To associate the strengthening of authoritarian regimes solely with rigid control does not fully capture the picture. Although the foundation of such systems lies in the suppression of opponents through consistent or selective repression, modern analyses show that total control over collective memory is a crucial pillar in the legitimization process of post-Soviet authoritarianism. Authoritarian governance shapes the past to suit its political objectives, thereby creating the kind of historical memory that society is expected to need (Olick & Robbins, 1998a). History is thus used as a tool for political distortion. As Reinhart Koselleck states, history is not only about the past—it is also a tool for shaping the future (Koselleck, 2004a).
Introduction
Throughout much of the 20th century, dictators and autocrats maintained power primarily through violent repression. However, in the early 21st century, technological advancement and an increasingly interconnected world have raised the costs of employing large-scale violence. If dictatorships wished to survive without being isolated from global markets, they had to adapt to this new environment. Consequently, a new type of authoritarian regime emerged—one based less on violence and ideology, and more on sophisticated propaganda and information manipulation (Elman Fattah, 2019). In these regimes, propaganda is no longer used to present a new vision to the world, but merely to convince the population that the dictator is competent. If the majority of citizens view the dictator as incompetent, they may rise up and try to overthrow him through revolution.
Problem Statement
In the post-Soviet space, memory politics has become a significant instrument of political struggle. Authoritarian regimes adopt a selective approach to historical events—highlighting some while entirely erasing others from collective memory. Through such “historical engineering,” governments create an environment suited to determining the future on their own terms. In this artificially constructed environment, collective memory becomes a central indicator of the relationship between state and society. Using notions such as the “savior leader” and “political stability,” regimes steer public consciousness. As a result, people begin to accept this fabricated past as a normative guide for the future.
This KHAR Center analysis is based on the questions: How do authoritarian regimes use memory politics to consolidate their power? and the thesis: They shape collective memory through official narratives and ideological symbols.
Collective Memory as the Fuel of Political Power
According to renowned theorist Maurice Halbwachs, collective memory plays a central role in how a society understands itself. For this reason, authoritarian regimes see the alignment of mass memory with the system’s ideological demands as a key objective (Halbwachs, 1992a). They understand that memory is a crucial mechanism that regulates the legitimacy of the ruling ideology.
Thus, authoritarian regimes implement this process in a thorough and systematic way. The education system, state-controlled media, history institutes, and commemorative days—all serve as tools of this policy. As a result, the “memory of the system” exercises complete control over the “memory of society.” The ultimate goal is to determine the political direction of the future in advance.
Regimes that embrace Koselleck’s idea that history is not just a depiction of the past but a tool for shaping the future, attempt to rewrite the past. Terms like “our achievements,” “national heroes,” and “eternal enemies” are not merely references to historical events; they also serve as tools for measuring the loyalty of citizens (Koselleck, 2004b). As people are generally ready to accept the past without questioning it, they also tend to show loyalty to those who present themselves as the heirs of that past.
Halbwachs’s theory highlights a critical aspect—that memory is continually preserved through social groups. In democratic societies, these groups foster the development of diverse perspectives. In authoritarian regimes, however, independent researchers, civil society actors, and cultural figures are either suppressed or entirely ignored. In this way, the regime strengthens its control over memory management and exerts influence not only over the political sphere but also over ideological and cultural domains (Halbwachs, 1992b).
Clifford Geertz’s well-known concept of the "theatre state" also clarifies that political power is realized not only through administrative institutions and coercion but also through ritualized spectacles. Military parades, commemorative days, leaders’ birthdays, monument unveilings, and mass gatherings all serve to visually demonstrate the power and ideological continuity of the state (Geertz, 1973). In other words, these ceremonies transplant the “show of power” into the collective memory of society. Rituals do not merely commemorate the past—they also reproduce it within a narrative framework determined by the regime, sustaining the rhythm of citizens’ loyalty to political authority.
"Invented Traditions"
Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger note that “invented traditions” are tools frequently used by authoritarian regimes (Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983a). In other words, if there is no actual historical foundation, the vacuum is artificially filled and eventually presented as “historical continuity.”
This trend is clearly visible in post-Soviet regimes. After the collapse of the USSR, newly emerged states sought to fill the ideological void by artificially constructing links to the past.
In Azerbaijan, the “National Salvation Day” (June 15) is a notable example in this context. The return of Heydar Aliyev in 1993 is associated with this day and is presented as “the historical moment when the state was saved from collapse.” Large-scale annual events, state-produced documentaries, and school textbook narratives all serve the same purpose: to promote Aliyev’s rule as the sole protector of national statehood.
