Promoting pluralism through education

Promoting pluralism through education

Alpha Amirrachman, Jakarta

As a highly diverse Indonesia embraces democracy, it is
intriguing to reflect on how the country now deals with
pluralism. One may have wondered why prejudice, self-
righteousness, discrimination, as well as religious and ethnic
conflicts erupted under the newly democratic Indonesia, compared
to the relative calm during the New Order regime.

The "success" of the New Order regime in "minimizing"
religious and ethnic conflicts was mainly due to the government's
absolute control in almost all of society. At all levels, the
government had effective arms that would act preemptively before
any conflicts broke out. Furthermore, the media was tightly
controlled and it became taboo to discus inter-communal
differences (known by an Indonesian acronym of "SARA", or
ethnicity, religion, race and class). This contributed to a
seemingly harmonious society. Nonetheless, discrimination (both
overt and covert) was pervasive, such as the alienation of a
particular belief and prevention of certain ethnic groups to
fully participate as decent citizens.

To have in-depth results, education was used as a tool to
minimize perceived differences and force people to conform to a
"uniform" thought process, although the rhetoric was full of
commitment to pluralism. In fact, as Bjork implied (2003),
Indonesia's school system provides a huge number of teachers and
students for the government to indoctrinate a large, incarcerated
audience, with almost no choice but to "swallow" the regime's
ideology.

The above enforcement to make people live "peacefully" with
each other will only work under an authoritarian government. In a
democratic society, people accept others' differences because of
their voluntary willingness and conscience. The "big bang" change
from long-time authoritarianism to democracy, however, provides
insufficient spheres for people to adapt themselves to the new
atmosphere. Decades of superficial harmony left people with
"cultural shock". Many long sidelined groups, such as extremist
religious groups, emerged and, ironically, received a prominent
spotlight in public, most of whom appeared to be frustrated with
the slow pace of reformasi.

Nevertheless, one strategic factor that transcends any system
of government to "control" society is education. Under an
authoritarian regime, education was strongly manipulated to
spread the regime's propaganda. Under a democratic regime,
education too can be effectively used to promote genuine
pluralism, albeit in a different atmosphere. The strategic
utilization of education is due to the fact that education
functions as an agent of change within society. Moreover, schools
are places where students learn to socially construct realities
of the surrounding society where they live in. In this case,
there are several points to be considered.

First, teachers play significant roles in promoting pluralism
in class that all citizens should adhere to democratic
principles: Liberty, justice, equality, and tolerance. In this
case, teachers, instead of "teaching" bhinneka tunggal ika (unity
in diversity) by rote memorization, should internalize and
implement the motto into their own behavior in classes. Teachers
should set examples, by showing that they do not favor a certain
ethnic or religious group at the expense of others. Without
undermining local identity, teachers should give students a
proper understanding of the diverse society that in which they
live.

This means that teachers can tactfully discuss what has long
been regarded as taboo (SARA issues) in a critical but
responsible manner, for example, by giving discussion topics to
students about the social benefits of living harmoniously and the
disastrous impacts of religious conflicts and discrimination.
Technical discussions of how to settle the problems may not
emerge, but teachers can substantially impart many positive
values, such as that of respecting others' beliefs. This can be a
starting point of further substantive efforts such as inter-faith
dialogs. Teachers should also address the perception that the
majority groups have of their "right" to superiority over
minority groups, and stress that it has no place in a democratic
society. The relatively small groups of people who noisily claim
to be the majority's representative does not help encourage
sincere dialogs among societal groups.

Second, over the past three decades, teachers behaved as a
source of knowledge "who know everything" and whose instructions
cannot be "challenged" by students. Now, however, teachers' roles
should change to become more like facilitators and should treat
students more as "friends". Without jeopardizing the authority of
teachers, egalitarianism should be nurtured as part of learning
process.

Third, the values of pluralism should be contained in every
lesson, besides being emphasized in one particular lesson,
highlighting the significance of multi-cultural curricula. For
example, the similarities, rather than differences in religions,
should be contextually addressed. In a broader context, as Giroux
(2001) points out, "schools have a responsibility to equip
students with the knowledge and skills they will need to develop
critical understanding of themselves as well as what it means to
live in a democratic society."

Fourth, teachers and parents should collaborate to lay out a
common perception of how to teach their students and children how
to live in a pluralistic society. School Committees are
appropriate bodies where teachers and parents can discuss the
issue, provided that School Committees are democratic school
institutions where differences of opinion is highly appreciated
and parent representatives are truly diverse.

Lastly, as social construction also occurs at home and in the
neighborhood, the role of parents is imperative. Parents can set
examples by living harmoniously with, for example, neighbors
whose religion or ethnicity is different. Nevertheless, as many
teachers or parents might still adhere to the perception and
practice of the old paradigm, the campaign to promote pluralism
through education should be an unremitting effort for all
responsible citizens. The state, in this regard, should strongly
promote such a campaign by abolishing any regulations that are
deemed to be anti-pluralism.

The writer is a lecturer at the University of Muhammadiyah
Prof. Dr. Hamka and an M.Phil.Ed candidate in the Department of
Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney on an
AusAID scholarship. He can be reached at
a.amirrachman@edfac.usyd.edu.au.