The main question addressed by this essay is whether Olympic education can contribute to the creation of “better” governance. In order to respond to this question, we must first clarify concepts such as Olympism, Olympic education and “better” governance.

What does the term Olympism mean? Let us first consider the educational significance in the meaning of Olympism. Olympism is a philosophy of life (Olympic Charter 2016). It is a way of approaching principles and values which are possible for someone to experience. It is not an idealistic theory on how to approach sport, but actual competitive sport in practice.

Olympism is the philosophy of noble competition, and competition with others (agon) is its essence.

Competition (agon) as the idea of the pursuit of excellence is supported by common spiritual roots, common struggles and traditions. Agon as expressed through the unique event of the Olympic Games is a global vision of life for the establishment of a humanistic education whose pivot is Olympic Values. Important principles of the philosophy of Olympism—participation, volunteering, persistence, respect for ourselves, the joy of effort, self-discipline, peaceful co-existence and, principally, equality, fair play, equality of opportunity, fairness and mutual respect—are distilled in the idea of competition (Teetzel, 2014, pp.112–122).

In this form, it is a struggle for co-existence, a unifying factor which focuses people on testing their powers under common rules.

It is certainly not a struggle for domination over another. Rather, through the shared struggle, fellow competitors exceed their limits, cultivate and mould their virtues, and reveal themselves as first among equals.

This applies to sport, but also to intellectual and spiritual activities.

This effort to exceed one’s limits is included in the framework of Coubertin’s pedagogic thinking about the social, ethical and cultural development of the individual.

When someone exceeds their limits, that person becomes an object of admiration. In reality, behind every minor or major feat, behind the static image of the victor, lie the abilities skills and virtues of the Sports-Hero, and the manner in which she or he chose to achieve the desired result.

Coubertin integrated the hero role-model into his own educational philosophy as a symbol of development and modernization (Müller, 2000, p. 155).

In this educational process of uplifting and “purification”, Coubertin assigns the role of priest to the sportsman. According to Coubertin, the idea of “religio athletae” (Müller, p. 155) goes beyond the athlete’s initial educational orientation and embraces transcendental, mystic elements.

The notion of the “Hero” who performs feats great and small as a symbol of change and progress is an ageless narrative in human society. Coubertin regarded the man of sport as a true Olympic hero, and his Olympic education was based mainly “on the cults of effort and eurhythmy, and consequently on the love of transcendence combined with the love of moderation” (see Müller, 2000, p. 44).

In Coubertin’s thinking, the athlete-models constituted a good example in the process of learning, in the personal inspiration of young people, and in the development of social progress and—above all—peace in society.

The questions that arise out of the educational Heroism-Virtue approach for the modern sports person in the framework of the Olympic philosophy are: a) whether sports people should be admired as Heroes (role-models) today; and b) how we can highlight the relationship between sport and virtue (see Reid, 2010, pp. 125–135). Such questions are not easy to answer in the framework of this paper.

There is no doubt that, for Coubertin, sports had both to remain a social activity and to preserve their nobility.

Coubertin believed that a person becomes better and better endowed through sport through the social educational aspirations of Olympism, which include honesty, “disinterest”, a chivalrous spirit of fair play, respect for others, friendship, understanding, equality and equal opportunities (see Georgiadis, 2015, pp. 59–63 and Segrave, 2015, pp. 196 and 197).

As a philosophy, Olympism is a deeper concept as well as the implementation of universal principles in practice. The Olympic values are common inspirations of human nature (Nissiotis, 1985, p. 58) which create common principles and unite individuals, races and nations.

When we associate sport with the fostering of ethics among young people, we are essentially referring to the formation of their values (McNamee, 2006, p. 167).

“Not all who participate in sporting activities are virtuous” (Coubertin, 68).

The main reason we attach a “value” to winning is its relation to virtues. The formation of virtues presupposes the cultivation of principles and values (Reid, 2002, pp. 3-5).

Young people are exposed to the principles of sport in order to nurture their self-realization, self-knowledge and self-elevation (Reid, 2002, pp. 3–5). Via this educational process, young people become aware of the values of community and life.

The dialogue surrounding the question of to what extent sport constitutes a vehicle for ethical and social education through Olympic education contains within it the idea of hospitality and truce as an educational process—an intercultural training and an ethical life stance, an awareness of rules, and an acceptance of values founded in co-existence within the community.

Another parameter of Olympism, as defined by the Olympic Charter (2016), is the connection between culture, sport and education. The archaeological finds in Ancient Olympia indicate in a particularly expressive way the relationship of aesthetics stemming from the arts with education and sport. Indeed, the surviving sculptures (e.g. Zanes or the cornices of the temple of Zeus) retain the power to convey an ethical, symbolic message to visitors to the place of “worship”.

In 1906, Pierre de Coubertin set off in search of ways to integrate the arts into the heart of Olympism: the “Pedagogy”. At the Advisory Conference, he went on to propose the “Pentathlon of the Muses” as an addition to the programme of the Olympic Games, with competitions in architecture, music, sculpture, literature and painting. His ideas have been implemented through the organization of Arts Competitions (1912–1948), Art Exhibitions and Festivals (1952–1972), National Culture Festivals (1976–1992), and the Cultural Olympiads (1992 to date).

The ideal of the holistic, harmonious development of the individual is expressed through the notion of “eurhythmy” (Coubertin, pp. 581, 612). In architecture, eurhythmy means beautiful and harmonic order; in sculpture, it entails symmetry, harmony and perfection; in music, rhythm, harmony and melody; in painting, moderation and context; in sport, the conceiving of ideas, the cultivation of the imagination, and the development of balance, concentration and coordination.

Coubertin imagines a harmonious balance of the spirit, body and mind in combination with the intellectual power required for ethical, aesthetic, cognitive and physical creativity. Through the process of eurhythmy, a person can understand universal ethical values.

Can these educational expectations of Olympism be realized using Olympic education as a tool?

First of all, what do we mean by the term “Olympic education”? Coubertin used the term “Olympic pedagogy”, and it formed the nucleus of his conception of the revival of the Olympic Games as the sublimation of his classical education, his liberal thinking, and humanistic orientation.

Pierre de Coubertin’s Olympic pedagogy, as conveyed through the term “Neo-Olympism”, includes sports education, training in peaceful co-existence, a nurturing of the arts, social training, harmonious character formation, chivalry, knowledge of history and philosophy, physical education, training in sports psychology, and hygiene (see Georgiadis, 2015, pp. 190–196).

Olympic education is a dynamic training process aimed at the harmonious development of body and spirit through the teaching of the Olympic values.

Sport is the nucleus of this training and seeks to help young people become balanced, cooperative, tolerant and peaceful citizens who apply the rules of fair play in their everyday life.

Olympic education shares aims with the Olympic Movement: specifically, the creation of a better and more peaceful world through sport and culture¹.

The vision of the Olympic Education Commission of the IOC is to promote Olympism through training, physical education and sport, formulating the characters of young people so that they become responsible citizens of our global community.

The fundamental principles of the Olympic Charter include:

Article 2: “The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity”.

Article 6: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.

The IOC must continue its productive collaboration with the United Nations, the National Olympic Committees, the IOA and National Olympic Academies, which should develop educational programmes for the future. These programmes (OVEP is an example) should seek to promote dialogue between young people of different cultural backgrounds, to develop their skills at resolving differences, and to train them to mentor on issues relating to respect for diversity and the Olympic truce.

Innovative educational ideas and means of implementing the Olympic truce should also be pursued in collaboration with other educational organizations, since sport can constitute a path to social harmony and integration, to reform, and to greater social cohesion.

Bearing in mind that the majority of children on our planet have other primary concerns, such as survival, these programmes must inspire trust, create relationships, and serve as axes for community development.

The IOA is supporting the IOC in these efforts via training programmes directed at thousands of young people from all over the world. The training model we champion fosters the cultivation of human virtues for the creation of a better society.

‍

We should, however, stress that, despite the numerous educational efforts that have been made to date, our knowledge concerning the effective implementation of these ideas in education is limited.

Let us now examine the notion of governance and its relationship to Olympic education. It refers essentially to the relationship between the state and its citizens (Christo De Coning, 2017).

On the part of the state, there is reference to how it is constructed, if it offers values, and how the various bodies and organizations communicate within the existing institutional framework.

