Parties skip subject of education

By Iwan Pranoto

BANDUNG (JP): In the last elections, education issues were raised on several occasions. In every televised monologue, the campaigner touched on some issues of education. And, in the debate session, many participants asked for the campaigning party's position on education issues. This was good.

At the same time, we could read about the different parties' agenda on education matters. Thus, we could study one party's stand on education via newspapers before the elections. Even though the education issues raised were not that essential, in my opinion, that rare opportunity to talk about our education system was a good start for our nation. We had been waiting for that opportunity for many years.

Unfortunately, on the whole, parties were not well prepared to discuss the issues deeply. For example, many parties stated that if they won they would increase the education budget. Some even explicitly stated they would increase the budget to 25 percent of the total national budget.

But, until now, there has not been a single party that can provide strong arguments to support that budget allocation. In the main, parties said the calculation was taken from similar figures in developed countries. In my opinion, besides being unrealistic, the figure is groundless.

One party even promised to provide free primary and secondary education for everybody. This sounds good, but it is a far from realistic proposition for our country, especially during this crisis time. It seemed that the party forgot that education in any place is an expensive undertaking.

Those of us who waited for political parties to debate education issues in depth were very dissatisfied. Not one party proposed education policies based on insightful reasoning. Worse still, parties with some education experts did not appear interested to talk about essential education problems and policy. For instance, some very important issues, such as learning to learn and providing equal opportunities to learn, were inadequately addressed.

It is true that one party did raise an important issue concerning the autonomy of education institutions, however the subject did not seem to attract the interest of any other party. The party, however, did not go beyond that autonomy. It did not touch on the gist of autonomy, that is academic freedoms.

Fortunately, as the campaign session was drawing to a close, some groups raised two issues relating to education.

The first issue was a condition on the educational background of candidates for legislative bodies. One group said a legislator must at least hold an undergraduate degree. Another group said a legislator must have a high school certificate. Some other groups even said a president should at least be a university graduate.

The statements clearly show that we still see education as a formal thing. Education continues to be seen as an issue monopolized by formal schools. We remain unable to believe that education can be obtained outside formal institutions.

And, more importantly, from comments raised by the groups above, we can conclude that we, or at least the groups, think that schools produce graduates. After graduating the former students possess standardized skills, and they will be incapable of improving these capabilities. This is precisely an old concept of schooling.

We seem to have forgotten the new paradigm that believes all graduates are human beings with a continual learning capacity. Indeed, they are lifetime learners. So, even if one person fails to obtain a university degree, it remains highly possible the person has capabilities higher than that of a university graduate. Is that so? Yes, it is very true.

For instance, we can validate it by the fact that more than one of our present ministers were not outstanding in their formal studies. Many people know this fact. Some of our ministers were even drop-outs from our state universities. However, at least up until now, they managed to handle state affairs.

The more absurd situation is that some people believe that presidential candidates with professorships and PhD degrees are more suitable for the job. This is also groundless, because a person's integrity is not correlated by his or her one mile-long titles. Moreover, we have to remind ourselves that the value of trust is not related to any university degree. It is true that in university we learn universal values like trust, but nobody can guarantee that a university graduate can be trusted. In fact, this last value is the one missing from our present government.

Therefore, in my opinion, the education condition required of our future legislators and even of our future president is an artificial requirement. It is not essential at all. It will be more meaningful if we ask ourselves whether a would-be legislator is trusted by people or not, and that can be answered by how many votes he or she obtains. And, in turn that factor relates to the universal education he or she has experienced.

The second issue concerns a statement issued by a religious institution only several days before the polling day. In short, the institution urged people not to vote for a party whose legislative candidates' religious beliefs were not the same as the institution's. In addition, on the very day before the elections, one prominent preacher reiterated identical "guidance" to his followers.

Perhaps these moves were politically correct and well within the boundaries of the law. But, besides being a cheap shot, in my very humble opinion, the maneuver was pedagogically incorrect. The directive clearly does not promote the creation of an environment where people are motivated to learn to live together. The move does not support the spirit in which every person should be judged by her or his intellectual merit and integrity alone.

Of course, if we really want to form a democratic society, we must never judge any person based on her or his race, ethnic background, religion, or gender. In particular, the dichotomy between a majority and a minority based on religion is groundless in a truly democratic society. As stated by the prominent intellectual Nurcholish Madjid in Detak magazine issued for the June 15 to 21, 1999, period, a "majority-minority in politics must be proven through an election".

It will be very strange if we follow the concept of a majority-minority in politics only through assertions. Any group can claim that they are a majority force. Any group can claim that they have millions of supporters. As a matter of fact, the majority-minority claims are not going to help our nation to learn about democracy. The position is also far from logical.

Indeed, if we apply the majority-minority argument objectively, then the majority of the people in the legislative bodies should be females. So, why do we not use the same principle here?

Moreover, we have to remind ourselves that all learning, including learning about democracy, must be supported in a fertile atmosphere in which democratic values are practiced. This is a must.

After observing these two issues which emerged during the elections, we have become convinced that we badly need to improve our education. Of particular importance is the provision of a quality general education where we can learn universal values that are strategically designed and planned. Then we can start learning to live together and promoting harmony in our communities. If we cannot live together with our own community, we will not be able to live together in the future global village.

The writer is a math teacher living in Bandung.