Comparative Politics and Memory: Post-Conflict Narratives in Europe and Asia

Thesis Abstract

This study investigates how post-conflict memory narratives shape contemporary political discourses, policy prioritization, and legitimacy in European and Asian contexts, addressing the gap between collective memory frameworks and transitional justice outcomes. The problem addressed is the uneven integration of memory-based narratives into state-building and conflict reconciliation processes across regions with distinct historical trajectories, where competing memories influence national identity construction and foreign policy orientations. The aim is to compare how memory narratives surrounding past conflicts mediate political legitimacy, pluralism, and intergroup relations, with specific objectives to (1) identify dominant memory frames in selected cases, (2) assess how these frames correlate with policy choices on reconciliation and education, (3) evaluate the role of media, civil society, and elites in shaping memory narratives, and (4) theorize the conditions under which memory-based politics fosters durable peace versus recurrent contestation. The methodology adopts a multi-sited comparative case study design combining Europe (Balkans Serbia and Croatia) and Asia (South Asia Sri Lanka and Pakistan/India border region) to capture divergent memory repertoires and political trajectories. A purposive sampling strategy identifies 4–6 key political actors per case, including government institutions, major political parties, and leading memory-focused civil society organizations. The study uses a mixed-methods approach with a targeted sample of 120 semi-structured elite interviews (30 per country) supplemented by 60 in-depth public memory discourse analyses from national media outlets and 40 policy documents on education, commemorations, and transitional justice initiatives. Data collection instruments include semi-structured interview guides informed by the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm and content analysis protocols for media and policy documents; inter-coder reliability will be established using Cohen’s kappa for a subset of 20 interviews. The theoretical framework draws on the Politics of Memory literature, with explicit engagement of Benedict Anderson’s imagined communities and Hobsbawm and Ranger’s Invented Traditions, complemented by the theoretical lenses of Transitional Justice (Teitel) and Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough) to examine discursive power and legitimacy. Data analysis proceeds through thematic analysis of interview transcripts and discourse materials, followed by regression analysis to test relationships between memory frame salience (coded as restorative, punitive, or inclusive) and policy outcomes (education reform, monument policy, and truth-seeking initiatives). A within-country comparison will be conducted using ANOVA to assess differences across settings, and a cross-country synthesis will employ configurational analysis to identify combination patterns of memory narratives and political outcomes. Validity will be enhanced through triangulation, member checking, and reflexive journaling; reliability will be ensured via codebooks and intercoder agreement thresholds (k > 0.70). Expected findings anticipate that inclusive memory frames aligned with transitional justice commitments correlate with more robust educational reforms and cross-community commemorations, whereas punitive or selective frames align with identity consolidation and contested memory politics, particularly in post-conflict Balkan contexts and South Asian settings with ongoing border tensions. The study expects to reveal how media ecosystems and elite strategic framing mediate memory-politics, with civil society actors capable of shifting dominant narratives under certain institutional incentives. The contribution to knowledge lies in delivering a cross-regional comparative theory of memory politics that integrates discursive analysis with measurable policy outcomes, clarifying the conditions under which memory-work supports durable peace or fosters renewed conflict, and offering a refined typology of memory regimes for comparative inquiry. The main conclusion will articulate a nuanced understanding of memory as a political technology that can legitimize post-conflict governance when embedded in inclusive, justice-oriented frameworks, while highlighting risks where memory becomes a tool of exclusion. Policy recommendations include strengthening education curricula to reflect plural memories, expanding transitional justice mechanisms to enhance civic trust, fostering transnational memory dialogues to mitigate regional rivalries, and promoting media literacy programs to counteract polarized narratives.