European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Totalitarian Regimes: debate freedom, justice, and memory

Motion: This House would make voting compulsory

This motion raises the question of whether democratic participation should be a personal choice or a civic duty enforced by law. Declining voter turnout in many European countries has led to debates about whether democratic legitimacy is threatened when large parts of the population abstain from voting. Compulsory voting is one proposed solution that guarantees higher turnout but raises ethical and political concerns.

One argument for compulsory voting is that it strengthens the principle of equal representation. When only certain groups consistently vote, policies tend to reflect their interests disproportionately. Ensuring universal participation reduces these imbalances and protects vulnerable voices.

However, requiring people to vote can also be seen as coercive. Critics point out that in authoritarian regimes, political participation was often forced, which undermined its authenticity. Citizens who are compelled to vote may see it as an obligation rather than a meaningful act, reducing trust in the democratic process.

Remembering the victims of totalitarian regimes highlights this tension. On one hand, participation is a way of honoring those who were denied any political voice. On the other, freedom includes the right to dissent or abstain. This debate speaks directly to the responsibilities and limits of democratic citizenship.

Motion: This House supports the use of truth and reconciliation commissions

Truth and reconciliation commissions have been used in many countries to help societies confront violent or repressive pasts. Unlike courts, they focus on uncovering facts, hearing testimonies, and building understanding rather than punishing perpetrators. Their goal is to restore dignity to victims and help societies move forward.

One reason they are relevant to European remembrance is that they emphasize recognition of suffering. Victims of totalitarian regimes were often silenced, erased, or ignored. Providing a structured forum for acknowledgment gives moral weight to their experiences and prevents historical denial.

There are also criticisms of truth and reconciliation commissions. Some argue that without formal punishment, perpetrators escape accountability, and victims may feel justice is incomplete. Others note that commissions can be politicized or fail to reach wider society if their findings are not supported by education and media.

The debate on whether these commissions should be preferred over legal mechanisms encourages reflection on how societies balance justice and reconciliation. The European Day of Remembrance brings this issue into focus, as honoring victims also requires confronting questions about the forms of justice that best serve their memory.

Motion: This House believes that history has no place in the classroom

This provocative motion challenges the assumption that teaching history is always beneficial. Advocates of removing history from classrooms argue that it is often manipulated by governments to serve political purposes. They suggest that schools should focus instead on transferable skills rather than narratives of the past.

Supporters of history education, however, insist that it is essential for democratic citizenship. Without knowledge of past conflicts, oppression, and struggles for freedom, young people may fail to recognize similar patterns when they arise in the present. History provides context for understanding institutions, rights, and responsibilities.

In Europe, this debate has immediate relevance. The legacy of totalitarianism is still contested, with disagreements about how to present events, which victims to prioritize, and how to evaluate controversial figures. Removing history from classrooms would reduce manipulation, but it would also silence necessary discussions about these legacies.

For the European Day of Remembrance, this motion underlines the stakes of memory. Education is where collective narratives are shaped. To honor victims of authoritarian systems, history must be taught responsibly, ensuring that it reflects truth rather than propaganda.

Motion: This House believes you have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong

Surveillance is a defining issue of the modern era. Governments argue that collecting data and monitoring citizens helps prevent crime and terrorism. Critics counter that surveillance undermines civil liberties, chills free expression, and risks creating structures that can be abused.

This debate is alive today in both the United States and the European Union. In the U.S., TikTok has become a symbol of broader fears over foreign data control and influence. Legislation such as PAFACA and ongoing court cases demonstrate how far governments are willing to go to regulate digital platforms. In the EU, the “Chat Control” proposal could require encrypted messaging apps to scan private communications, raising major questions about privacy and trust.

The motion, centered on the “nothing to hide” argument, illustrates a common defense of surveillance. Proponents say that law-abiding citizens should not fear monitoring, as they have nothing to conceal. Yet this reasoning has been widely criticized for ignoring how surveillance systems can be misused, how errors can harm innocent people, and how constant monitoring changes social behavior.

Remembering the victims of totalitarian regimes gives weight to these concerns. Surveillance in the past enabled oppression by allowing authorities to track and suppress dissent. When linked to the European Day of Remembrance, these motions highlight how important it is to guard against the return of such practices, even when they are framed as protective or beneficial.

Motion: This House would allow biased versions of history to be taught in schools

This motion asks whether societies should be free to teach history in ways that support national identity, even at the expense of accuracy. In practice, many states select which events and figures to emphasize, often leaving out uncomfortable truths.

Supporters of such approaches argue that all history is subjective and that teaching it through a national lens strengthens unity. Critics respond that this approach excludes marginalized voices and risks perpetuating myths. The victims of totalitarian regimes are often erased from such accounts, reinforcing their marginalization.

The European Day of Remembrance draws attention to this danger. If biased history becomes the norm, the suffering of victims may be denied or minimized. Ensuring that remembrance is accurate and inclusive is part of safeguarding democratic values and building resilience against manipulation.

Debating this motion encourages young people to consider how societies remember their past, who gets to define national narratives, and what responsibilities educators have in preserving truth.