Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia

Whither the State Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia?

Maintaining Neutrality toward Sectarianism in Academic Life




By Fauzan Saleh



Paper Presented for the International Conference on
“The Ideal of an Indonesian Islamic University:
Contemporary Perspectives”




Administered by
CIDA, UIN Jogjakarta and UIN Jakarta




Jogjakarta

December 9 – 11, 2004 
Whither the State Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia?
Maintaining Neutrality toward Sectarianism in Academic Life

By Fauzan Saleh*)

Abstract

The State Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia (Perguruan Tinggi Agama Islam Negeri, PTAIN) has played an instrumental role in elevating young Muslims to the higher degree of social life. However, this educational institution administered by the Ministry of Religious Affairs, always encounters a serious problem concerning its mission and aims. Since its early foundation, this nation-wide educational system has explicitly declared that this institution has two-pronged aims: propagating Islam and maintaining academic objectivity. In many cases, these two goals may contradict each other. In reality, it is almost impossible for Muslims to relinquish their commitment to their belief, while they have also to keep their objective stance in their academic accomplishment. It seems true that such a problem has made a further consequence for some more practical matters. There have been prevailing rivalries in gaining structural positions in the campus bureaucracy among the Muslim groups. In general, the academic life in Indonesia could not successfully free itself from the sectarian (or political) groups flourishing outside the campus The tensions resulted from this matter have ignored the fundamental character of the academic life, and, to some extent, jeopardized the sense of rationality and objectivity. Staff members are then attracted only to seize the strategic positions in the campus bureaucracy. If the stakeholders of the State Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia could not overcome this problem quickly, it would be hard for Muslims to achieve an ideal form of educational system. This article tries to examine how this tendency toward sectarianism is still clearly manifested in the campus life, and to which extent it influences the academic achievement so far. Ideally, as a public institution funded and administered by the State, this Islamic higher education system should maintain its neutrality toward any sectarian group or interest.

