Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Religious moderation has increasingly entered public-policy agendas in Indonesia, yet existing scholarship often examines its educational, community, institutional, and communicative dimensions separately, leaving their integration as an institutional policy process insufficiently explained. This study examines how religious moderation is institutionalized as public policy for addressing social polarization, the strategies and implementation conditions involved, and the monitoring and evaluation arrangements relevant to implementation and social outcomes. A qualitative documentary analysis was conducted using official Indonesian policy and strategic documents on religious moderation issued or enacted between 2020 and 2025, complemented by scholarly literature on documented implementation experiences and relevant social processes. The materials were examined through thematic analysis involving familiarization, analytical coding, cross-source comparison, and interpretive synthesis. The findings show that religious moderation has acquired a formal institutional architecture through policy direction, organizational mandates, implementation arrangements, coordination, and monitoring. Substantive implementation, however, depends on institutional capacity, multi-level coordination, meaningful participation, local adaptation, educational practice, rights safeguards, and public communication. The analysis further distinguishes implementation indicators from social-outcome indicators, showing that administrative activities and formal institutionalization do not by themselves demonstrate reduced polarization. The study therefore conceptualizes religious moderation as a layered institutional process in which its relevance to social polarization operates through institutional and intergroup processes. This framework provides a more precise basis for implementing and evaluating religious-moderation policy without equating policy adoption with demonstrated social effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alshodiq et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: