Politics of Forgetting: Amnesties, Silences, and ‘Pacts of Oblivion’

1. What Is *Political* Forgetting?

In everyday life, people forget things naturally: memories fade, details blur, people die.

Political forgetting is different. It refers to organized, deliberate efforts by states or political elites to limit what is remembered, talked about, or legally pursued about a violent or unjust past.

Think of it as memory by design, not by accident.

Key features:

• Intentional: leaders choose policies that encourage silence or amnesia.
• Collective: it targets whole societies, not just individuals.
• Instrumental: it serves political goals (e.g., stability, protecting powerful groups).

You should be able to:

• Distinguish political forgetting from normal memory loss.
• Recognize tools used to enforce forgetting (laws, school curricula, media control, etc.).

Keep in mind: political forgetting is not always total. It often means selective memory: some events are highlighted, others are blurred or erased.

2. Distinguishing Natural Forgetting from Political Forgetting

Try this short thought exercise.

A. Natural forgetting

Imagine your town had a small protest 15 years ago. No one filmed it, newspapers barely covered it, and most participants moved away. Today, almost no one remembers it.

That is mostly natural forgetting: no one planned a cover-up; the memory simply faded.

B. Political forgetting

Now imagine:

• Police killed protesters.
• The government banned media coverage.
• Schools were forbidden to mention the event.
• Families who spoke about it lost their jobs.

That is political forgetting.

Your task (mentally or in notes):

1. List two signs that forgetting is political rather than natural.
2. Think of one real or fictional example (from films, books, or news) where authorities tried to make people stop talking about a painful past.

After you’ve done this, compare your ideas with this checklist:

• Are there laws or threats involved?
• Are schools, courts, or media being controlled?
• Are victims discouraged from speaking?

If yes, you are probably looking at political forgetting.

3. Tools of Political Forgetting: Amnesties and Silences

Two major tools of political forgetting are amnesty laws and official silences.

1. Amnesty laws

An amnesty law is a legal measure that cancels criminal responsibility for certain acts committed in the past.

• Often used after civil wars or dictatorships.
• Can cover political crimes, human rights abuses, or both.
• Sometimes framed as a gesture of “reconciliation”.

Important distinction:

• Amnesty: “We won’t prosecute these crimes.”
• Amnesia: “We won’t even talk about them.”

Amnesty can exist with or without amnesia, but in many cases they reinforce each other.

2. Official silences

Governments can promote silence by:

• Not prosecuting past crimes.
• Excluding certain topics from school textbooks.
• Discouraging or banning public memorials.
• Controlling archives (keeping police/military files secret).

These tools shape what becomes part of national memory and what remains in the shadows.

4. Spain’s Post‑Franco ‘Pact of Forgetting’ (Pacto del Olvido)

Spain offers a classic case of the politics of forgetting.

Background

• Spain lived under Francisco Franco’s dictatorship from 1939–1975.
• The regime followed the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), which caused massive deaths, executions, and repression.
• When Franco died in 1975, Spain began a transition to democracy.

The ‘pact of forgetting’

During the transition (late 1970s), political elites from both left and right informally agreed on a “pact of forgetting” (pacto del olvido):

• No trials for crimes committed during the Civil War or Franco’s dictatorship.
• Little public discussion of past atrocities.
• Focus on building democracy and stability, not on reopening wounds.

This informal pact was supported by a formal law:

#### 1977 Amnesty Law

• Passed in October 1977.
• Freed political prisoners of the Franco regime.
• At the same time, it blocked prosecution of most crimes committed by Francoist officials and security forces.
• It effectively created impunity for serious human rights violations.

Visualize it like this:

• Before 1975: Open repression, censorship, fear.
• 1975–1978: Negotiations, fear of military backlash, desire for peaceful transition.
• 1977 Amnesty Law: Legal wall blocking criminal accountability for the past.
• Result: Many families’ stories stayed private, not public.

Spain’s democracy grew, but it grew on top of a silenced past.

5. Challenging Forgetting: Spain’s Historical Memory Laws

Over time, especially from the late 1990s onward, many Spaniards began to challenge the pacto del olvido.

Key developments:

1. Grassroots memory movements

• Families of victims started searching for mass graves.
• Local associations demanded truth, recognition, and reparations.
• They argued that democracy built on silence was incomplete.

