<![CDATA[The global discourse on counterradicalism has prompted Muslim-majority countries to adopt a policy of integrating religious moderation into their respective state policies. Nevertheless, the translation of abstract theological concepts into bureaucratic structures remains a subject that is underexplored, particularly in terms of how such concepts are operationalized into distinct governance models within education systems. This study sets out to compare the institutionalisation of “Religious Moderation” in Indonesia and “Wasatiyyah” in Malaysia in the education sectors. Employing a comparative qualitative approach, this study analysed policy documents, national curricula, and semi-structured interview data from key policymakers, educators, and institutional actors in both countries. The data were examined using thematic coding and cross-case analysis to ensure analytical rigor and comparability. The findings reveal a fundamental divergence in the moderation governance model. Indonesia adopts a decentralized and participatory framework that conceptualizes moderation as a “public good” cultivated through Islamic higher education institutions (PTKI) and civil society engagement. In contrast, Malaysia employs a centralised and state-centric model, wherein Wasatiyyah serves as an instrument of “bureaucratic Islam” to ensure political stability and national unity under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s Department. Pedagogically, Indonesia emphasizes epistemological openness and ethical reasoning, while Malaysia utilizes a formative-instructive model relying on top-down standardization. This study contributes theoretically by proposing a multidimensional typology of moderation governance. It delineates the participatory-public model from the bureaucratic-instrumental model by unpacking their contrasting ontological (humanistic–structural), epistemological (reflective–instructive), and axiological (decentralized–centralized) paradigms. These findings imply that the effectiveness of religious moderation policies depends not only on theological articulation but also on the configuration of political authority and institutional design, offering important insights for policymakers and educators in plural societies.]]>
