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