Daily Times

The Indonesian government has decided to scrap the teaching of science in primary schools in favour of more religious studies. The Education and Culture Minister Mohammad Nuh and other promoters of the new curriculum say that religious education from an early stage would create better citizens. It is highly questionable whether religious education from an early age produces better citizens. However, to scrap science in favour of any other subject of study at any stage of schooling is definitely a retrograde step. If the Pakistani experience with madrassa education is any guide, additional religious education from an early age certainly does not produce more good citizens.

Most studies done on this issue show the close relationship between science education and national advancement and technological progress (assuming other things being the same or similar). This correlation is best demonstrated by the astounding progress of Germany, Japan, South Korea and now China, all of which emphasise science education from an early age.

Most Indonesian pedagogues and parents would support science education in primary schools but the latest decision of the authorities is being implemented nevertheless because of pressure from the increasingly influential religious parties and groups. As in Pakistan and Israel, the religious parties in Indonesia wield an influence on national policy far in excess of their votes or the number of seats they hold in the national parliament.

We all know how even a few thugs are able to intimidate and oppress large groups of ordinary citizens on the streets and suburbs of any city in the world. Drug dealers, youth gangs, common street thugs and what we in South Asia call ‘goondas’ (goons) hold entire suburbs hostage to their thuggery, call it ‘hard power’, ‘willpower’, ‘group power’ or whatever you like.

An excellent demonstration of this occurs in the natural world where a small pack of hyenas, lions or wild dogs can overpower a whole herd of huge wildebeests through better organisation, concentration of forces and the threat or actual use of violence. Much more sophisticated and subtle but far less obvious is the ‘soft power’ of organised interest groups such as the gun lobby and the pro-Israeli lobby in the US and the religious parties in Pakistan and Israel. Even winning elections is not just a matter of public appeal or popular support, but organisation, strategy, resources, campaign and leadership.

It is known that religious parties in Pakistan do not get many votes and win few seats but they still wield significant, even decisive influence on the government. They force changes in policy to favour their own agenda and veto those potential changes that they do not like. A good example is the capitulation of Prime Minster Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to the Islamists on the Ahmadi issue in 1974 and his further concessions in 1977. When President General Pervez Musharraf wanted to remove the requirement to mention religion in Pakistani passports, the religious elements forced the powerful military dictator to retreat by threatening him with their ‘street power’.

A well-entrenched Islami Jamiat-e-Tulaba influences all academic and administrative decisions in the Punjab University, although it represents a minority of students. Its parent organisation, the Jamaat-e-Islami, is not even represented in the provincial or national government and barely represented in parliament at the best of times.

But whereas thuggery operates against the will of the majority by intimidation (through actual violence or threat of violence), successful lobbies and interest groups can only succeed within a congenial and sympathetic, or at least a neutral and apathetic, public opinion, not against it. To understand this, ask yourself if a ‘pro-India lobby’ could exist in Pakistan, or a ‘pro-Pakistan’ lobby could operate in India.

Take the ‘gun issue’ in the United States. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has such clout that if feels it can stand up to a directly elected US president and defy him. No matter how many deaths of innocent people (including schoolchildren) result from mass shootings, the gun lobby musters enough support in the US Congress to pre-empt any legislation towards gun control.

Similarly, the pro-Israeli lobby has long influenced the US Middle East policy to such an extent that many American decision-makers find it unacceptable. It has now reached such a point that presidential candidates and nominees for the posts of Secretary of Defence or State have to pass the litmus test of steadfast loyalty towards Israel. And, at present, it does not even suffice to express unequivocal support for Israel but it is also necessary to commit oneself to hostility towards Iran. Put simply, in the current environment, all decision-makers in the US have to foreswear to a policy of ‘kick ass (Iran); kiss ass (Israel)’.

It is important to note that the success of the gun lobby and the pro-Israeli lobby owes to the fact that they operate within a sympathetic or apathetic environment. In other words, they succeed because more people support them (or are neutral) than are against them. The gun lobby is buttressed by the Second Amendment and strengthened by the high level of gun ownership and membership of the NRA. The pro-Israeli lobby draws its strength from the large number of American Jews, good organisation, excellent resources and leadership, but also the support of Christian evangelical organisations and well-known personalities.

The NRA succeeds because although most Americans want an end to the killings in schools and shopping malls, many love their guns and most cherish their right to own guns. The pro-Israel lobby achieves one victory after another because most Americans regard the Israelis, rather than the Palestinians, as the victims, although they support the two-state solution.

The Indonesian ministry of education can scrap science classes in favour of religious studies because, while most Indonesians appreciate the need for science education, their love of religion superimposes over all else. Although most Pakistanis and Afghans disapprove of the Taliban’s methods, the Taliban flourish because most Pakistanis and Afghans endorse their Islamic agenda.

The writer is a former academic with a doctorate in modern history and can be contacted at www.raziazmi.com or raziazmi@hotmail.com