Informal Education for "Home-Grown" Democracy

Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

The Sixth Assembly
Making Democracy Work

Informal Education for “Home-Grown” Democracy

Organizers:
 
Moderator:
Ratih Hardjono – KID (Indonesia)
 
Rapporteurs:
Olmo von Meijenfeldt– Idasa (South Africa)
Sugeng Bahagijo – KID (Indonesia)
 
Presenters:
Noxolo Mgudlwa – Idasa (South Africa)
Ignas Kleden – KID (Indonesia)
In his opening presentation, Ignas Kleden explained the history and work of the Indonesia Community for Democracy (KID) and its schools for democracy. It has five locations throughout the Indonesian Archipelago, including three new schools; the rationale of the schools is that optimum democracy equals a high quality of participation and quality of discourse; the schools’ content includes knowledge, values, and skills; the methodology is carried out both in class and out of class; participants represent business, civil society organizations, political parties, and government bureaucracies, and women comprise 30 percent; there are nine modules; there are some 400 alumni of the schools, a number of whom were elected to local parliaments in the 2009 election at the district level; and the main strategy is to reform from below to strengthen democracy in the country.
 
Noxolo Mgudlwa described the background of civic education and the struggle for democracy and the challenges faced during the current consolidation process in South Africa. She then introduced Idasa and its iLEDA Schools for Democracy program. The iLEDA program consists of the Academy for Political Leadership and the School for Democracy (or citizen leadership), which has been in operation in South Africa for 10 years; iLEDA Schools also operate in Malawi, Zambia, Swaziland, Mozambique, and Angola. Ms. Mgudlwa also remarked that democracy should be nurtured and maintained, because it is not just given as a final product. Citizens should play their role actively on a daily basis. She also pointed out that many of the alumni of the Schools have already occupied important roles, for instance, as representatives in local government, among others.
 
During the workshop discussion, a participant from Afghanistan generated discussion of concerns about how democracy education is viewed as outside interference by foreign forces, and that it is sometimes seen as an attempt to change people’s religion and harm Islam.
 
The issue of how to ensure understanding and acceptance of the Schools for Democracy among local authorities was also discussed. Buy-in and acceptance by local authorities is important for civic education for democracy to ensure sustainability of the trainings; local authorities can be stumbling blocks and work against the training implementation if they perceive the trainings as a threat to their positions or power bases. Both Idasa and KID Schools therefore engage in confidence building measures in direct interaction with such authorities. The media is also used to promote and provide information about their work, but this still remains a challenge: getting local authorities to understand and support the Schools for Democracy.
 
Several practical stories were presented as examples of the challenges KID has faced in implementing Schools for Democracy in areas where conservative Islamic groups have worked against the program. In response, KID has worked with a senior Islamic scholar to formulate concrete responses to questions such as “If Islam has the same values as democracy, why do we need democracy?” Again, local media are used to assist in broadening the understanding of the values of democracy.
 
Similar experiences and approaches were shared from Afghanistan, where Mullahs are involved in broadening the scope for increasing popular acceptance of democracy.
 
Post-Training Challenges
 
Idasa spoke about the challenges in providing post-training support for trainees. One question is whether there is a need to provide further support to trainees, or whether the training itself is enough. In answer to this question, both KID and Idasa believe it is important to provide follow-up support for trainees to strengthen the impact of their training, but both organizations are confronted with challenges in doing so:
  
  • Continued support might impede the initiative and resourcefulness of trainees;
  • Should trainees be bound organizationally to the School as alumni?  What would this mean if they begin to use alumni structures for their own purposes?
  • Does such an alumni structure work to ensure that people adhere to the principles of the Schools? (KID is of the opinion that social peer pressure and internal control mechanisms can be created through the alumni network.)
General Challenges
 
  • How to make the best use of alumni as a pool of change makers and potential democracy ambassadors?
  • It is necessary to ensure that local democracy is seen and appreciated as home-grown.
  • How can the fear that seems to persist among some authorities about the Schools be mitigated and how can we guarantee their participation and support?
  • It is important to ensure safety, sustainability, and participation in conservative or anti-democratic environments.
  • The Indonesian Schools face the challenge of presenting modules that are often deemed too intensive and thus exclusionary for some participants. (Both schools have selection criteria, including literacy).
  • Can business and politics go together if business influences governance so it is used in favor of business?
Conclusion
 

Schools for Democracy provide critical support for strengthening participation, initiative, and dialogue for democracy on the local level in both southern Africa and Indonesia. They use a bottom-up approach, including local participation of CSOs in the implementation of courses, which caters to local specificity to strengthen home-grown democracy. This home-grown aspect of the Schools for Democracy ensures that democracy is not seen as a foreign and imposed doctrine.