Executive Summary

The legacy of Argentina's military dictatorship (1976–1983) is an ongoing and controversial issue in the country related to historical memory, violation of human rights, and government accountability. This paper examines the impact of changes in presidential administrations on the legacy of the dictatorship by comparing the presidencies of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007–2015) and Javier Milei (2023–present). It examines how state institutions and policies, as well as individual presidential discourse, affect the preservation or erasure of narratives of state violence. During Fernández de Kirchner's administration, memory was integrated into the government through criminal prosecutions, memorialization initiatives, and policies that highlighted and promoted the concepts of memoria, verdad, y justicia. Milei's administration has adopted a strategy of state minimization, involving reducing support for memory institutions and projects and employing revisionist rhetoric that clouds the reality of the crimes of the dictatorship. This comparison demonstrates that memory politics in Argentina are significantly influenced by the executive branch, generating institutions susceptible to changes of administrations. To address this problem, the research recommends implementing a hybrid institutional strategy that includes legislative guidelines for memory institutions, self-sufficient supervisory mechanisms, and strengthened educational initiatives to be able to maintain historical accountability while moderating the risk of political manipulation. 

Introduction

In the most recent political climate of the past two decades, the legacy of the dictatorship has remained deeply politically charged in Argentina’s democratic period throughout distinct administrations. This prompts the question: how have political shifts influenced the preservation or suppression of memory in Argentina, specifically the legacy of state violence from the military dictatorship? This paper addressed this question by looking at the presidencies of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007-2015) and Javier Milei (2023-present).

By analyzing the policies, actions, and rhetoric of these two presidents, we can see how state power directly shapes what is forgotten and what is remembered. Under Fernández de Kirchner, memory was institutionalized and celebrated by linking remembrances to national identity, museums, and public commemorations. However, under Milei, memory has been reframed through rhetoric that questions established perspectives and narratives, casting doubt on what happened and fostering a denialist view. In other words, it is clear that collective memory is not fixed but is constructed and redirected by those in power. 

Since the return of democracy, Argentina has pursued commemoration and truth-telling; however, there remains limited comparative work that places Fernández de Kirchner and Milei side by side to demonstrate how opposing political plans project remembrance and denial, a comparison that is essential since they stand at opposite ends of Argentina’s moral and political spectrum. Moreover, existing scholarship often treats each administration separately, leaving unclear how shifts in presidents recalibrate the narrative of the violence perpetrated by the military dictatorship across institutions, among Argentine citizens, and in discourse, which remains unexplored. 

This paper addresses this gap by analyzing how Cristina Fernández de Kirchner integrated remembrance into state policy and national identity, followed by an examination of Javier Milei’s rhetoric and governing approach that challenge those practices. Through this comparison, I argue that presidential leadership determines whether the remembrance of state violence in Argentina through the military dictatorship is preserved or suppressed, and I demonstrate this by addressing two specific dimensions: 1) state policy and institutions of memory, and 2) presidential discourse and symbolic policies that shape public understanding of the past. 

Historical Context 

After the death of President Juan Perón in 1974, his wife, Isabel Perón, became his successor. There was a rise in violence and instability, inciting the military to intervene, an event that was not new to Argentina, as it had happened five times before in over 35 years (Renzulli 1987). The military junta, led by General Jorge Rafael Videla, launched the “Proceso de Reorganizacion Nacional” (Process of National Reorganization), in hopes of eradicating guerrilla fighters and any political dissidents causing instability and disorder. This era, also known as the Dirty War, was a time of brutal violence and the spread of fear. The estimated number of desaparecidos (disappeared individuals) was between 10,000 and 30,000, due to the use of torture centers and a secret security force that kidnapped people in the middle of the night (Wiley 2018). Guards and soldiers in the detention centers beat, raped, and electroshocked prisoners, deprived them of basic necessities, buried prisoners in mass graves, threw others from helicopters into the ocean, and even kept pregnant women alive until they gave birth before giving their children to military couples (Renzulli 1987). 

