Collective Memory Ownership: The Struggle Between Power and the People

By Osayma Al-Saadawi

Since the emergence of the modern state, controlling collective memory has been an essential tool of political power. Memory is rarely left to unfold spontaneously within societies; instead, it is appropriated by state institutions—curricula, media, museums, and even architecture. These mechanisms act as filters, promoting official narratives of history and events to justify the present and legitimize political futures. Those who control collective memory possess the power to reshape national identity itself.

Totalitarian regimes offer the harshest examples, erasing or rewriting events to align with state interests. The Soviet Union, for instance, repeatedly rewrote the history of the revolution according to shifting party dynamics. Conversely, people use memory as a form of resistance, commemorating oppression and sacrifice through folk songs, murals, and digital documentation.

Thus, the past becomes a contested political arena: the state seeks monopoly, while the people fight to reclaim it as part of their identity and historical legitimacy.

Maurice Halbwachs’ concept of collective memory is central to understanding this dynamic. Memory is not merely an individual recall of events; it is socially constructed and maintained within collective frameworks. Individual memories are continually shaped and reshaped through social interactions and shared reference points—family, religion, profession, or nation. Collective memory is inherently selective: certain aspects of the past are highlighted while others are marginalized to serve present needs and future aspirations.

The connection between memory and power becomes evident in the ability of ruling authorities to manipulate historical narratives for their benefit. States seek to cement legitimacy and maintain influence by promoting a specific collective memory while suppressing alternative accounts.

In Turkey, for example, banning references to historical events concerning minorities, particularly Kurds, serves as a tool to impose a unified national identity. This is enforced through control of curricula, media, and public discourse, ensuring the dominance of official narratives. Memory thus shifts from a tool of identity-building to an instrument of repression, creating a battlefield between those allowed to remember and those silenced.

In the Middle East, struggles over collective memory are particularly acute, where historical narratives justify authority, legitimize violence, and marginalize minorities. Libya, Syria, and Lebanon illustrate how memory battles shape political and social realities.

Libya: Militia Struggles over Civil War Narratives

After the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, Libya descended into chaos, with militias competing for control of territory and resources. This struggle extended beyond military dominance to control over collective memory. Each militia promotes its own narrative of the civil war to legitimize its presence and actions. Western Libya militias justified their hold over Tripoli as “defending the revolution,” while Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army framed its eastern campaigns as “fighting terrorism.” These competing narratives entrenched regional and tribal divisions, complicating national identity formation and reconciliation. A UN report confirmed that “hate speech and incitement to violence by conflict actors have exacerbated divisions and deepened the crisis.”

Syria: Civil War Memory and Minority Rights

In Syria, the peaceful uprising of 2011 evolved into a devastating civil war, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced. Collective memory became a contested arena: the Assad regime promoted the narrative of a “war on terrorism,” labeling all opposition as externally supported terrorists. Meanwhile, the opposition framed its struggle as a “revolution against dictatorship,” emphasizing the peaceful beginnings and regime brutality. This battle over memory profoundly affected minority rights.

The regime, portraying itself as protector of minorities, justified its repression, while extremist factions within the opposition propagated sectarian narratives against groups such as Alawites and Christians. Kurds, historically marginalized, seized opportunities for autonomy but faced repression from multiple actors. Amnesty International documented widespread human rights violations by all parties, demonstrating how memory conflicts fuel violence and threaten social cohesion.

Lebanon: Sectarian Memory and Political Fragmentation

Lebanon, scarred by a sectarian civil war (1975–1990), remains deeply affected by its divided collective memory. No unified national narrative exists; each sect preserves its own memory, blaming others for past atrocities. This “sectarian memory” underpins Lebanon’s political system of confessionalism, distributing key offices according to sectarian affiliation. A system intended as a temporary solution has become permanent, reinforcing divisions and obstructing a true civic state.

Minority rights, including those of Christians and Druze, are closely tied to sect-specific memory, with each group protecting political and economic gains through its narrative. The World Bank notes that Lebanon’s sectarian system “hinders economic development and fuels corruption,” showing how fragmented collective memory obstructs progress and stability.

International Dimensions of Collective Memory

Conflicts over collective memory are not confined to domestic spheres. Global powers exploit memory to advance geopolitical interests. Western policy toward Libya post-2011 exemplifies selective intervention, supporting certain governments while neglecting institution-building, exacerbating divisions and enabling militia exploitation.

The pretext of promoting “human rights” or “democracy” often deepens chaos and empowers extremist groups. Similarly, in Ukraine, historical memory of famine and Soviet repression informs national identity and resistance to Russian intervention, while Russia invokes memory of Russian minorities to justify its actions.

In Iraq, post-Saddam struggles over memory among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds affect minority rights, including those of Yazidis and Christians. In Rwanda, the 1994 genocide illustrated the catastrophic potential of manipulated memory, where ethnic hatred fueled mass violence.

Post-genocide, the Rwandan government sought a unified collective memory emphasizing reconciliation, yet challenges remain in achieving full justice and preventing recurrence.

Minority Rights and Memory Control

In memory struggles, minority rights are among the most sensitive issues. Authorities—state or dominant groups—determine who may narrate history and who is silenced. Historical narratives are manipulated to consolidate dominance, justify discrimination, and erase minority presence.

Mechanisms include curricula control, official media, and regulation of public discourse. Minority narratives may be marginalized, distorted, or banned. In Turkey, laws criminalizing references to the Armenian genocide restrict freedom of expression and hinder historical reconciliation. Such practices reveal that memory control is not merely cultural but a political instrument to suppress opposition and consolidate authority.

Protecting Minority Rights and Collective Memory

Who safeguards minority rights against attempts to erase or alter memory? International bodies, including the UN and human rights organizations, play vital roles. Treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirm minority rights to maintain cultural, religious, and linguistic identity, including expressing historical memory.

Yet enforcement is challenging, particularly in conflict zones or under authoritarian regimes. UN reports have documented grave violations in Syria, including forced displacement, ethnic cleansing, and cultural destruction, exemplified by Kurdish communities in Afrin. In Lebanon, Palestinian refugees face restricted rights and attempts to erase historical memory. Civil society and NGOs are essential in documenting abuses, defending minority rights, and preserving collective memory.

Conclusion: Memory as Resistance and Power

Collective memory is a battleground between authority and the people. It is not passive remembrance but a dynamic force continuously shaped by actors.

Political authorities—states or militias—seek to control memory to legitimize power and marginalize alternative narratives. Cases from Turkey, post-WWII Europe, Libya, Syria, and Lebanon illustrate how memory becomes a tool of control, often at the expense of minority rights. Yet collective memory also embodies popular power: a tool of resistance and a legitimate right of peoples and minorities. Despite repression, memory persists in collective consciousness, inspiring resistance, justice demands, and the pursuit of a better future.

Respecting minority histories and safeguarding their rights to express memory is not only ethical but foundational for social and political justice. Without inclusive collective memory, stable, just, and prosperous societies cannot exist.

Osayma Al-Saadawi - writes to explore societal transformations and analyze contemporary issues critically.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely the author’s and do not represent the views of Nisaba Media.