Editor's note: This article is a digest of the author's paper "Teaching Tolerance in Mindanao" published on September 8, 2005 in IAG's ARMM in Transition Series. Read the complete paper here.

Educating for peace is a slow process and unlike peace agreements cannot claim to bring instant and spectacular results. The success indicators of peace education are intangibles – a change of attitudes and the formation of peace values. Thus, one of the greatest challenges in doing peace education in Mindanao is to nurture patience and perseverance not only among the learners but also among the educators themselves.

Also, since dividends of peace education are in the long term, there are very few institutional partners who are willing to support long-haul peace education programs causing a severe shortage in material resources and faculty who can develop, promote and sustain peace education. While peace education as part of the curricular offering is supported by students’ tuition, there is lack of resources for the continuing education of peace educators, review and improvement of peace education curriculum, production of modules, textbooks and reading materials, and the conduct of non-formal peace education in grassroots communities.

There is also the need for peace educators to be ready to expand their paradigm of peace and peace education, especially in the face of changing realities. The resurgence of terrorism brings us back to the drawing board in order to revisit and evaluate peace education to the end that it will be relevant and responsive to present realities.

The holistic character of peace education requires comprehensive programs in education, advocacy, action and research on diverse fronts and levels. We do experience fragmentation and disunity of purpose and action between academic programs and peace centers. The challenge is to consolidate all efforts through better coordination, networking and cooperation between and among peace education centers.

Another challenge is to maintain a healthy balance between peace education and direct intervention in conflict situations. There exists some tension between peace educators and community peace workers who feel that peace education must be drawn out of community experiences. On the other hand, peace educators challenge peace workers to develop a conceptual framework in doing peace work.

Despite the strides of peace education in Mindanao, there are concerns that those in it are already moderate Christians and Muslims and that educating for peace is not actually making a substantial impact on terrorist groups that use, or more accurately misuse, religion to advance their agenda. We must pursue at all times opportunities to reach out to extremist elements, both Christian and Muslim. But it is equally important for us to continue working toward ensuring that moderate Muslims and Christians continue to take the path of peace in resolving violent conflicts.

In his assessment of the peace education at Notre Dame University which reflects the conditions in Mindanao, Dr. Toh identified some key lessons learned: 1) The need to authentically practice collaboration and horizontally so that both North and South partners equitably share knowledge, skills, creative energies, and risks in a spirit of mutual respect and avoid the “I am more expert” syndrome contrary to peace pedagogy; 2) The importance of constructive and non-ideological communication, understandable to all stakeholders and keeping minds and hearts open to the message of peace building; 3) An active linking of academic programs and learning with community contexts and realities; 4) A facilitative institutional leadership at the most senior levels; 5) The indispensability of a holistic concept of peace; and6) The supportive values of assertiveness, hopefulness, patience and perseverance. (Toh, S.H.Floresca-Cawagas, V. & Durante, O. (1993). Building a peace education program: Critical reflection on the Notre Dame University experience in the Philippines. In A. Bjersted (Ed.). Peace education: Global perspectives. (pp. 111-146). Malmo: Almqvist & Wiksell International.)

In deeply rooted conflicts like that in Mindanao, there are few role models for religious tolerance among the older generation. In the conflict zones, students are often torn between what they are taught in peace education classes, on one hand, and their own family and community values, on the other. In a culture where family and community values take precedence over all others, it is wishful thinking to believe that the young can change or even question their elders’ strong abhorrence to those whose faith is different from theirs. We can only hope that, once these students get on with their own life, they will be able to live by the peace values they learned in school. 

It seems to me that there is something “generational” in the continuing animosity between Christians and Muslims in Mindanao. When professors from my university were designing an inter-religious dialogue program for students, they were worried about the prospect of the discussions on religion getting out of hand and thus further worsen animosity between Christians and Muslims. So they came up with a design that limited the initial session to questions about each other’s faith, with answers to be made only in subsequent sessions. During the pilot class, the ten Muslims and ten Christian students reacted strongly against the questions-first-answers-afterwards rule. They insisted that they should be able to answer questions about their own faith, staged a “mutiny” of sorts, and on their own took control of facilitating the discussions. While the students were engaged in a spirited and frank and yet respectful discourse, the facilitators, by then sidelined as observers, felt both amused and shamed by the capacity of young people to go beyond their own fears and their own culture’s prejudices.

In that session, the young gave our generation an important insight: While we claim to teach tolerance and respect for diversity, we continue to allow our fears, biases and prejudices to rule our relations with those who do not share our own beliefs. How much of the fears and biases of this generation are transmitted to the next is a question that begs an answer in this era where intolerance that breeds religious extremism disturbs the peace in pluralistic societies.

Peace educators in Mindanao have almost given up on this generation. Our efforts are now geared towards sowing the seed of peace, tolerance and respect for pluralism in young Muslims and Christians in Mindanao through an educative process that emphasizes active engagement between cultures and religions. To speak of the track record of peace education in Mindanao at this time does not involve any empirical data but of stories of people and organizations who have transformed and were likewise transformed by this educative process, slow and incremental yet leaves lasting impressions on the primacy of the dignity of persons and respect for humanity which is the key in resolving violent conflicts in a constructive way.

The author, Institute for Autonomy and Governance Founder and Executive Director Benedicto Bacani, is former dean of the College of Law of Notre Dame University in Cotabato City.