In 1982, the Guerra de Las Malvinas (Falklands War) materialized as an armed conflict between Argentina and Great Britain over the control of the Falkland Islands. Tensions escalated on March 19, when Argentine scrap metal merchants landed on the South Georgia Island and placed the Argentine flag on British-administered territory; however, Britain only sent a small number of troops (Stransky 2012). Due to their weak response, Argentina was encouraged to take further action, which led President Leopoldo Galtieri to order the invasion of the Falkland Islands on April 2, 1982 (Lu 2022). After diplomatic negotiations failed in efforts to prevent an armed conflict, the confrontation intensified into a limited war that lasted around ten weeks, ending with Argentina’ surrender and England regaining control of the islands, during which there  were 255 British soldiers and 652 young Argentine soldiers (Stransky 2012). The failure of the Falklands War led to a diminishment of trust and support for Argentina’s military dictatorship. Finally, in 1983, the loss of lives and national pride from the result of the Falklands War, the human rights abuses caused by the dictatorship, and the hard economic situation forced the military to call for democratic elections (Natale 2022). On October 30, 1983, Raúl Alfonsín became the legitimate president in an election in which over 85% of eligible voters participated (ADST, n.d.). 

Since then, Argentina has opened multiple remembrance centers. For example, President Néstor Kirchner converted one of the former torture centers, the Escuela de Mecánica de la Armada (ESMA), or the Navy Mechanics School, into a remembrance building, set March 24 as the National Day of Remembrance for Truth and Justice, and even built the Parque de la Memoria (The Park of Memory) to honor the victims of the Dirty War and reinforce the idea of memory politics. However, rhetoric has come to light that diminishes the importance of memory politics and casts doubt on what occurred. Former President Mauricio Macri separated from the idea that human rights were part of the framework of the Dirty War and that they are an international concept. Macri made questionable comments, such as doubting 30,000 as a legitimate number of desaparecidos, as well as budget cuts to programs intended to remember and honor the victims of state violence (Bale 2023; Robles Ridi 2022). His presidency represented that Argentina’s collective memory remains fragile, susceptible to denialist interpretation depending on who is in power. Macri was accused by Madres de Plaza de Mayo and HIJOS of bringing back the Two Demons Theory, in which conservatives explain that the military government and guerrilla groups were both responsible for the violence and that officials carrying out executions and kidnappings were doing so just by the driving force at the time, which makes serious crimes committed by the state seem less striking (Desimone 2016). Similar to Macri’s actions, Milei’s administration is doubling down on the pressure of revisionism towards the state dictatorship, seeming as if Macri’s administration functioned as a stepping stone.

Theoretical Framework: Memory Politics

Memory politics is defined as a set of political processes through which interpretations and perspectives of the past are shaped and contested within the public sphere for political purposes (Sierp 2025; Errera and DeIuliis 2023). This framework conceives of memory as a social and public construction that relies on particular acts of remembering or of purposefully forgetting. What is silenced or commemorated depends on these acts, which results in connecting memory to networks of political legitimacy and power. When the state participates in the process of memory politics, open and public memory becomes a space of political struggle where the past and collective memory are used to increase support and establish political legitimacy (Errera and DeIuliis 2023; Sierp 2025). Furthermore, collective memory refers “to the memories that individuals have as members of the groups to which they belong, whether small (family, school) or large (political party, nation)” (Roediger 2021, p. 1). It is important to note that it is not static; in fact, it is open to interpretation. 

Under this understanding of memory politics and collective memory, the state is a critical actor in promoting and sustaining public memory. Governments can promote interpretations of the past through a multitude of legal actions and institutions, such as memorial sites, educational policies, commemorative days or symbols, and even political discourse. Memory policies function as a form of public action in which the state continually structures memorial frameworks and supports their governance (Gensburger 2024). In other words, since memory is embedded in state institutions, shifts in administrations can significantly change how the past is understood, making memory politics sensitive to any changes in political power. 

Drawing on this framework, the following section examines how memory politics have functioned and shifted in Argentina, focusing on the application of memory under Cristina Kirchner’s administration and the challenges of memory politics under Javier Milei. 