During the last few years before the end of the last century, we witnessed that Indonesian students at the university levels are more and more attracted to be involved in political activities, including those in the State Islamic Higher Education (UIN, IAIN and STAIN) throughout the country. Their interest in politics found its venue especially when Suharto was overthrown and forced to resign from his presidency. This era was celebrated as the end of the New Order era, in which people found their euphoria to free themselves from any restraint to express their political aspirations. Young people were challenged to express their political concerns by taking parts in huge demonstrations taking place several days in the Parliament Building and other strategic corners of the town. Students then occupied the building until they successfully forced the President to step down, and submitted his authority to the new leader. This euphoria resulted from the so-called “Reformasi” has invigorated the students’ sense of politics after being curtailed for many years since the flourishing of the New Order regime in the mid-1970s.
However, since this political openness took place too drastically and suddenly, many people were unprepared, and thus they had to make new allies and associate themselves with those belonging to the same ideals or beliefs. They felt they were secured only when they were in the midst of those who belonged to the same ideals or beliefs. Discrepancy was viewed as a danger and was suspected as a threat. The tendency was considered to be the foundation of the emergence of “sectarianism” in general political life, which, in turn, also gave a great influence to the academic circumstances in the university campuses, including the ones belonging to the Islamic Higher Education Institutions.
The phenomenon of the reemergence of sectarianism was an inevitable consequence of the establishment of multifarious political parties, during the early era of Reformasi with its euphoric manifestations. In congruence with this phenomenon, in addition to the crisis of reliance directed to the state administration, political sectarianism also passed through campus life. This is because there has been a freedom of expressing one’s political aspirations, while the state had no much to do, due to the faults made by the previous oppressive regime. When a tendency toward sectarianism was very common in the university campuses, what one may hope when students and their lecturers were more attracted to deal with political issues than with their primary duties of accomplishing their intellectual achievement? It has been the knowledge of everybody that the university campuses bear a great responsibility of producing professional scholars capable of overcoming the multi-dimensional crisis endured by the nation in general.
Recently, the influence of political sectarianism has been significantly felt in the university campuses, including those of the Islamic Higher Education. Moreover, this inclination has been also felt as a “parasite” that endangers the main duty of the higher educational institutions. Ideally, as an academic institution, the university and the educational institutions in general, should be free of the interference of the political interests from without. The university campus is basically an institution where young people are trained to examine all subject matters rationally and objectively, and thus it should eliminate all political and sectarian interests. It should facilitate a space where the ideals of cultivating young educated people having highly venerable characters may be easily achieved. Yet, it is not easy to accomplish that duty. It requires a strong intellectual commitment, honesty, independent thought, and hard work to realize those ideals by those in charge in the campus life. This commitment should be a social capital to intensify the realization of such an ideal.
The current emergence of the sectarian politics is inevitable. It has a strong foundation in the social history of our nation. This sectarian politics got its validity when the political interests were established on the basis of primordial discrepancies or ideologies, originating from religious as well as non-religious beliefs, such as socialism and nationalism. However, it is still possible to come from ethnic or locality sentiments. In real political contexts, these discrepancies would overlap. In this country, the political currents will be in rivalry between Islam, secular-nationalists, and socialists-democrat. These variables are represented by religious groups, such as the Muhammadiyah, NU, ICMI, and (in the past) Masyumi, PNI, and still many others. Thus, the discrepancy originating from the past political ideologies might reemerge in the present time, manifesting all tendencies of political sectarism.
Though it is very common to see that the political issues influence other aspect of non-political domains, in reality, when they penetrate into the academic life of the university campuses, they cause very crucial consequences. In the classical era of Islamic history, we may refer to the establishment of the Nizamiyah madrasah by the great and wise vizier Nizam al-Mulk (d. 1092). The madrasah was founded to defend the Sunni theological doctrines against the Shi’ite beliefs which had been widely propagated in the society. In such a case, there were many restrictions in the fields of science taught in this institution. As a bastion for defending the orthodox beliefs, this madrasah only taught the Sunnite doctrinal beliefs. Likewise, there was a very strict preference in deciding any teaching staff. Only those assured to be thoroughly Sunnites were accepted as lecturers at the institution. Accordingly, not every textbook was allowed to be distributed or studied. Students were entirely directed to study the Sunnite beliefs, and were not allowed to study any other beliefs or other branch of knowledge beyond the ones determined by the authority. In other words, there was no freedom of thought in this madrasah institution, since it was established for the interests of propagating and defending the Sunnites beliefs against the existing Shi’ite doctrines.
In the present time, however, such a tendency gets its way to penetrate into any field of social activity, including the campus life. The student organization in the campuses has experienced a lot of changes since the last five or more years. The students did not like to take a term usually made in the previous era to identify their structural organization. They prefer to use particular terms having some more political sense, such as the “president,” instead of merely the chairman, of the Student Government. This student government now takes a new name, the Student Republic (Republik Mahasiswa). As the president of the student republic, he has the authority to govern over the Executive Body of the Students (Badan Eksekutif Mahasiswa, BEM). Interestingly, this intra-campus student government is hardly capable of staying away from the influence of the extra-campus student organizations, which have strong affiliation with the nation-wide political or ideological currents. It is understandable, therefore, that it is almost impossible to eliminate the influence of those extra-campus students’ organizations as well as of those ideological currents.
