Having explored the post-violence memoryscapes of Cambodia, Rwanda, and Indonesia, this final chapter seeks to distil the key insights learned from each and juxtapose them across the cases. Having studied each of these in-depth, it is my hope that a comparison of similarities and differences between the cases will allow us to learn something that could be more broadly applicable. In this vein, the chapter will demonstrate analytically how the two theoretical concepts of mnemonic role attributions and ambivalence impact and are influenced by the politics of memory in post-violence societies and tease out some core insights into this relationship.

In bringing together the three cases for such a structured comparison, I delineate insights on how political actors use the memory of past violence and the roles that are attributed within it to stabilize or augment their political power in post-violence societies. This chapter will show what we can analytically see when we apply the idea of mnemonic role attributions, how it is useful in understanding post-violence politics of memory and whether there may be some patterns to how political actors use them.

In essence, mnemonic role attributions are categorizations of actors, their roles, their responsibility, and their suffering as they are remembered regarding a certain period of time and thus allow us to see what meanings are ascribed to the past violence by engaging not in in-depth analysis of narratives, but seeing who is blamed for the violence, who is deemed to have fallen prey to it, whose actions are seen as heroic, and so on.