Remembering well: why memorialisation matters for democracy
How societies remember their past is never neutral. From statues and museums to laws and anniversaries, memorialisation shapes who belongs, whose voices are heard, and which futures feel possible. In regions experiencing conflict, democratic backsliding or contested histories, these questions become even more urgent.
At a recent JST Fellows session, Professor Hans Gutbrod of Ilia State University invited Fellows to explore the ethics of political commemoration — not as an abstract academic exercise, but as a practical leadership challenge facing many of the societies they work in today.
Amy Melson, JST programme manager, said: “The discussion reflects the John Smith Trust’s focus on reflective, collaborative leadership and the need to understand how the past shapes us, our relationships and the systems and institutions around us.”
Memory as a political force
Professor Gutbrod began with a powerful premise: debates about history are no longer confined to classrooms or archives. Across Europe, Eurasia and beyond, memory has become a central political battleground — what some scholars call “memory wars”.
As societies become more secular, history increasingly plays the role of moral arbiter: defining good and evil, heroes and villains, legitimacy and betrayal. In this context, the question is no longer simply what happened, but how should we remember it — and to what end?
As Professor Gutbrod put it: “Memorialisation is never just about the past. It is always a claim about the present — and a proposal for the future. The ethical question for leaders is not whether to remember, but how to do so without closing down democratic debate.”
For Fellows working in Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Russia and neighbouring regions, this framing resonated deeply. Many described how memorialisation can entrench polarisation, reinforce grievance narratives, or be weaponised by authoritarian actors.
Towards an ethics of political commemoration
To navigate this complexity, Professor Gutbrod introduced a structured framework he calls the ethics of political commemoration, adapted from ethical thinking in conflict and peacebuilding.
The framework distinguishes between two core questions:
What should we commemorate?
– Is the intention constructive or divisive?
– Is there a just cause grounded in lived experience?
– Who has legitimate authority, and is it broadly trusted?
– Does the initiative have a reasonable chance of contributing to a better future rather than re-traumatisation?
How should we commemorate?
– Does it transcend fixed victim–perpetrator categories?
– Does it avoid repeating closed, circular narratives?
– Does it foster moral autonomy rather than imposing a single “truth”?
– Does it balance emotional impact with restraint — what Gutbrod describes as “contained unfathomability”?
Rather than prescribing answers, the framework offers a shared language for disagreement — a way to move debates beyond shouting matches and into more thoughtful, democratic exchange.
Lessons from practice: what works — and what doesn’t
Fellows explored real-world examples to test the framework.
Positive cases included initiatives that transformed national trauma into outward-looking solidarity, such as Armenia’s Aurora Prize, which honours contemporary humanitarian action rather than centring only on historical suffering. These examples showed how memorialisation can exit purely national narratives and speak to universal values.
More problematic cases — such as rigid “memory laws” or poorly legitimised monuments — illustrated how commemoration can freeze debate, exclude marginalised voices, and ultimately undermine democratic culture.
What emerged clearly was that process matters as much as outcome. Broad consultation, artistic expression, youth participation and transparency were repeatedly identified as factors that strengthen legitimacy and public trust.
Memorialisation in real time
One of the most challenging questions raised by Fellows was whether ethical memorialisation is possible during an ongoing conflict — particularly relevant for Ukraine.
The discussion acknowledged there are no easy answers. Digital platforms, social media and constant exposure collapse traditional boundaries between mourning, activism and daily life. Yet Fellows noted that the core ethical principles remain relevant: respect for scale and suffering, care in representation, and awareness of long-term consequences.
Importantly, the session created space for uncertainty. And Fellows reflected that simply having a structured way to think about these dilemmas made it easier to approach them with humility rather than fear.
Why this matters for leadership
Professor Gutbrod highlighted how reflection on the past can impact the present, by helping leaders intervene thoughtfully rather than reactively. Across regions and political contexts, Fellows identified memorialisation as a leadership issue — not only for politicians, but for civil society leaders, educators, artists, lawyers and policymakers.
The outcomes extended beyond the topic itself:
- Connections across countries and disciplines, enabling comparative learning
- Confidence in personal agency to engage with sensitive public debates
- Skills in critical thinking, listening and ethical analysis
- Motivation to foster openness, tolerance and respect in polarised environments
As Parviz Baghirov, one of the Fellows, said: “I was struck by how memorialisation can simultaneously address the past and actively shape present-day power relations, especially in societies dealing with contested histories. I would welcome deeper engagement with voices that are currently marginalised and more comparative perspectives across regions facing democratic backsliding.”
From reflection to practice
Building on this discussion, the John Smith Trust is exploring ways to integrate memorialisation and dealing with the past into future programming — including the next ideas exchange residential — using local UK case studies and Fellows’ own proposed initiatives as shared learning tools.
This reflects a wider commitment of the Trust: to equip leaders not just with technical knowledge, but with the ethical frameworks and relational skills needed to navigate complexity.
In societies where democracy is under pressure, remembering well is not a luxury. It is a form of civic leadership.
Read Andranik Shirinyan’s article on how sharing stories is helping Armenia heal from trauma