Nevertheless, it is still advantageous for the students to experience such a fundamental change in the contemporary political movements. The students are accordingly made more mindful of the political issues, and are effectively trained to get involved more seriously in the political progression, though with some inevitable risks. It is very common that in politics one will be allowed to take advantage from every given authority to win rivalries by inviting young and ardent students who are perceived as potential human sources to support the interests of the elite politicians. Inevitably, the political movement will greatly attract the students’ alertness in the Islamic Higher Education. There has been a systematic and organized effort to mobilize those young students in order to support the authority of particular leaders or to oppose the ones who are to be refused.
The involvement of students in political sectarianism has clearly caused much distortion to the neutrality and impartiality of these educational institutions. It is frequently witnessed that the rivalries among figures in taking the strategic positions in the campus bureaucracy, such as rector, dean, or the head of departments, are mostly based on the sectarian and political considerations rather than on objective and rational choice. In many cases students are invited to get involved in giving support to either party in order to win the rivalries. They are seen as potential and powerful forces through their rallies required to realizing the political ambitions of those figures. Of course, if the sense of objectivity and impartiality disappear from the campus life, it will endanger the realization of the fundamental goal of universal learning activities. Especially in the Islamic Higher Education, such impartiality is absolutely required, since, otherwise, there will be no chance to embedding the sense of inclusive, moderate and tolerant religiosity.
But, what actually attracts the students of the Islamic Higher Education in particular to be more engaged in political movements? Indonesian university campuses were made barren of political involvement for many years during the New Order era under the Suharto administration. This was due to the implementation of the state policy called “Normalization of the Campus Life” (Normalisasi Kehidupan Kampus, NKK) during the 1980s, in which students were prohibited to take parts in designing political decisions of the nation. They were only allowed to make exalted achievements in academic matters, to be good students having high grades for their courses. Their involvement in designing the nation’s political matters was seen as only disturbing the authority of the state holders. When the New Order regime was finally overthrown, the chance for political activities was widely open. The characterization of the university campus as an “ivory tower” was then demolished, after it had been an effective pretext employed by the ruler to seclude the students from their awareness of the actual problems encountered by their nation. In the past, under the New Order administration, the campus was merely designed for an academic community, in which no political activity was allowed, including rally and demonstration. Now, it seems impossible to see any university campus which is totally free from students’ demonstration. There is a strong impression that the students would lose their momentum of their youth psychological maturation if they did not get involved in political rallies. Or, as students, they would feel less confident if they did not experience some violence caused by the police while undertaking the rallies in the roadway. They claim that the real political training is the one experienced on the streets, and the courses they get in the classrooms are only accumulation of obsolete theories which have no relevancy with the actual life.
The students are very much bothered with a question of what is actually wrong with their country. With such a question in their mind, they would not like to postpone their involvement in the political movements by taking parts in deciding the objective and the future of their nation. Therefore, it is not surprising to see that political movements are always magnetizing for these young students to get involved more closely. On the other hand, in spite of their idealism and zeal to bring about the social and political changes, their involvement in political movement is actually meant to be an “economic enterprise.” Honestly, they are anticipating some particular possibilities to seize the chance of winning the future livelihood through their on road political training. In addition, through this political involvement too that they hope to be economically elevated, by gaining some better position in the social life. In many developing countries like Indonesia, in which the rate of educated unemployment is still very high, political vocation becomes greatly promising. In the past, political recruitment during the early ascent of the New Order rule, was mostly based on the phenomenon of the road rallies. It was on the road political activities, and not on a piece of diploma, that the process of leadership recruitment was actually undertaken. Many of the current political leaders originally came from this model of political recruitment process. It is reasonable, therefore, that today we witness many of the contemporary students are very much engaged in recurring the previous experience made by their senior activists.
By referring to the above exposition, we may assume that the university campuses may become only stepping-stones for young people to achieve a formal status as students. This status as a university student, they believe, has served as an effective medium for winning the access to some more promising position in the future. In the meantime they also realize that the sciences they have studied for very long time in the campus are not always suitable for their livelihood or may meet their career requirement. For them, both the education and work market do not necessarily have real applicability; they always go on different tracks. Many graduates of the law faculty, for instance, have to be contented to become language teachers in senior high schools, rather than to be professional lawyers. Scholars’ booming which has been under way since the last 1980s, besides very benefiting, also becomes a problem in itself. It was not always easy to get a suitable job in accordance with their academic achievement. Accordingly, it is not surprising to see many of them have to continue their study to the graduate levels, not because of their eagerness to increase their academic accomplishment, but merely because they have to spend their spare time waiting for an appropriate job. Becoming on road political activists, these young students are actually making a bargaining process, by virtue of which they strive to gain one of potential economic resources. Political movement was seen as the most possible chance to ensure the security their future livelihood.