In Russia, the myth of the “Great Patriotic War” is one such invented tool. Victory Day on May 9 is not just a historical date—it has become an ideological weapon of modern Russia. Vladimir Putin presents this day as symbolic of the “victorious state.” This demonstrates how Victory Day serves an important role not only in domestic mobilization but also in foreign policy.
In Turkmenistan, traditions formed under Saparmurat Niyazov—such as the “Ruhnama Commemoration Ceremony” and the official celebration of the leader’s birthday—were not based on actual historical facts but were presented as “foundations of national culture.” The aim was obvious: to further develop the cult of personality. During the Berdymukhamedov era, these ritual systems have continued in various forms.
In the post-Soviet region, invented traditions serve three main functions:
- Establishing a distorted continuity with the past serves to obscure the gaps in the history of statehood.
- Strengthening the cult of leadership—presenting the leader as the savior of the people and the symbol of continuity.
- Suppressing alternative memories—preventing society from remembering history from different perspectives.
Thus, these invented traditions become one of the key ideological tools for the continued reproduction of political power. Looking at the case of Azerbaijan, the primary issue that the regime has sought to erase from the country’s historical narrative over the past 30 years is the legacy of Mammad Amin Rasulzade. The ruling elites understand that as long as Rasulzade's legacy is remembered, the Aliyev narrative remains dim in the collective memory.
Key Tools of Authoritarian Memory Politics
As noted in the thesis of this analysis, authoritarian regimes establish full control over memory not only through political power but also by employing symbolic and cultural tools. Through these instruments, history is made to serve state ideology, and the emergence of alternative perspectives within collective thought is suppressed.
In authoritarian systems, the acts of “remembering” and “forgetting” carry essential political objectives. These systems highlight historical events considered “suitable,” while either concealing the “unsuitable” ones or altering their content. For example, periods of repression are erased, while periods of “economic stability” are glorified (Bernhard & Kubik, 2014). Historical events and figures are granted new significance within the current ideological environment. Textbooks under state control become one of the central tools of this process. Monuments, memorial complexes, and state-organized ceremonies provide visual and emotional representations of memory (Forest & Johnson, 2011).
Examples from the South Caucasus
In the South Caucasus, memory politics is not limited to history—it develops around independence, state-building, and the deep traces left by ethnic-political conflicts. The memory regime in this region serves not only the purpose of ensuring domestic legitimacy but also becomes a crucial tool for justifying foreign policy. While Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia employ authoritarian or semi-authoritarian memory methods to varying degrees, they share one common feature: the state presents history selectively and suppresses alternative forms of remembrance.
The central theme of Azerbaijan’s state ideology is the savior image of Heydar Aliyev, paired with the tragedies that occurred in his absence—namely, the losses and the issue of internally displaced persons resulting from the war in the early 1990s. Heydar Aliyev’s legacy occupies a significant place in state symbols, educational materials, and the public sphere (Cornell, 2011). This creates the environment for the state to equate itself with the “national savior leader,” as described in Hobsbawm’s concept of “invented traditions” (Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983b). In official discourse, the concepts of “territorial integrity” and “restoration of historical justice” are particularly emphasized (de Waal, 2013). After the victory in the 2020 war, the narrative that Azerbaijan’s successes are solely linked to the Aliyevs was further deepened through the creation of a “Victory Memory.”
For Armenians, the events of 1915 form the foundation of both national identity and foreign policy (Touryan Miller, 1999). This historical memory plays a crucial role in strengthening the country's internal unity and has also become an important part of relations with the diaspora. The wars of 1988–1994 and 2020, along with themes of heroism, sacrifice, and loss, occupy a significant place in the official memory. The term “national heroes” constitutes the basis of the state’s identity.
After the “Velvet Revolution” of 2018, although the legacy of former elites and issues of corruption sparked widespread public debate, no serious institutional reforms concerning memory have been implemented to this day. This has hindered the democratization of memory (Broers Laurenc, 2019).
For Georgians, the 1989 Tbilisi events and the 2008 Russia–Georgia war play a central role in the official memory strategy (Jones, 2013). These events have become symbols of the “struggle for independence.”
During the Saakashvili era, a large-scale process of de-Sovietization was initiated through the removal of Soviet symbols. However, at times, these actions took on a selective character under the influence of political struggle. Some monuments were targeted purely for political purposes. Nonetheless, independent NGOs in Georgia continue to carry out archival and museum projects to preserve the memory of repression victims.
For each state in the South Caucasus, memory politics has become an essential tool both for maintaining internal legitimacy and for advancing geopolitical status. In Azerbaijan and Armenia, this approach is primarily built around war narratives and the cult of leadership. While Georgia has had a longer democratic experience, its memory politics has not fully escaped the grip of political struggle and security dilemmas.