2. 2007 Law of Historical Memory

• Official name: Law 52/2007, of 26 December, recognizing and extending rights and establishing measures in favor of those who suffered persecution or violence during the Civil War and the dictatorship.
• Entered into force in 2007 (about 19 years before today).
• Aims:
• Condemn Franco’s regime.
• Offer symbolic reparations to victims.
• Support exhumation of mass graves.
• Remove some Francoist symbols from public spaces.

Limits:

• Did not repeal the 1977 Amnesty Law.
• Did not fully open the door to criminal trials.

3. 2022 Democratic Memory Law

• Official name: Law 20/2022, of 19 October, on Democratic Memory.
• Entered into force in 2022 (about 3–4 years before today).
• Strengthens the 2007 law by:
• Declaring the Franco regime illegal and its sentences unjust.
• Making the search for disappeared persons a state responsibility.
• Expanding education and research on the Civil War and dictatorship.
• Creating an official census of victims.

However:

• The 1977 Amnesty Law still formally exists.
• Spanish courts have mostly refused to prosecute Franco-era crimes, often citing the amnesty or statutes of limitation.
• International bodies (like UN human rights experts) have criticized this, arguing it conflicts with international law on serious human rights violations.

So, Spain moved from institutionalized forgetting toward institutionalized remembering, but the struggle over justice vs. impunity continues.

6. Weighing the Arguments: Is Forgetting Ever ‘Necessary’?

Many societies face a hard question after violence or dictatorship:

> Is some forgetting necessary for peace, or does it simply protect the powerful?

Your task

Consider the pros and cons of Spain’s pacto del olvido.

#### A. Possible benefits (arguments in favor)

Write down at least two arguments someone might make supporting the pact in the late 1970s. For example:

• Fear of military coup if trials began.
• Need for rapid, peaceful transition.

Think of others related to:

• Social polarization.
• Weak democratic institutions.
• Desire to “turn the page.”

#### B. Possible costs (arguments against)

Now write down at least two arguments criticizing the pact, especially from today’s perspective:

• Victims denied justice and recognition.
• Perpetrators kept their positions or reputations.

Think also about:

• Long-term trauma for families.
• Distorted national identity (only one side’s story dominates).

Reflection prompt

In 2–3 sentences (mentally or in notes), answer:

> If you had been a political leader in Spain in 1977, would you have supported the pact of forgetting? Why or why not?

Try to acknowledge both sides before you choose.

7. Check Understanding: Amnesty, Impunity, and Memory in Spain

Answer this question to test your understanding of how Spain’s laws shaped political forgetting and remembering.

8. Key Term Review: Politics of Forgetting

Flip through these flashcards (mentally) to review the core concepts from this module.

9. Applying the Idea: Spotting Politics of Forgetting Elsewhere

Now try to transfer what you have learned to other contexts.

Step 1: Choose a case

Pick one context you know something about (from class, news, or media). Examples:

• A country after civil war (e.g., parts of Latin America, Africa, or Asia).
• A state dealing with colonial or racial violence.
• A community after police brutality or ethnic conflict.

Step 2: Ask three questions

For your chosen case, answer (briefly):

1. Is there an amnesty law or similar measure? If yes, what does it cover?
2. Are there signs of official silence? (e.g., missing from textbooks, blocked archives, taboo topics)
3. Have there been efforts to reverse forgetting? (e.g., truth commissions, memory laws, public apologies, memorials)

Step 3: Compare with Spain

In 3–4 bullet points, compare your case with Spain:

• One similarity in how forgetting was promoted.
• One difference in how remembering has been encouraged.
• Who seems to benefit most from forgetting in each case?

This exercise helps you see that politics of forgetting is a global issue, not just a Spanish one.

10. Wrap-Up: Balancing Peace, Truth, and Justice

You have seen how amnesties, silences, and pacts of oblivion shape post-conflict identities.

Core takeaways:

• Forgetting can be political, not just natural.
• Spain’s transition used a pact of forgetting and the 1977 Amnesty Law to avoid reopening Civil War and Franco-era wounds.
• Later laws (2007 Historical Memory, 2022 Democratic Memory) tried to rebalance this by promoting truth, recognition, and memorialization, while amnesty and impunity largely remained.
• There is an ongoing tension between:
• Stability and peace, and
• Justice, truth, and recognition of victims.

As you continue studying memory and national identity, keep asking:

• Who decides what is remembered or forgotten?
• Whose suffering becomes part of official history—and whose remains invisible?
• How do these choices shape who belongs in the nation today?

These questions are central not only to understanding the past, but also to imagining more just futures.