By Sara Ann Friedman

The initial idea for Mostafa Shiblee was as simple and logical as carrying an umbrella in the rain. A gifted speaker himself, winner of several prizes for public speaking, Shiblee believed that creating parliamentary-style debate clubs throughout the secondary schools in Bangladesh could help cure a widespread affliction of student violence and drug addiction.

As a Master's degree student in English Literature at Dhaka University during the 1980's, Shiblee's studies were seriously affected by the grim combination of violence and apathy that had become the hallmark of Bangladeshi student life. The forced closing of the University because of student disturbances prolonged the length of his own education from four to eight years.

Shiblee watched in frustration and sadness as thousands of students, including many friends, took to drug addiction, rampaging in the streets, destroying public property, even killing each other. Compounding the situation, Shiblee says, was a badly crippled Western system of education designed for the elite, for the promotion of an obedient good-soldier citizenry and imposed on a culture for whom it had little relevance or meaning.

Teaching Schools to Transform

But in 1991, when the establishment of Bangladesh's first democratic government opened the door for change, Shiblee's dream went into high gear. He set out to establish a system of parliamentary debates to teach students to identify and analyze their country's problems, develop thoughful, imaginative methods to solve them and learn about conflict resolution.

By learning these things before they got to university, they could restore a constructive student activism based on social responsibility and develop a new generation of leaders in a democratic society. They would also improve listening skills and independent thinking, the essence of quality education in the modern world.

At the same time, he well understood the effort embodied in bringing debate clubs into a school system with no experience in organized extra-curricular activities. He also understood the far larger challenge of social transformation required to incorporate democratic skills in a country with so few years of democratic experience. But Shiblee's combination of determination and faith in people, rather than systems or institutions, kept him going.

From Vision to Reality

In 1995 he got his chance. A stipend from Ashoka and income generated from his own flourishing business venture – a matchmaking (marriage) agency gave Shiblee the resources to carry out Stage I of his project. Operating as a team of one in 12 schools in Dhaka City, where he had convinced local authorities to try out the program, Shiblee worked endless hours over the next two years, wading through the bureaucracy, filling out papers, negotiating with prospective donors, and – of course – developing and testing a program with students and teachers.

There was no systematic plan or structure at that time, he recalls. In December 1997, funds from the Norwegian Government permitted him to enlarge his effort to 24 schools and 20,000 students with a staff of 13. He also established an NGO called Working for a Better Life (WBL) which administers the full-scale program, entitled Debate for Social Change.

His next step was to develop a model program for the 24 schools, which were specificly chosen because they were the most in need: crowded (at least 1,000 students in each), with a low-income population and evidence of violence, drugs, and other unhealthy behavior. The selection was based on field visits and information provided by the Department of Education.

Knocking and Hammering

The overall positive response of school authorities surprised Shiblee. At the same time, he cites his careful preparation with higher government levels and credits the circular issued by the Director General of the Department of Education that urged cooperation with WBL. "Most," he says, "instantly accepted our offer, readily encouraged us to work with the students. But there were some officials who exhibited a more covert form of resistance. They could not argue," he said, "about the program's ethical or educational value. So they dragged their feet and blamed the bureaucracy. Teachers and headmasters 'forgot' or canceled appointments. They told me they had more important things to do and that the students couldn't really afford the time."

But Shiblee was persistent, and eventually WBL signed a Memorandum of Understanding with each of the 24 schools. WBL'S spreading reputation brought a large number of requests by authorities, teachers and students in other schools to be included in the program.

Shiblee notes the victimization of teachers by the system and points to their untapped potential of as one of the most important lessons he has learned. While there were a number who remain uninterested, even careless, he is duly impressed by the voluntary spirit and keen desire for social change within this low-paid profession. "They never refuse our requests for help; they always manage to arrange a debate class; they urge the students to participate and have more and more become involved in helping them do research and discuss the issues. They actually thank us for taking this initiative and apologize for being unable to offer such a program on their own."

The students themselves are, of course, the key players for whom the school authorities and teachers play supporting roles. And it was the students themselves whose enthusiasm took over the knocking and hammering. To the surprise of many, girls, without prompting, have taken front and center stage. They comprise over 60 percent of the student debaters and are the most thoughtful and ardent arguers, Shiblee says. Two forty-minute school sessions per week are allotted to the program, while the students use their free time for research, collecting case studies, discussion and other homework.

The Big Debate Led to Big Ideas

To accommodate the greatest participation of the greatest number of students, a festive Special Exhibition Day involving national celebrities was developed. The first three topics chosen were Drug Addiction, Women's and Children's Rights, and Garbage Management and Environment Pollution.

Broader societal links are built into the program as judges for the final debate are drawn from government officials, school authorities and parents. And following the final debate, the students prepare and send legislative and policy proposals to Parliament. Shiblee is enthusiastic about how spontaneously the students have taken hold of this component. For example, students debating on garbage management met with the Mayor of Dhaka with a proposal to privatize the cleaning.

The debate on drug addiction, just completed, has spawned a volley of proposals from students that includes identification of drug addicts among their friends, counseling, and meetings with local police to curb the black market availability. A group of girls has put forth a plan to set up a school garden nursery to generate income from renting out plants for parties, public events and holiday celebrations that would help pay for books and materials for the clubs.

Looking Ahead

Before the first year of the special debates is even over, Shiblee is thinking about the challenges ahead. There are the immediate questions about how to evaluate the program and monitor its participation, how to find the resources to keep growing, how to use the debate clubs as a model for improving the quality and relevance of schools themselves.

If the schools take over the program, he says, I think that my long-cherished dream will have come true. He hopes that eventually, the program will be come sustainable with WBL serving as a valuable resource. Shiblee can think of no greater reward than to put himself out of business. But he is not ready to let go. Not just yet.