Many countries are currently experiencing rising tensions at both national and global levels.
Factors such as the trade war triggered by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, global supply chain disruptions, the rise of authoritarian regimes, and politically and religiously charged conflicts have contributed to this trend.
Cross-group communication is therefore considered essential for mitigating the negative impacts of polarization and promoting more constructive cooperation.
These issues were explored during the unconference titled “Polarization and Its Discontent in the Global South: Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Policies” held on April 24–25, 2025, at the UC Hotel, Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), Yogyakarta.
The international event, organized by the Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies (ICRS) at UGM, focused on four major themes: Religion-Based Polarization, Polarization and Environmental Justice, Gender, Polarization, and Social Justice, and Digital Inclusion for Minority Groups.
Dr. Dicky Sofjan, a lecturer at ICRS, stated during a press briefing on Monday (Apr. 28) that countries need to address signs of polarization through strategic public policies and dedicated depolarization programs.
Meanwhile, Dr. Zainal Abidin Bagir, a scholar and advocate for human rights and religious freedom from the UGM Graduate School, emphasized that religion is often politicized to deepen social divides.
He highlighted the potential of inclusive religious narratives to address identity-based conflicts.
The unconference began with a talk show titled “Polarization and Its Discontent in the Global South.”
Daniel Medina, from the Institute for Integrated Transitions in Colombia, explained that in Colombia, political transitions have consistently identified polarization as a “hyper problem”—a condition that exacerbates other conflicts.
He noted that polarization can lead to social stagnation and deepen divisions between societal groups.
“Polarization can widen inequality gaps and hinder efforts to resolve structural issues,” he said.
Ana Carolina Evangelista, from the Instituto de Estudos da Religião (ISER), Brazil, discussed how polarization in Brazil has resulted from political radicalization.
She explained that although Brazil has historically embraced a diversity of political parties and ideologies, recent trends indicate a growing intolerance and ideological rigidity.
Evangelista noted that today’s political discourse in Brazil has become increasingly extreme, particularly during periods of socio-economic crisis.
“In recent Brazilian politics, religious debates have entered the public sphere, further deepening ideological polarization,” she said.
Professor Nicholas Adams, from the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, shared his insights on religious and social dynamics in England.
He introduced the concept of cui bono (who benefits), arguing that polarization is often artificially constructed by specific actors.
Professor Adams noted that polarization often fosters an “us vs. them” mentality that does not accurately reflect actual social conditions.
As an example, he mentioned that in Birmingham—a city of 2.2 million people, where roughly 30% are Muslim, 30% Christian, and the rest unaffiliated—significant religious polarization has not occurred.
He cited a sanitation workers’ strike, where interfaith leaders collaborated to mediate the conflict, as evidence that political narratives often exaggerate divisions.
“I believe this shows how political narratives often amplify polarization,” he said.
Nurhuda Ramly, a researcher from IMAN Research, Malaysia, discussed the dynamics of ethnicity and religion in Malaysia.
She described political Islamization as an example of ethno-religious polarization.
Nurhuda explained that policies in the 1980s prioritizing Malay Islam as a constitutional principle created tensions with non-Muslim communities.
The establishment of a national religious ministry regulating various aspects of daily life led to new policies, such as limiting the display of minority religious symbols at public events.
She cited cases where these regulations marginalized non-Muslim groups.
“As a result, political actors can easily spread hate narratives against minorities to win majority support,” she said.
Author: Leony
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Post-editor: Afifudin Baliya