Learning

Debating For Religious Freedom and Tolerance in Indonesia

‘Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army’.

The road to democracy is tumultuous. Fourteen years have passed since the authoritarian Suharto’s regime was ousted by the Indonesian people. Democracy and freedom, however, remain fiercely contested. The archipelagic country has seen increasingly intensified religious intolerance as radical Islamists bully religious minorities unpunished. Human Rights Watch and two leading Indonesian human rights organizations reported that the number of ‘religious attacks‘ increased from 135 in 2007 to 244 in 2011. It is in this very context that human rights education becomes crucial. 

One program that is interesting to explore is run by an international NGO called Search for Common Ground. Although it is not a full-fledged human rights campaign, it still embodies the spirit of human rights education as it intends to teach young people about the importance of religious freedom, tolerance, and pluralism in Indonesia.To achieve its aims, the campaign employs, at least, three mediums to spread the message: soap opera, debating, and comic books. Due to space limitation, I will only focus on the second medium, which is debating. 

Debating as a form of education is targeted at Islamic boarding schools (pesantren) and public schools.The themes of the debates vary, including Islam and abortion, the use of headscarf for Muslim women, and so on. The NGO chosen its target audiences as such because it recognizes that Islamic boarding schools can be the breeding ground of religious extremists or it can be turned into a voice of tolerance.

It is also cognizant of the fact that public schools have the potential to produce similar intolerance and religious division since every public school is now required to provide religious education to students based on their religions only, e.g: if you are a Muslim then you only need to learn about Islam and not other religions. Some are concerned this approach may create a simplistic understanding of religion which fosters intolerance between different religious groups and rob the rights of minority groups.

Two theories that are relevant with this campaign are the theory of democratic education and the theory of effective pedagogy used by M. Raja to teach post-colonialism to his students in the US. Firstly, unlike the banking concept of education, democratic education assumes students as dynamic, inquisitive, creative human learners full of potential to grow. Students are not seen as automatons or empty vessels to which knowledge has to be deposited from the all-knowing teachers. As a result, the approach of democratic education is different from the banking concept of education. Rather than focusing on content mastery through tests or regurgitating information, students are invited to ‘learn for the sake of learning’ in an open, supportive environment where student’s personal needs are catered for and a self-governing learning community is set up.

Considering this theory, the use of debating within this program is powerful. Debating overcomes the hierarchical teacher-student relationship and energizes the students to become active learners. Unlike conventional classrooms where teacher is tasked to ‘enlighten’ students with the one-way transfer of knowledge, debating transform the role of teacher from ‘lecturing’ to ‘facilitating and directing’. Students have more agency to initiate, enjoy and continue the learning process as they have to educate themselves and one another through pre-debating research and the exchange of arguments during the debate. This can lead to better critical thinking skills, better self-directed learning, open-mindedness and better ability to empathise.

Most importantly, if praxis is intended to teach these students about freedom of religion and tolerance, debating can serve that purpose for the simple reason that  debating requires freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of expression to happen. Despite so, debating can also foster a simplistic bias of dualism. Due to its pro and contra set up, debaters can be trapped in this either-right-or-wrong mentality, which of course runs contrary to the complex realities in our world. In this sense, debating can be counterproductive to idea of tolerance, acceptance, and freedom. It is also crucial to interrogate how democratic is the process involved in debating and its actual result. Due to its competitive nature and the fact that only a few students can usually participate in debating, it can be argued that debating is not as democratic as it looks.

Secondly, Raja suggests that in encouraging ‘global solidarity’, students are expected to learn, understand, and accept ‘others who may be different but still share the same planet’. He believes it is important to use an effective pedagogy to teach ‘radical fields’ like this, which does not post a threat to students’ personal identities, beliefs, and world-views. This is because doing so can seriously undermine the capacity of the students to learn. Therefore, he contends that a ‘deep approach to learning’, which exposes students to various ideas, angles and perspectives, is needed. It is hoped that students will end up with ‘a more complex worldview’ which can translate into acceptance of differences and a sense of duty of care to ‘the others’.

