Writing on Ketikoti, the Dutch commemoration of the abolition of slavery in Surinam and the former Netherlands Antilles, Belavusau contrasts the Netherlands' symbolic approach with France's controversial memory legislation. He warns that France's Loi Taubira (2001) and similar memory laws risk politicising history and creating what he terms a ‘parliamentary guillotine’ where historical memory becomes subject to changing political winds.
Instead, Belavusau praises the Dutch government's choice of public apologies – first by then-Prime Minister Mark Rutte in 2022, followed by King Willem-Alexander in 2023. This strategic sequence – first the government, then the head of state, Belavusau argues, created shared responsibility without the constitutional complexities and legal ‘paternalism’ often associated with memory laws.
As the Dutch King represents not only the Netherlands, but the entire Kingdom of the Netherlands – including the Caribbean countries Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, a parliamentary memory law concerning the slavery past could have required a complex constitutional route, possibly via a consensus kingdom law, with approval from multiple parliaments. By avoiding this, division or legal wrangling was prevented, Belavusau writes.
Symbolic figures and rituals
The author, who is an expert in comparative memory legislation, introduces the concept of ‘mnemonic constitutionalism’ – the shaping of collective memory within a constitutional framework. Belavusau writes: “Contrary to what is often thought, this need not happen through preambles or constitutional articles. Symbolic figures and rituals – such as the monarchy – can play a supporting role in this, as a constitutional anchor of continuity and intergenerational transition. Ketikoti is precisely such a space. It commemorates, connects and grows alongside how we dare to face our history. No law dictates the memory; it is citizens, schools, museums and descendants who shape collective consciousness.”
In his recent academic article published in the journal Law and Critique, Belavusau compares the Dutch and French approaches to memory politics. He argues that the Dutch model of mnemonic constitutionalism is particularly impactful due to the enduring presence of the monarchy.
Within a constitutional monarchy, the King or Queen functions as a symbol of national unity and continuity, embodying the identity of the nation and anchoring its historical narrative. In this context, the monarch serves as an ontological custodian of collective memory, reinforcing societal cohesion and providing ontological security through symbolic constitutional practices.
In his op-ed, Belavusau suggests that the ‘Dutch model’ deserves international attention, particularly for other monarchies grappling with colonial legacies. His analysis positions the Netherlands as demonstrating ‘constitutional wisdom’ in giving the past its proper place through inclusive commemoration rather than divisive legislation.
Read the full op-ed (in Dutch)
About Ulad Belavusau
Dr Uladzislau Belavusau is a senior researcher in European Law at the Asser Institute/University of Amsterdam. Previously, he was Assistant Professor in EU law and human rights at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2011-2015). His research and teaching cover various areas of EU (especially constitutional and anti-discrimination) law, human rights and memory politics. He has published widely on memory laws and co-edited books ‘Law and Memory’ (Cambridge 2017) and ‘Politics of Memory Laws’ (Hart-Bloomsbury 2025). Belavusau is part of the Asser Institute’s research strand In the public interest: accountability of the state and the prosecution of crimes’, which examines the the accountability of states.