The Importance of Alternative Memory Politics
In the absence of alternative memory politics, it becomes inevitable for authoritarian norms to remain embedded in the collective thinking of society. The hegemonic memory shaped by the state places myths such as the “need for a strong leader,” the “threat posed by external enemies,” and “stability above all” at the center of collective consciousness. As long as these myths are not challenged and dismantled, the political preferences and identity perceptions of society remain framed by the authoritarian regime.
Aleida Assmann notes that democracy is not only the dismantling of a political system, but also a transformation of memory structures (Assmann, 2010). This means accepting different perspectives on the past, recognizing alternative interpretations, and amplifying silenced voices. One of the fundamental principles of a democratic memory system is that cases of violence and injustice must not be hidden; on the contrary, they should be included in public discussion.
To recall George Orwell’s famous words: “Who controls the past controls the future.” (Orwell, 1949). This sentence clearly illustrates the essence of authoritarian memory systems. They are not merely about interpreting the past; their goal is also to shape the ideological trajectory of the future. Therefore, the identity of society, its political allegiance, and its historical consciousness for future generations are developed under this framework of control. This reveals that freedom of memory is a critical component of the process of building democracy. Democratic construction must not be limited solely to the effective functioning of electoral systems.
Conclusion
The analysis has revealed that in today’s world, authoritarian regimes do not merely remember the past—they rewrite it in their own image, using it to justify themselves and to define for the people who they are and what they must not forget. For these regimes, memory is not just an archive of history—it is a political weapon.
The repeated speeches of officials, the lessons taught to children in schools, the official ceremonies and symbols—all are designed to dictate how the past should be remembered. This both shapes our identity and reinforces the ruling regime’s message: “Without us, this country would not exist.”
There are two especially interesting cases of memory politics in the South Caucasus—Azerbaijan and Armenia. In both countries, approaches to memory and the past follow similar structures, but as this analysis has shown, they are rooted in different foundations. In Armenia, the memory of genocide is at the center of everything. Every Armenian child grows up with this event; the trauma has become the central link binding national unity.
In Azerbaijan, the military victory achieved during the 44-day war of 2020—what is now called the “Victory Memory”—occupies the primary place. Around this memory, the image of a “victorious people” is constructed, and President Ilham Aliyev is presented as the central figure of this symbolism. All of this, of course, is used to strengthen the legitimacy of political rule in the country.
These differences in memory models have a direct impact on the peace process. Because both sides only tell their own version of history, they refuse to make space for the other side’s memory. No matter how many negotiations take place, as long as memories continue to clash, achieving real peace remains difficult.
Therefore, the work does not end with signing diplomatic documents. True peace also requires changing the language of dialogue and rhetoric, listening to each other’s historical narratives, and recognizing each other’s memory. Otherwise, the wounds of the past will continue to obstruct the path to the future.
References:
Olick, Jeffrey K., and Joyce Robbins. “Social Memory Studies: From ‘Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices.” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 105–140a.
Koselleck, Reinhart. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004a. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/futures-past/9780231127714/
Elman Fattah, 2019. Yeni Avtoritarizm və Azərbaycan, p. 74-76.
Wertsch, James V. Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 10-29. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/voices-of-collective-remembering/9FF0E27FC67D1DC38E973B8E54C402EE
Halbwachs, Maurice. On Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992a. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/O/bo3619875.html
Koselleck, Reinhart. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004b. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/futures-past/9780231127714/
Halbwach, Maurice. On Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992b. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/O/bo3619875.html
Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press.https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2864239
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973. 7-16. https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/geertz.pdf
Forest, Benjamin, and Juliet Johnson. “Unraveling the Threads of History: Soviet-Era Monuments and Post-Soviet National Identity in Moscow.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102, no. 6 (2011): 1316–1331. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8306.00303
Assmann, Aleida. Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Media, Archives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/65877/frontmatter/9780521165877_frontmatter.pf
Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes (ÚSTR) https://www.ustrcr.cz/en/about-us/
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker & Warburg, 1949. 20. https://www.clarkchargers.org/ourpages/auto/2015/3/10/50720556/1984.pdf
Cornell, Svante E. Azerbaijan Since Independence. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2011. http://lib.ysu.am/open_books/304695.pdf
Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983b. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press.https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2864239
de Waal, Thomas. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. New York: New York University Press, 2013. https://nyupress.org/9780814760321/black-garden/
Miller, Donald E., and Lorna Touryan Miller. Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian Genocide. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. https://www.ucpress.edu/books/survivors/paper
Broers, Laurence. Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of a Rivalry. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019. https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-armenia-and-azerbaijan.html
Jones, Stephen F. Georgia: A Political History Since Independence. London: I.B. Tauris, 2013. https://www.academia.edu/125499123/Georgia_a_political_history_since_independence