Debating is relevant to this theory of ‘deep approach to learning’. Students who undertake debating must analyze problems, synthesize different ideas, apply problem-solving skills, and discuss their arguments with their team members and their opponents based on research and valid reasoning. This is a much ‘higher level’ of learning compared to the conventional knowledge-absorbing method. Students are exposes to various ideas and perspectives and, as a result, students are able to better comprehend and make sense the learning process rather than just absorbing them blindly. In addition, this can give them a chance to see and appreciate complexities which can foster a sense of tolerance towards differences. This is the philosophy which can help students learn better about religious freedom, tolerance, and pluralism. 

While debating is great because it exposes students to various ideas from different perspectives, it very much uses an adversarial form of communication might not always suit certain students or certain sociocultural environment. Raja argues that it is important to teach ‘differences’ without confronting the students’ personal identities too much as this can hamper students’ ability to learn.

As debating is about inquiring and interrogating, this type of learning can be seen as ‘threatening’ to some students who already have certain ways of thinking about their religions, especially theirs. As a result, debating can stop students from genuinely engaging with the topics of debates and turn the whole process into mere exercises of oratory divorced from its philosophy of critical thinking and acceptance of diversity. In summary, debating has a lot to offer for religious freedom and tolerance in Indonesia. However, its implementation must be thoroughly planned and implemented according to the schools’ diverse needs and environment. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamrah, M., ‘NGOs Urged UNHRC to be Critical of RI’, Jakarta Post, consulted 18 May 2012, http://setara-institute.org/en/content/ngos-urge-unhrc-be-critical-ri

Everett, E., ‘Education Quotes’, consulted 19 May 2012, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_education.html#dkyPmmrU5iHPQVm2.99

Fahey, L., ‘Freed to Learn: Five Fundamental Concepts of Democratic Education’. The Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, Vol. 2, Issue. 3, 2008, http://www.nipissingu.ca/jual/Archives/v213/v2132.asp 

Kennedy, R., ‘In-class Debates: Fertile Ground for Active Learning and the Cultivation of Critical Thinking and Oral Communication Skills’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 19, No.2, 2007, pp. 183 - 190.

Raja, M., ‘the Postcolonial Student: Learning the Ethics of Global Solidarity in An English Classroom’, Radical Teacher, Vol, 82, No. 1, pp. 32 - 37. 

Endy Bayuni, chief editor of the Jakarta Post on religious intolerance in Indonesia, Youtube Video, Australia Network News, 27 April 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q3gvoAG55tY

National Debate Competition for Islam and Tolerance, Youtube Video, Search for Common Ground, 15 October 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4HtiY5rC_E&feature=relmfu

Anonymous, ‘Indonesia: Education and Religious Tolerance’, Search for Common Ground, Consulted 19 May 2012, http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/indonesia/indonesia_ert.html

Anonymous, ‘Indonesia’, Search for Common Ground, consulted 19 May 2012, http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/indonesia/index.html

Learning for Life

Non Scholae Sed Vitae Discimus = We Learn Not for School but for Life

I was still in high school when I first heard the Latin proverb. The Jesuit priest in our school repeatedly uttered the sentence. He then asked why are we studying at school. Is it so that we can go to university? Is it for a job? Is it for a good mark? Is it for social life? What is it for? He then explained the meaning of the phrase. It means we learn not for school but for life. Studying and learning are not confined in the classrooms only. It should be done in a broader context to achieve a bigger purpose. Through education, we are supposed to be able to find and claim our place in the world. Through education, we should be able to learn about each other. We should be able to accept and celebrate our differences as unique individuals, yet at the same time, appreciate our sameness as part of one world, one humanity.

Seeing the rising tide of religious intolerance, division, and violence in Indonesia recently makes me wonder what kind of education have many our children received. Why is there so much intolerance and hatred against those who are seen as ‘different’?  Have they been taught to learn for school only or have they been taught to learn for life? Intolerance and hatred against other religions or ethnic groups are often based on prejudices. Neascu-Hendry believes that prejudices tend to prevail in persons or societies where reasoning ability is weak. This, of course, should not surprise us. The reality of education on the ground in Indonesia is saddening. Religious education is mandated by the government but students, in general, are only taught about their own religions in a very simplistic manner.  The content of the religious class is often very exclusive and ceremonial. It merely requires students to memorize and regurgitate information. It rarely asks students to logically inquire, creatively analyze complex issues and solve them. It is more of an exception when students are taught about other religions and their history -- which actually has the potential to create a more critical, open-minded students with a strong humanistic character. More often than not, students only learn about their religion uncritically and, as a result, there is sense of superiority for belonging to that particular religion compared to others. 