Policy Analysis

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner: Preserving Memory

State Policy and Institutions of Memory

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s presidency (2007-2015) represented the unification of a state-led project of remembrance that worked to reconstruct Argentina’s democratic and national identity through the lens of memoria, verdad, y justicia (memory, truth, and justice) (Torras et al. 2016). Building on the human-rights focused agenda built by her husband, former President Néstor Kirchner, she transformed memory into a critical function of governance. Under her leadership, remembrance became a framework and, controversially, a political tool, blended by justice and raising awareness. 

Fernández de Kirchner, along with her husband, advocated for new cultural models of commemorating the memory of the past, pushed for numerous presidential decrees that voided laws limiting prosecutions under Alfonsín and other impunity policies from the Menem administration. In fact, by August 2013, 381 criminal cases were ongoing regarding 2,071 military, security, and civilian officials accused of participating in state terrorism during the military dictatorship (Stockwell 2014). These prosecutions not only reflected the government’s commitment to accountability and justice but also its effort to maintain these ideals as a foundation of the state’s identity as a way of formal, institutionalized memory politics. These trials became public spectacles at an international level, where the Argentine government publicly condemned the crimes of the dictatorship and legitimized the truth from the past (McEvoy 2023). They also demonstrated how her administration worked to prioritize and institutionalize remembrance through the legal system itself. It served as a way to honor the victims as well and properly restore a national and international framework of human rights in Argentina (Stockwell 2014). 

Former dictator, Jorge Rafael Videla, was expecting and hoped for the defeat of Cristina Kirchner during the October 2011 presidential elections, as well as for his imprisoned companions, since they would have been freed by a special amnesty that would have been provided by former President Eduardo Duhalde, the other presidential contender (Reato 2012). This expectation uncovers how the dictatorship’s remnants understood the Kirchners’ administrations as threats to their freedom and legacy. In Videla’s eyes, she symbolized a new era of accountability in Argentina and even reflections of the past. Videla’s anticipation of amnesty under the governance of a different president exposes how justice in Argentina, regarding the military dictatorship, relies heavily on who is the leader, even if democracy was already installed. 

Furthermore, the Museo Sitio de Memoria ESMA (Memory Site Museum ESMA), opened in 2015 during Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s administration, became one of the most essential memorials formed by the Argentine national government (Simonetti 2020). Throughout the former torture center, several buildings now host human rights organizations such as the Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo (Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo), Madres de Plaza de Mayo (Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo), and UNESCO’s International Center for the Promotion of Human Rights, and posters exhibit information about the dictatorship trials, the importance of testimonies, photographs of los desaparecidos (the disappeared), and the site’s former use as a military facility (Simonetti 2020). The conversion of the ESMA from a place of torture and death to one of remembrance and honor reflected Kirchner’s dedication to reclaiming spaces that were historically used to silence people. Moreover, the presence of human rights organizations within the museum's grounds emphasizes how Kirchner’s government deeply strived to strengthen the collaboration between civil society and the state in order to preserve the truth of state violence that occurred during the military dictatorship. 

However, it is necessary to consider how the names of Cristina and Néstor Kirchner take the spotlight through plaques in multiple sections of the museum; in other words, there has been a sort of personalization of the takeover of ESMA, meaning that there is a political advantage to these actions by making them openly Peronist and Kirchnerist (Simonetti 2020). This has generated controversy among politicians and scholars who dispute that Fernández de Kirchner has blurred the boundary between political influence and the pursuit of collective remembrance. By placing her and her husband’s names so boldly within ESMA, Cristina Kirchner may have also transformed a place of collective memory into one of partisan symbolism. Although her fight to honor the truth and the victims of the Dirty War is undeniable, it may be a tool to promote the identity of Kirchnerism. 

Additionally, the Kirchner governments, specifically Cristina’s administrations, faced intense criticism for allegedly instrumentalizing the past by utilizing the party’s moral authority and marginalizing dissidents, as well as establishing an official version of what occurred with partisan details such as the praise of revolutionary militancy and the absence of guerrilla organizations' responsibilities (Balé 2020). By framing the dictatorship’s history through the perspective of Kirchnerism, Fernández de Kirchner was seen by some as advancing and reinterpreting collective memory and justice as a political tool to advance her interests (Balé & Guille 2025). Her administration's close control over memory discourse raised concerns since it was beginning to exclude alternative interpretations, reducing the intricacy of the past to a single politically charged version. 

Presidential Discourse and Symbolism

Besides institutional reform and policy, the fight over the responsibility and protection of memory politics in Argentina is also emphasized through presidential discourse. Particularly, the ways the leaders speak about history, what they accept or deny, as well as what silences they maintain. Presidential discourse shapes the national narrative of state violence and how the dictatorship is remembered. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Javier Milei represent two opposite sides of the political spectrum, and it is clear throughout their political rhetoric when discussing the military dictatorship and the importance of remembering. 

Under Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the language of remembrance is highlighted as one that is emphasized when discussing the role of the state and as a moral element of the national identity of Argentina. Her rhetoric and speeches directly touch upon memoria, verdad, y justicia as pillars of the democratization and connections between the state and the people. Furthermore, through her discourse, she acknowledges the dictatorship’s crimes, meaning that she encouraged the uncovering of the past instead of ignoring it or outright denying it. She also publicly announces civil organizations, such as the Madres de Plaza de Mayo, through her discourses, recognizing the work and effort of social organizations that fought and continue fighting for the truth. 

In general, CFK’s official discourse was known for the action of historizar la memoria (frame history within its historical context); in other words, she legitimized the victims’ voices, turning their testimonies into the foundation of the continuation of criminal cases and prosecuting the human rights violations committed during the military dictatorship (Bietti 2009). Her discourse seems to have promoted victims, in all senses of the word, as private individuals to representatives of justice. Cristina Kirchner’s discourse seemed to have utilized the trauma of thousands of people, for the good of building the collective memory of the past and even further deepening remembrance as one of the key components of a sense of national belonging. She transformed the legal courtroom, which was once used to pardon perpetrators of the military regime, into a place of restoring the truth and reconfirming the democratization principles of the nation. 

On the day that Fernández de Kirchner was sworn in as the new president of Argentina, he honored two specific groups for the essential work and bravery they had demonstrated to the country and the world. She explicitly shows the respect and admiration she has for the “women who with white headscarves dared where no one else dared and did it," also known as the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo and the Abuelas de la Plaza de Mayo (Vitale 2014, p. 13). The Madres and Abuelas were symbols of resistance and justice, as they were able to convert loss into persistence and the search for the truth. In just a few words, Cristina Kirchner places these women as symbols of the true Argentinian national ethos, as well as Argentinian pride. By openly acknowledging them in her inaugural speech, she established a moral frame for her presidency that is rooted in memoria, verdad, y justicia.

As it was discussed earlier, the establishment of institutions to pay tribute to those who were lost and to spread the message to never forget was a critical aspect of CFK’s push for memory politics. March 24th plays a symbolic date with the name of  Dia Nacional De la Memoria, por la Verdad y la Justicia (National Day of Memory for Truth and Justice), where Fernández de Kirchner would advocate for Argentinians to never forget the suffering of their people during the military regime. On this very date, in 2010, she gave a commemorative speech to recognize the inauguration of a new cultural center in ESMA, which was previously established by Néstor Kirchner, where she proudly proclaimed, "...and let me commit myself before you – before all of you and all Argentine that if we do not find justice in Argentina, I as President will accompany it to other international tribunals also demanding justice” (Wiley, p. 43, 2018). Her declaration captures her vision of justice on a national and international level, reiterating her belief that accountability and memory go hand in hand and that country borders pose no limits to finding reparations. Cristina Kirchner applies herself to the national public, instead of separating herself from those that were impacted during the regime, signifying that she sees herself as simply another person that was affected by the state violence that occurred at the time. 

Fernández de Kirchner also integrates the importance of the Guerra de las Malvinas (Falklands War) into her speeches. She is able to adapt to a dual strategy in some of her speeches of rejection and celebration, where she condemns the dictatorship and the desmalvinización (a concept that became popular in Argentina to suppress public discussion of the 1982 Falklands War and marginalize its veterans that followed) and combines the memories of victims of the dictatorship with a patriotic identity (Salerno 2019). It is clear how Fernández de Kirchner added remembrance into Argentina's political discourse, utilizing history not only to honor the victims but also to legitimize her leadership through a narrative of moral rehabilitation and national unity. She utilizes two dark moments from Argentinian history and highlights them to unify the country by acknowledging the strength of all Argentinians in overcoming these moments with dignity. This method allows for there to be enough space to integrate memory and establish national pride without standing behind the authoritarian regime responsible for the systemic human rights violations and persisting trauma. In other words, remembrance is used as a unifying political tool within the Argentine public. 

Javier Milei: Denying Memory

State Policy and Institutions of Memory

Javier Milei’s presidency (2023-present) marks a significant split with the memory politics established by the Kirchners. His administration represents a return to revisionist narratives, similar to former President Raúl Alfonsín’s perspective, that seek to minimize and even utterly deny the state violence that occurred during the military dictatorship. Unlike Fernández de Kirchner, Milei views Argentina’s memory politics as a political and ideological constraint, questioning its relevance and authority. 

During the first year of Milei’s administration, the government dismantled Argentina’s memory infrastructure by cutting funding for Sites of Memory and firing their workers, discharging hundreds of human rights workers, suspending archeological and conservation projects that served as judicial evidence, and gravely downsizing the staff or closing agencies such as the Archivo Nacional de la Memoria (National Archive for Memory), the Registro Unificado de Victimas del Terrorismo de Estado (Central Registry for Victims of State Terrorism), the Haroldo Conti Cultural Centre, and even dismantling the Comisión Nacional por el Derecho a la Identidad’s (National Commission for the Right to Identify) investigation unit  (Layús 2025; Kordon 2022). These actions reflect how Milei’s administration has redefined the role of the state concerning the past in a way that separates it from being the responsible entity for remembrance. 

The closure, defunding, and dismissal of employees of these institutions stop preservation efforts and disrupt the gathering of evidence that supports trials against human rights violations, which threatens to erase the state terror inflicted by the military dictatorship. Moreover, after being inaugurated, Milei stopped funding and the streaming of the program Madres del la Plaza (Mothers of the Plaza) from the Asociación Madres de Plaza de Mayo (Association of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo), which was shown every Saturday morning for the previous 16 years (Chain 2024). The cancellation of the program signals a calculated effort to cut ties with a platform that has represented the fight against the dictatorship, specifically the relatives of the disappeared and the survivors. This decision also reflects Milei’s intention of severing ties between the Madres of the Plaza de Mayo and civil society. His government reformulates remembrance as an insignificant fragment of the past, converting it into an expression of personal belief instead of a national commitment to justice and truth. 

Likewise, Milei’s denialist rhetoric and resistance to the preservation of memory, as well as the promotion of human rights in Argentina, were reflected even throughout the course of his campaign. More specifically, he promised to close multiple ministerial entities like the Human Rights Secretariat, and he did by downgrading it to an under-secretariat and undergoing a cut of 30% in their workforce levels (Lowy 2023; Buenos Aires Times 2025). By minimizing the presence of human rights agencies by reducing personnel and resources, it limits their ability to conduct and supervise developing investigations, advance archives, and support survivors of human rights violations, such as the victims of the military dictatorship. These actions reflect the administration’s tactic to separate the responsibility of restoring collective memory as part of the state’s role and the redirection of the state’s moral compass. However, his efforts to reduce and even eliminate human rights agencies have provoked resistance from civil society actors, survivors, and even human rights organizations who argue that these measures oppose Argentina’s preservation and dedication to memory, truth, and justice (Cholakian Herrera 2025). 

Milei’s rejection of “Memoria, Verdad, y Justicia” (Memory, Truth, and Justice) policies as a result of the “genocide” of the last dictatorship, as well as the opposition of human rights, can be compared to Murray Rothbard’s extreme libertarian ideas, specifically anarcho-capitalism (Fair 2025). Rothbard’s perspective on human rights concentrates on the belief that “the only human rights, in short, are property rights” (Schweigl 1998, p. 2). By comparing liberty with the lack of state intervention, Milei seems to apply a logic that equates the economic market to human rights, meaning that the preservation of the past is an unnecessary function of the state since it intervenes with the state’s true role. This politically ideological shift reexamines Argentina’s general understanding of the dictatorship and even the importance of remembering what occurred. The administration’s defunding of memory programs and firing employees from human rights agencies represents that memory politics is an outdated form of policy and that remembrance is wasteful. 

Presidential Discourse and Symbolism

Under Javier Milei, the rhetoric towards memory politics seeks to reframe remembrance as an ideological framework that troubles the true role of the state, and even seems to diminish what went on during the military regime. His attempt to weaken the narrative of memoria, verdad, y justicia is changing the national identity due to his promotion of historical revisionism. While he belittles human rights discourse, he rebrands the positioning of the state as neutral to the past. 

As Milei’s government continues to push for a denialist rhetoric, he confronts the complexity of the historical truth of what happened, where he attempts to neutralize the meaning between perpetrators and victims. A main topic during his “presidential ticket”, along with his Vice-President Victoria Villaruel, is holding and discussing that state terrorism is simply a political label (Llanos 2023, p. 8). He reframes one of the darkest periods of Argentina’s history as a sort of controversial debate, instead of understanding the suffering that was caused by the regime for years. It transforms all those who were disappeared, tortured, killed, and kidnapped into simply a perspective and something that can be minimized since it is in the past. It encourages silence and detachment to sneak back into Argentine politics, ignoring the voice of the relatives of those who are gone and survivors, possibly teaching upcoming generations of Argentinians to recount the past in this form. In fact, during his first presidential debate, he declared that there were not 30,000 desaparecidos, but only 8,753 (Seco 2024). By reducing the number of los desaparecidos to merely a small measurement, Milei commits an act of symbolic violence that combats the mourning and loss of thousands of other Argentinians during the military dictatorship. As the executive, by insisting on a smaller figure, he institutionalizes the erasure of those who were never found and contributes to the uncertainty of thousands of families who will, unfortunately, never be able to find their loved ones. He suggests that thousands of other desaparecidos never existed in the first place, making the government implicitly take away their right to be honored and remembered as victims of what their own government did. The act of remembrance was one that took precedent in Argentina by unifying the country by pushing Argentines of all regions to seek and strive for the truth. However, through this framing, Milei takes away the state’s responsibility to preserve memory and honor it by rewriting history through his discourse. This method of revisionism allows for denial to exist without explicitly prohibiting the concept of memory which grants for there to be a fake appearance of neutrality while clearly undermining established narratives and numbers of the past. 

Similar to Milei’s strategy, there is a similarity between Barros and Morales’ (2019) framework of strengthening ideas relating to shutting out events of the past by forgetting and forgiving, as well as Daniel Feierstein’s notion of there being a new offensive against the building blocks of memory during the dictatorship since the presidency of Mauricio Macri (2015-2019) (Kordon 2022). Milei takes Macri’s position to another level since he has begun a war with remembrance by attacking institutions, data, and even human rights organizations. Although his government frames it as a way to move forward and advance from such a period of terror, he uses the erasure of memory politics as a tool for the benefit of his interests. Through Milei’s “conception of rights," his “idea of the State," and the form he “redefines terms historically associated with human rights” in Argentina through his discourse, it highlights the scarcity of human rights and may even deny democracy itself (Kordon 2022, p. 55). His rhetoric demonstrates Milei’s political objective to break down the collective responsibility and accountability of the state. He portrays the concept of human rights as a weakness and the fight for justice, in terms of the military regime, as a political bias brought by past presidents, such as the Kirchners, to promote their goals in government. He promotes the logic of memory, advancing division within the country, which can be seen as dangerous and problematic, as it undermines the foundation that the democratization of Argentina was built on. His goal of pressing on the matter is that looking back at the past will interfere with the true interests of the state, he leaves thousands, if not more, families with questions and worries about what forgetting may do to society, since their truth is being silenced by their own government. 

Not only has Milei pushed for the revision and erasure of the past, but he also seems to give the military regime some leeway in what occurred. More specifically, through his discourse, it is clear that he downplays the crimes committed during the Argentine military dictatorship, rejecting all the human rights violations that arose, ranging from disappearances, torture, kidnappings, assassinations, and even the stealing of babies (Zilla 2024). This extreme narrative not only undermines the legitimacy of memory institutions and ongoing trials but also cultivates the idea of apathy toward the terror and trauma that thousands had to go through. His replacement of remembrance through his presidential language signals a major shift in how the nation avoids its past and how historical accountability is purely part of a political ideology. He mixes denialism and revisionism into his discourse to create polarization in the Argentine public about what truly happened, which allows for the rise of doubt towards the true violence suffered during the military dictatorship. This erosion of accepted collective memory encourages fragmentation and doubt to take over, threatening the foundations that Argentina’s post-military dictatorship, civil society, and government were carefully building in the last four decades through the utilization of “Memoria, Verdad, y Justicia” (Memory, Truth, and Justice) mechanisms such as the rebuilding of institutions, accurate discourse, and the promotion of human rights organizations.

Policy Approaches to Memory Politics

Argentina's experience shows that memory politics is shaped by distinct policy frameworks that define the state's role in shaping or erasing historical memory. In the last few decades, two policy options have emerged: state-led institutionalized remembrance and state retreat from memory governance. Examining these strategies illustrates the extensive policy options available to countries in confronting the repercussions of state violence. 

In Cristina Kirchner's administration, memory is treated as a public responsibility of the state. Under this version, institutions strongly regulate remembrance through legal trials, memorial sites, and symbolic commemorations, where memory politics is strongly highlighted. The transformation of the ESMA detention center into a museum and the expansion of trials against perpetrators clearly revealed how the state can integrate historical accountability inside national institutions (Simonetti 2020; Stockewell 2014). These initiatives embody the transition to democracy and Kirchner’s administration, during which Argentina adopted the principles of memoria, verdad, y justicia in both national and international contexts, inscribing them as essential state-led remembrance policies (Crenzel 2025; Stockwell 2014). This method strengthens democratic legitimacy by publicly recognizing victims, prosecuting perpetrators, and reinforcing human rights, but there are critical trade-offs. Regarding feasibility, it is highly dependent on helpful political leadership, which makes it vulnerable to future administrations. Furthermore, although this model seems to center victims, critics claim that this practice might benefit actors who politicize memory, as governments may shape historical narratives to reinforce partisan support rather than to present a truthful account (Balé 2020; Sierp 2025). 

Conversely, Milei's current government is based on a memory politics strategy that seeks to limit the state's role. The government is not actively conserving historical narratives. Instead, it is making institutional engagement less important by cutting funding for memory institutions, cutting funding for human rights organizations, and shifting how memory is viewed from public policy to private interpretation. (Figari Layús 2025; Grainger 2025; Lowy 2023). Individuals who support this perspective say that less government control makes historical records less political, which helps society move on, even if there were problems in the past. This method could be easier to implement in the short term, especially for governments that want to reduce state involvement. However, it has critical trade-offs. By weakening the archival institutions and investigative organizations that are supposed to document past wrongdoing, the state may put current transitional justice efforts at risk and make it harder to obtain information about the dictatorship's past. (Figari Layús 2025; Kordon 2022). From an equity perspective, this model inadequately affects victims by limiting access to justice while allowing revisionist accounts to rise. It creates risks towards the country’s democracy by weakening state accountability and disintegrating historical memory. 

Policy Recommendations

Based on the research above, Argentina should adopt a hybrid institutional paradigm that safeguards memory politics from sudden political changes while minimizing the risk of partisan exploitation. A previous study indicates that memory politics in Argentina have been quite susceptible to changes in political leadership. This dynamic has led different governments to strengthen or weaken the institutions responsible for preserving historical memory (Crenzel 2025; Sierp 2025). This research yields three policy recommendations.

First, Argentina should establish legal protections for memory institutions, including archives and memorial sites. Constitutional or statutory protections could stop future governments from using only administrative action to tear down these institutions; for example, memory institutions like the ESMA site, the Garage Olimpo Project, and the National Archive for Memory are essential for keeping track of state aggression and helping with inquiries into crimes that happened during the dictatorship (Wilson 2016; Simonetti 2020; Figari Layús 2025). Legal protection for these institutions would ensure their continued existence, even in the event of a change in political leadership.

Second, the government should make it easier for independent groups to monitor memory preservation institutes. Advisory panels composed of historians and archivists would ensure that there remains a truthful and accurate narrative of history, not just those of one political party (Jimerson 2008). Researchers in public memory argue that memory systems administered by the government can become political when governments seek to rewrite history to advance their agendas; in other words, they make it clear why individual oversight is a critical standard to maintain public trust and credibility (Errera and DeIuliis 2022; Balé 2020). 

Third, Argentina should expand educational initiatives focused on historical memory within national curricula. Integrating testimony and archival research into public schooling can promote awareness of the past and protect human rights (Baumgartner et al., 2016). Educating students' historical memory serves as an essential instrument that opens the door to a ‘memorial citizenship,’ which “advocates for human rights, social and political reforms, and democratic consolidation” (Herrera et al., 2012 as cited in Ardila-Behar & Behar-Leiser, 2024, p. 1). 

Combined, these measures would protect the institutional basis of remembrance while promoting a more lasting and inclusive approach to memory politics. 

Implementation of Policy Recommendations

To keep memory institutions in Argentina, reforms would need to address many political and institutional problems. Memory politics have changed with each new president (Crenzel 2025); improvements should focus on making institutions more stable rather than relying on the actions of one president. To protect archives, memorial sites, and investigative entities that have been responsible for tracking crimes committed during the dictatorship, Congress would have to enact memory protection laws to implement legal protections for memorial sites, archives, agencies, and human rights organizations responsible for reporting crimes and violations committed during the dictatorship. It would start in either chamber of Congress: the Cámara de Diputados (Chamber of Deputies) with 257 representatives or the Cámara de Senadores (Senate) with 72 senators (Federal countries 2022). In the Chamber of Deputies, it would go through the Comisión de Derechos Humanos y Garantías (Human Rights and Guarantees Commission) and then go into session and be passed with a majority of 129 representatives, if all 257 representatives are in attendance. Then it would pass to the Senate and go through the Senate’s Comisión de Derechos Humanos y Garantías (Human Rights and Guarantees Commission) for approval before going into session, where 37 votes would be needed if all senators are present. 

One key obstacle concerns political resistance from the administrations that are yet to come that may consider memory projects and policies as political projects. These concerns are seen through both presidents, either for the well-being of their political image, a problematic concept during Kirchner's campaign, or simply institutional restructuring and erasure under Milei’s government (Balé & Guille 2025; Layús 2025; Kordon 2022). Establishing safeguards in legislative framing would limit the ability of future presidents to produce their own narrative of the past and dismantle vital institutions responsible for preserving historical memories of state violence. 

Furthermore, Argentina’s forensic institutions, the judicial system, and human rights organizations must be properly funded and autonomous to carry out ongoing investigations related to the crimes that stem from the dictatorship. The Argentina Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF), in partnership with universities across the country and judicial actors, could play a central role in supporting documentation and preservation of evidence related to the military dictatorship's state violence (Identification of desaparecidos at la perla sparks ‘bittersweet relief’ for relatives - Buenos Aires Herald 2026). Such support is critical since institutions responsible for collecting evidence and holding trials are key components of transitional justice processes and governmental accountability of the past (Figari Layús 2025). Without this reinforcement, the ability to accurately and efficiently document state violence and acquire justice is improbable.