It was from this perspective that we should consider why many of the students at the Islamic Higher Education strive to make their future in the political activities. They are deeply aware that religious sciences give only very limited chance for their future livelihood. On the other hand, the current social structure is felt as particularly unfair for the devout Muslims as well as for the graduates of the Islamic Higher Education. If they want to apply to be civil servants, for instance, among some thirty-two departments of the state bureaucracy, the most possible chance for them is only the one provided by the Department of Religious Affairs. This is unlike for those who graduate from non-religious universities, whose chance to be accepted as civil servants is more widely open, in addition to have practical knowledge and skills based on their academic training. Since the chance to be accepted as civil servants or to win work market rivalry is considerably very limited in the field of religion, many of Muslim leaders do not encourage their children to continue their higher education in Islamic educational institutions. It is not surprising, therefore, that very few lecturers and civil servants working in UIN, IAIN and STAIN are sincerely fond of having their children enroll in the educational institutions they acquire their academic career. They will be more contented if their children are registered as students in general, non-religious universities. In this respect, it is fairly questionable when some Muslim leaders in particular regions in this country demand to apply the Islamic legal system (shari’ah) thoroughly. Economically, the application of Islamic legal system may help sustain the high position of devout Muslims in the new social structure, in addition to their sincere fidelity to Islamic precepts.
Based on the above consideration, it can be understood why many young Muslim students in Islamic universities look very impassioned to advance their future career in political movements rather than in religious matters. Working for politics is more promising and is more widely open, disregarding their basic educational background. Their eagerness to establish their future on politics has been assured by their awareness that many devout Muslims today, including those with the traditional Islamic educational background, become more and more prominent in the national political discourse. They successfully occupy some high ranks of the state political structure. Yet, their career in politics would not be easily achieved without joining some particular training. Many of those devout Muslim politicians were originally zealot activists in their university campus. This fact has been an effective justification for young Muslims to be more actively involved in political movements since the early years of their study. Their involvement in political activities, in addition to their eagerness to develop their academic and intellectual aptitudes, has been a fruitful channel to pursue the high rank of political achievements. It is in this respect that we should understand why many of young Muslim students are eagerly taking parts in political movements, though only by joining some rallies or voicing some particular concerns, as well as influencing the public opinion.
Political activities, besides promising, also have some incontestable merit for the university students. However, as has been previously explained, interpolating political activities in the campus life and entangling students in political enterprise may cause some dreadful risks. It should be reconsidered, therefore, how to put these two sides of political issues in a proportional deliberation. Students and young activists should not be allowed to be sightless of politics, or ignorant of political changes that always take place dynamically in their country. Nevertheless, to some extent, the university campuses should maintain their impartiality from political activities. This should be firmly declared, since it would be of great harm to bring the university campus to particular political sectarianism. The university campuses, with their human resources of young and ardent students, would be merely an extension of political interests of dominant groups from without. In this regard the campus would not be capable of maintaining its fundamental mission as the bastion for developing intellectual aptitude, with its objective, independent and rational characters. But is it possible to isolate the university campuses from political interests? It should be. At least, there is a possible chance if everybody in charge of the campus administration maintains his or her commitment to the ultimate mission of the Islamic Higher Education.
There are several steps that can be earnestly considered to realize this ideal image of Islamic Higher Education vis-a-vis the political dilemma. The first is that the campus should maintain its impartiality, liberty, and objectivity, without any threat from the prevailing political restrictions, in developing the academic accomplishment. The second is that all the campus stakeholders should realize that their ultimate responsibility deals mainly with the advancement of knowledge through the intensive learning and teaching activities. It means that the university should be a center of learning and intellectual enterprises, having a high responsibility of cultivating the sense of criticism and enlightenment for young people, both for intellectual and spiritual domains. Finally, it should be recognized that it is mostly impossible to isolate the campus from the tendency toward political sectarianism. Nevertheless, if the campus stakeholders would like to get involved in politics, their most possible chance can be securely found in the domain of discourse. In other words, the academic people are only allowed to be engaged in “high politics,” and not in political sectarianism. If they could fairly maintain such a commitment, all the public affairs dealing with the campus policy, including the campus leadership succession, could be undertaken in sound and fair fashions, without sacrificing its fundamental objectives.