This is the result of the so-called banking concept of education, which Freire believes to be oppressive by nature. The banking concept of education starts with assuming student knows nothing and teacher should know everything. Due to this, knowledge has to be ‘deposited’ from one end, which is the teacher, to another, which is the student. Students are expected to follow teacher’s instructions, regurgitate information and obediently accept this hierarchical, one-way depositing process without given the opportunity to consciously think, comprehend, and evaluate the information they absorb. Such a system reduces imaginative, creative, conscious human being into a well-trained, programmed ‘automatons’ stripped of its individual agency. Freire warns us ‘this concept is well suited to the purposes of the oppressors, whose tranquility rests on how well people fit the world the oppressors have created, and how little they question it.’

Perhaps, Freire is right. Our children have beed sedated with the banking concept of education for too long that they have become easily controlled by the oppressors. Our children have been turned into mindless robots who serve the interests of the power-hungry people. Looking at how easily mobilized these young radical Muslims in the streets of Jakarta are. I wonder who is benefiting from all this chaos. Perhaps, it’s not the issue at stake here. Conspiracy theory is a waste of time until conclusive evidence is given. Perhaps we should think more about revolutionizing our education so that the next generation of young people and leaders in this country have more power, freedom, and agency to resist the ‘zombification’ from these political ventriloquists -- whoever they might be. We should change the approach of our education to enable our people to unlearn this intolerance, hatred, and bigotry. Whatever form of education it is, it needs to successfully foster a climate of tolerance, freedom, and compassion since this is the only way diversity and every individual human’s dignity are preserved. 

An alternative form education called democratic education can be of use to us. Fahey and Hooks champion this as an emancipatory form of education, consistent with the philosophy of learning for life encapsulated in the Latin phrase above. Democratic education starts with a different assumption of student. Fahey describes children as ‘natural learners, each with distinct interests, abilities and rates of cognitive, emotional and social growth.’ For Fahey, what matters most is not ‘facts’ or ‘figures’, which will be easily forgotten, but the ‘emotional impacts’ of the educational experience and the student’s personality after school.The goal of education is to create ‘happy, healthy, well-adjusted, self-directed, self-actualizing person’. To achieve this, Fahey stipulates five principles of democratic education that are essential: tailoring education to suit the student’s ‘way’ in his or her own time; providing a safe and supportive environment that takes into account student’s emotional readiness; offering a wide range of choices to suit student’s interests and natural strengths rather than fostering coercive structural relationships; using the ‘learning to learn‘ approach instead of focusing on ‘content mastery’; creating a ‘self-governed’ community whereby students are involved in the decision-making processes that affect their learning experience.

Hooks would agree with Fahey that democratic education system is different from an authoritarian one. The former instills an excitement of learning in the student rather than forcing them to just absorb information. It encourages active, progressive learning based on critical inquiry, creativity and conversation, rather than one-way communication. It is also linked to the real world through its inclusivity as it ‘enable [sic] educators to teach and share knowledge in a manner that does not reinforce existing structures of domination (those of race, gender, class, and religious hierarchies)’. 

At this stage, it is probably hard to visualize this form of education in Indonesia. Our classroom often consists of 30 to 40 students. How are we going to tailor education to suit  each student’s way in his or her own time? How are we going to create a safe and supportive environment when the culture is of hierarchical relationship between teacher and student or between senior and junior? How are we going to create a self-governed community when students are so used to get spoon-fed by their teachers? Of course, these are valid questions that need to be taken into account. However, technical issues aside, this form of education is worth our investment as it enables us to envision a different kind of outcomes. Democratic education is geared towards preparing our young generation not only for good grades or jobs but also for life. Life in which every individual is empowered and life where diversity is appreciated and celebrated. 

The writer is currently completing his Master of Human Rights at Curtin University in Perth. He is also working for Amnesty International. The opinion expressed here is of his own.