Governance from the citizens’ perspective refers to its role, how it is enacted and organized, and its relationship to the state (Christo De Coning).

With regard to the Olympic Movement and to sports bodies, governance refers to the institutional framework within which they operate, to how they are constructed, and to the values they promote. In addition, it means that all these organisations are governed by sports principles. Behind every Movement are its ideas and behind the Olympic Movement are the ideas of lasting peace, democracy, freedom, equality, respect for diversity and fair play.

When we refer to sport governance from the citizen’s perspective, we mean the role played by the sports community of citizens through its associations and federations, how the various sports organizations communicate, and how they relate to sports bodies.

The relationships between the bodies (e.g. IOC) and the sports community is a challenging and thought-provoking subject. We must seek to create mechanisms and platforms that make for a horizontal, rather than a vertical, relationship. We must also investigate how it is possible through this relationship to cultivate the universal principles referred to above.

As a soft power, the IOC has to be aligned with and coordinate the sports bodies and the sports community, since the Olympic philosophy inspires and does not impose its values.

Sound governance requires the power of ideas, a system of values, honourable relationships between civil society and sports organizations and, above all, young people’s awareness of value-related issues; because better governance needs good people.

Young people are thrilled by the Olympic Games. We must consider how we can reach out to them with teaching programmes focused on the Olympic values, and how we, as the Olympic Movement, can spread our Olympic values with respect to diversity.

Good governance is listed in the Olympic Charter as the basic pillar of the Olympic Movement for the promotion of fundamental values of Olympism and it significantly influences the sustainable development of sports bodies. On the other side, ineffective governance shakes trust in sports generally.²

The International Olympic Committee has laid down the basic principles of good governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement in the 2020 Agenda, which states the IOC’s obligations and rights (Recommendations 27, 28, 29).

Olympic education is essentially a tool within the structure of the Olympic Movement, and a connecting factor in the relationship between institutions and civil society. It promotes good governance through the process of moulding virtuous citizens who aspire to the ideal of benevolence and with integrity which determines a person’s attitude to life.

Seeking to stress the importance of Olympic education in the context of the Olympic Movement, the IOC’s Olympic Education Commission set three targets in 2015 by way of a strategic vision:

• Ensuring the prerequisites for a coherent and common education policy containing the Olympic values.

• Identifying, promoting and supporting Olympic education ambassadors and their related values.

• Disseminating and promoting life-long learning to the public via Olympic education using the voice of the Olympic Movement.

To achieve the above targets, the Olympic Movement must mobilize the greatest number of people possible through education. This requires a robust structure capable of combining the various Olympic bodies (International Olympic Committee, National Olympic Committees, IOA, National Olympic Academies, National and International Centres of Olympic Studies) with national sports bodies, educational institutions and other organizations using Olympic education as a medium for good governance. This strategy must also aim to strengthen part nerships and cooperation as well as linking institutional bodies with civil society.

Agenda 2020 proposes that the Olympic Movement and the Olympic family begin a dialogue with society and social bodies about promoting Olympic education programmes (Recommendations 39, 22). This could endow the National Olympic Academies with a new mission: seeking out social bodies with which they can collaborate in promoting their educational work.

In the future, Olympic education must tackle subjects of relevance to contemporary societies.

Coubertin was convinced that sport can create democratic awareness, a subject of great relevance to contemporary societies. This is a unique opportunity for the bodies charged with Olympic education to realize the vision of Pierre de Coubertin by seeking educational processes aimed at fostering democratic and humanistic awareness—a subject this is acquiring ever-increasing importance in the dialogue about education in society. We must give special emphasis to

Olympic education, given that:

• The young take part in the programme as active citizens directly engaged in a dialogue concerning the values of the Olympic Movement.

• The programmes contain activities focusing on intercultural education, transcending racial discrimination and excluding social racism.

• The programmes encourage collaboration between specialists on subjects relating to education and sport organizations (National Olympic Committees, National Olympic Academies, Sports Associations of the Ministry of Education—Directorates of School Education).

• The programmes contribute to the quality of education by recognizing the educational value of sport with participation in—or organization of—sports events and cultural and artistic activities.

The Olympic Family could collaborate with social or supra-national political bodies such as UNESCO in the training of teachers and professors, who would be prepared to deliver targeted teaching and to implement the Olympic values programmes on the active citizen, democracy and good governance. Through specifically targeted lessons, young people and their teachers would come to understand the elements that constitute good governance.

In conclusion, there are numerous examples in many countries of good practices in the teaching of principles and values. Some National Olympic Academies have convinced the education ministries in their countries to integrate Olympic education into their national curricula. These ministries made their decision in the light of Olympic education’s unique ability to help young people gain knowledge about principles and values which will make them responsible, better and more creative citizens.

“All who have meditated on the art of governing of mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth” (Aristotle).

‍

‍

Bibliography

Coubertin, de P., “Sports and Ethics”, in Müller, N. (ed.), Pierre de Coubertin 1863–1937, Olympism. Selected Writings, Lausanne, IOC, pp. 167–169.

Coubertin, de P., “The philosophic foundation of Modern Olympism”, in Μüller, N. (ed.), Pierre de Coubertin 1863–1937, Olympism. Selected Writings, Lausanne, IOC, pp. 580–583.

Coubertin, de P., “Speech at the Opening of Advisory conference on the Arts, Literature,and Sport (May 23, 1906)”, in Müller, N. (ed.), Pierre de Coubertin 1863–1937,

Olympism. Selected Writings, Lausanne, IOC, pp. 611–612.

Craven P., “New Steps on Olympic Education. Commission Roadmap for Future Developments, May 2016”, in the Proceedings of the IOC Commission for Olympic Education, Lausanne 10 November 2016.

De Coning, C., “The need for normative power to influence good governance by international sport organisations”, 12th International Session for Educators of Higher Institutes of Physical Education, Ancient Olympia 25/5–1/6/2017 (under publication).

Georgiadis, K., “The educational value of Olympism”, in Olympic values: Respect for diversity, 54th International Session for Young Participants, Athens, IOA/IOC, 2015,

pp. 190–196.

IOC (ed.), Olympic Agenda 2020, 20+20 Recommendations, https://stillmed. olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Documents/Olympic-Agenda-2020/Olympic-Agenda-2020–20–20-Recommendations.pdf#_ga=2.112578688.50749804.1497521064–966616397.1497521064.

IOC (ed.), Olympic Charter, in force as of 2 August 2016, https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/General/EN-Olympic-Charter.pdf

Lettres Olympiques, V, in: Gazette de Lausanne, 28 November 1918, no. 325, pp. 1–2, in Müller, N. (ed.), Pierre de Coubertin 1863–1937, Olympism. Selected Writings,

Lausanne, IOC, p. 44.

McNamee, M., “Olympism, Eurocentricity and Transcultural Virtues”, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, Volume XXXIII, Issue 2, 2006, pp. 174–187.

Müller, N. (ed.), Pierre de Coubertin 1863–1937, Olympism. Selected Writings, Lausanne, IOC, 2000, pp. 33–48.

Nissiotis, N., “Olympism and today’s reality”, 24th Session (Ancient Olympia, 4–19 July 1984), Lausanne, IOA, [1985], pp. 57–74.

Reid, H., The Philosophical Athlete, Carolina Academic Press, Durham, North Carolina, 2002.

Reid, H., “Athletic Heroes”, in Sport Ethics and Philosophy, vol. 4, no 2, August 2010, pp. 125–135.

Segrave, O. J., “Toward a definition of Olympism”, in Girginov, V., (ed.) Olympic Studies, Origins and Revival of the Modern Olympic Games, Vol. I, 2015, pp.191–202.

Teetzel, S., “Optimizing the understanding and teaching of the philosophy of Olympism”, in 12th International Session for Directors of National Olympic Academies (Ancient Olympia, 12–19 May 2013), Proceedings, Athens, IOA/IOC, 2014, pp. 112–122.

‍

‍

GEORGIADIS Konstantinos,"Olympic education for “better governance” ", in:K. Georgiadis(ed.), Ethics,Education and Governance inthe Olympic Movement, 57th International Session for Young Participants(Ancient Olympia,17/6-1/7/2017), International Olympic Academy, Athens,2018, pp.69-79.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