs were carried out in face-to-face format (2 in A Coruña, 1 in Tomiño and 1 in Moeche), with the participation —on a voluntary and consented basis— of 36 children and adolescents aged between 10 and 12 (60% girls) from the three municipalities. Its duration fluctuated between 40 and 120 minutes, taking place in spaces trusted by children and adolescents in each municipality. A specific guide was prepared for three key moments: preparation, convening and development. Three blocks of content were explored on the basis of 6 questions: 1) children and participation; 2) inclusion of children in municipal participation. Reasons and opportunities; and 3) new forms of participation. In relation to this instrument, block 1is the subject of analysis, which includes the following questions: What spaces do you participate in most at local level? How do you participate in these places?

Finally, a short questionnaire (C) was applied to the adult informants, whose information helped to reinforce the triangulation of the analysis of the results and which consisted of 14 open questions organised in three blocks: 1) general: municipality, gender, position/responsibility, studies and education; 2) related to concepts of childhood, citizenship, participation and opportunity scenarios for children; and 3) to incorporate optional comments. For this article, the following questions are taken into account: What do you associate with the term citizenship? What scenarios of opportunity do you identify for participation and decision-making?, linked to the categories of citizenship and scenarios of opportunity in block 2.

The content analysis technique was selected to process the information obtained by creating a categorical system (Table 2) and the Atlas.ti v.9 programme was used to facilitate the process. The categorical system resulted from two phases: the first phase consisted of two parts: 1) inductive, from which the initial dimensions and categories derived from the transcripts were obtained, and 2) deductive, examining the initial proposals in accordance with the theoretical reference of the research project. The second phase served to redefine —after a group analysis— the provisional system, approving the categories for coding the units of analysis of the three instruments used. The use of codes (Table 1) is in accordance with Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, on the Protection of Personal Data and Guarantee of Digital Rights.

In general terms, children’s citizenship is associated with rights, duties and responsibilities, although there are differences in the equal consideration of these attributions between children and adolescents and adults. The unanimity in the theoretical recognition —based on official regulatory documents— of the right to equality of both groups contrasts with its daily application; a theoretical-practical distance that shows that —despite legislative advances— it is necessary to raise awareness of the role that children can —and should— have in their communities in order to exercise citizenship under equal conditions. It highlights the need to materialise some of the issues shaping this public debate:

Hence, duties and/or responsibilities should be different between children and adolescents and adults, adapting to the evolutionary condition, age, sex/gender, behaviour... since “we ask them for more responsibilities than we give them rights” (P1E); “you cannot ask the same responsibility from an adult as from a child” (P3E); “they cannot have the same duties (...) we cannot demand the same from them (...)” (T2E).

These arguments reveal the association of the concept of citizenship with these requirements:

The OA3E classification, which establishes three levels, deserves special mention:

In short, levels that aspire to achieve a transformative citizenship, highlighting the need to work collaboratively with adults in the organisation of child and adolescent rights; promoting social changes that do not limit their agency in the collective imagination, since “they are people who have the same dignity as everyone else” (OA3E).

The following word cloud (Figure 3) shows the conceptualisation of child citizenship ascribed by participants in the questionnaire: