“I love Franco, the worst dictatorship we have now,” a confident and proud teenager says to the camera. He says goodbye with a defiant “Even Spain!”, the fascist salute to Franco’s regime, and leaves laughing, applauded by many of his colleagues. On November 20, 50 years have passed since the death of dictator Francisco Franco, the results of a poll conducted by the Center for Social Research (CIS) showed that 21% of Spaniards consider the almost four decades of Franco’s rule to have been “good” or “very good”, compared to 65.5% who believe they have been “bad” or “very bad”. This 21% is consistent with the number of 18-24 year olds who have a good opinion of them, and with the 20% who support Vox, a far-right denial party.
Curiously, this percentage coincides with the percentage of opinion polls conducted by the Infratest Dimap poll in February of this year, according to which 21% of young Germans of the same age support the ultra-nationalist party “Alternative for Germany” (Alternative to GermanyAlternative for Germany party. Social researchers and the media in that country have long warned of a growing youth tolerance for authoritarianism, paralleled by increasing anti-Semitism, xenophobia and blatant ignorance of what happened during the Holocaust.
Although the experience in these two countries is different, they share variables that can be summarized in a serious lack of knowledge of historical facts, as a result of deficiencies in teaching. the gradual increase in deliberate and widespread misinformation across social networks; Of denial, simplification, and lack of a shared narrative about what happened.
Although the most serious and impartial estimates put the number of deaths during the Franco era (1936-1975) at between 500,000 and 600,000 people, and that of Hitler (1933-1945) at six million, many young people – especially men – embrace their symbols and display them in public without shame, repeating their speeches and declaring that they admire them. For them, youth rebellion fuels passionate demonstrations of power exercised through violence. If we add to this the influence of family members who instill in them concerned or distorted versions of what happened, the role of formal education becomes practically irrelevant.
Germany is considered a global model in its memory policies. The state has publicly acknowledged its responsibility; School curricula are designed so that young people know history; Museums and memorials have clever pedagogical strategies. However, there are still debates and tensions. It also exists in Spain, where the Democratic Memory Law is leading to deep polarization. There is no agreement about what young people should learn about civil war and dictatorship, there is disagreement between narratives, and the focus can change between autonomous communities.
In Colombia, Decree No. 1038 of 2015 regulated the Peace Chair, which is mandatory for all basic and secondary education institutions, but practically optional for universities. The ambiguous text does not create a new topic, but rather includes peace issues in the fields of social sciences, natural sciences or ethics. Historical Memory, Peaceful Conflict Resolution and History of Peace Agreements are 3 of 12 diverse and unrelated topics, from which each school can choose two. In practice, students’ knowledge depends on what the institution decides.
The Ministry of Education website dedicated to this chair contains pedagogical materials, but there is no documentation on the status of its implementation. In theory, it is the responsibility of the deans to integrate it into the institutional educational project, but the topic does not seem to have control or pain, and there is no one from whom to get an official response about the challenges or progress. The decree obliges the government to train teachers, but each of them designs activities as they see fit, which means that results can be uneven, depending on the commitment and knowledge of the teacher, and the quality of the school. It follows that the information young people receive is not free from biases or inaccuracies.
In a column from February 2016, expert Arturo Charria, reviewing the core competency standards for the contents of the social sciences – where the subject of history is integrated – warned that “the perpetrator narrative is distinct, because three of them focus on conflict actors: guerrillas, drug traffickers, and paramilitaries. It is important to highlight that in these public power is deliberately excluded.” Has that changed? Did the final report of the truth commission, which includes the testimonies of all parties to the conflict and its victims, contribute to knowing everyone’s stories? These are just two questions among many.
According to the 10th Perceptions Study of Colombian Youth, prepared by the Universidad del Rosario, the Hans Seidel Foundation, the newspaper El Tiempo, and the pollster Sefras & Concepts, published one year ago, 56% consider themselves in the centre, 18% on the left, and 25% on the right. November 24 marks nine years since the signing of the peace agreement between the now-defunct Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the government of Juan Manuel Santos, and unlike Germany and Spain, there is no poll indicating how much young people know about the country’s recent history, conflict or violence.
This is important because the conflict is still ongoing, and the political violence that sought to eliminate it has returned, as demonstrated by the killing of Senator Miguel Uribe Torbay; Because the government’s failed and improvised peace policy gave the perpetrators greater importance and power, while ignoring the victims; Because false narratives, misinformation, and distortion of reality abound on social media networks; Because there are still promoters of denial, the same ones who promoted “no” in the referendum that rejected the content of what was agreed, and the risk of their return to power is high, as a result of the capricious government of President Petro, who in turn is a promoter of narratives and symbols that glorify the violence of the armed radical left.
We know even less about young people who have experienced conflict. How do children of victims and perpetrators live together in the most affected areas? What are they talking about? What do your teachers know? What do they teach them? Who monitors and evaluates their knowledge? Who and how manages conflicts and concerns? Can this knowledge contribute to preventing forced recruitment? Why are the developments and results of the Peace Chair not known to the public? Are they even being monitored?
Colombia is going through a very fragile moment. Many young people will be releasing their ID cards in the 2026 elections and they should be well informed so as not to be exposed to further manipulation. The risk of a return to violence and support for right-wing authoritarianism is very high. It is the state’s duty to remember without bias for new generations. Does the Colombian government take this responsibility seriously? Only their propaganda desire and Manichaean deception strategies are evident.
Historical memory is crucial for the future. In the absence of serious studies proving the opposite, it is safe to assume that Colombian youth’s knowledge of history and conflict may not differ much from that of their Spanish and German peers: they do not know, and they do not respond.