💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › abdullah-ocalan-democratic-confederalism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:23:34. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Democratic Confederalism Author: Abdullah Öcalan Date: 2011 Language: en Topics: democratic confederalism, communalism, turkey, rojava, kurdistan Source: http://www.freedom-for-ocalan.com/english/download/Ocalan-Democratic-Confederalism.pdf Notes: The word “Qwam” plural “Aqwam” can mean “people”, “nation”, or “tribe” depending on the context. The translator incorrectly translated, in reference to the kurdish people as a kurdish “state” when in reality Ocalan rejects the notion of a state — originally published by: Transmedia Publishing Ltd. – London, Cologne International Initiative Edition
For more than thirty years the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has been
struggling for the legitimate rights of the Kurdish people. Our
struggle, our fight for liberation turned the Kurdish question into an
international issue which affected the entire Middle East and brought a
solution of the Kurdish question within reach. When the PKK was formed
in the 1970s the international ideological and political climate was
characterized by the bipolar world of the Cold War and the conflict
between the socialist and the capitalist camps. The PKK was inspired at
that time by the rise of decolonialization movements all over the world.
In this context we tried to find our own way in agreement with the
particular situation in our homeland. The PKK never regarded the Kurdish
question as a mere problem of ethnicity or nationhood. Rather, we
believed, it was the project of liberating the society and democratizing
it. These aims increasingly determined our actions since the 1990s. We
also recognized a causal link between the Kurdish question and the
global domination of the modern capitalist system. Without questioning
and challenging this link a solution would not be possible. Otherwise we
would only become involved in new dependencies. So far, with a view to
issues of ethnicity and nationhood like the Kurdish question, which have
their roots deep in history and at the foundations of society, there
seemed to be only one viable. solution: the creation of a nation-state,
which was the paradigm of the capitalist modernity at that time. We did
not believe, however, that any ready-made political blueprints would be
able to sustainably improve the situation of the people in the Middle
East. Had it not been nationalism and nation-states which had created so
many problems in the Middle East? Let us therefore take a closer look at
the historical background of this paradigm and see whether we can map a
solution that avoids the trap of nationalism and fits the situation of
the Middle East better.
With the sedentarization of people they began to form an idea of the
area that they were living in, its extension and its boundaries, which
were mostly determined by nature and features of the landscape. Clans
and tribes that had settled in a certain area and lived there for a long
period of time developed the notions of a common identity and of the
homeland. The boundaries between what the tribes saw as their homelands
were not yet borders. Commerce, culture or language were not restricted
by the boundaries. Territorial borders remained flexible for a long
time. Feudal structures prevailed almost everywhere and now and then
dynastic monarchies or great multi-ethnic empires rose with continuously
changing borders and many different languages and religious communities
like the Roman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire
or the British Empire. They survived long periods of time and many
political changes because their feudal basis enabled them to distribute
power flexibly over a wide range of smaller secondary power centres.
With the appearance of the nation-state trade, commerce and finance
pushed for political participation and subsequently added their power to
the traditional state structures. The development of the nation-state at
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution more than two hundred years
ago went hand in hand with the unregulated accumulation of capital on
the one hand and the unhindered exploitation of the fast growing
population on the other hand. The new bourgeoisie which rose from this
revolution wanted to take part in the political decisions and state
structures. Capitalism, their new economic system, thus became an
inherent component of the new nation-state. The nation-state needed the
bourgeoisie and the power of the capital in order to replace the old
feudal order and its ideology which rested on tribal structures and
inherited rights by a new national ideology which united all tribes and
clans under the roof of the nation. In this way, capitalism and
nation-state became so closely linked to each other that neither could
be imagined to exist without the other. As a consequence of this,
exploitation was not only sanctioned by the state but even encouraged
and facilitated. But above all the nation-state must be thought as the
maximum form of power. None of the other types of state have such a
capacity of power. One of the main reasons for this is that the upper
part of the middle-class has been linked to the process of
monopolization in an ever-more increasing manner. The nationstate itself
is the most developed complete monopoly. It is the most developed unity
of monopolies such as trade, industrial, finance and power. One should
also think of ideological monopoly as an indivisible part of the power
monopoly.
The religious roots of the state have already been discussed in detail
(A. Ocalan, The Roots of Civilisation, London, 2007). Many contemporary
political concepts and notions have their origin in religious or
theological concepts or structures. In fact, a closer look reveals that
religion and divine imagination brought about the first social
identities in history. They formed the ideological glue of many tribes
and other pre-state communities and defined their existence as
communities.
Later, after state structures had already developed, the traditional
links between state, power and society began to weaken. The sacred and
divine ideas and practices which had been present at the origin of the
community increasingly lost their meaning for the common identity and
were, instead, transferred onto power structures like monarchs or
dictators. The state and its power were derived from divine will and law
and its ruler became king by the grace of God. They represented divine
power on earth.
Today, most modern states call themselves secular, claiming that the old
bonds between religion and state have been severed and that religion is
no longer a part of the state. This is arguably only half the truth.
Even if religious institutions or representatives of the clergy do no
longer participate in political and social decision-making they still do
influence these decisions to an extent just as they are influenced
themselves by political or social ideas and developments. Therefore,
secularism, or laicism as it is called in Turkey, still contains
religious elements. The separation of state and religion is the result
of a political decision. It did not come naturally. This is why even
today power and state seem to be something given, god-given we might
even say. Notions like secular state or secular power remain ambiguous.
The nation-state has also allocated a number of attributes which serve
to replace older religiously rooted attributes like: nation, fatherland,
national flag, national anthem, and many others. Particularly notions
like the unity of state and nation serve to transcend the material
political structures and are, as such, reminiscent of the pre-state
unity with God. They have been put in the place of the divine
When in former times a tribe subjugated another tribe its members had to
worship the gods of the victors. We may arguably call this process a
process of colonization, even assimilation. The nation-state is a
centralized state with quasi-divine attributes that has completely
disarmed the society and monopolizes the use of force.
Since the nation-state transcends its material basis, the citizens, it
assumes an existence beyond its political institutions. It needs
additional institutions of its own to protect its ideological basis as
well as legal, economic and religious structures. The resulting
ever-expanding civil and military bureaucracy is expensive and serves
only the preservation of the transcendent state itself, which in turn
elevates the bureaucracy above the people. During the European modernity
the state had all means at its disposal to expand its bureaucracy into
all strata of the society. There it grew like cancer infecting all
lifelines of the society. Bureaucracy and nation-state cannot exist
without each other. If the nation-state is the backbone of the
capitalist modernity it certainly is the cage of the natural society.
Its bureaucracy secures the smooth functioning of the system, secures
the basis of the production of goods, and secures the profits for the
relevant economic actors in both the real-socialist and the
business-friendly nation-state. The nation-state domesticates the
society in the name of capitalism and alienates the community from its
natural foundations. Any analysis meant to localize and solve social
problems needs to take a close look at these links
The nation-state in its original form aimed at the monopolization of all
social processes. Diversity and plurality had to be fought, an approach
that led into assimilation and genocide. It does not only exploit the
ideas and the labour potential of the society and colonize the heads of
the people in the name of capitalism. It also assimilates all kinds of
spiritual and intellectual ideas and cultures in order to preserve its
own existence. It aims at creating a single national culture, a single
national identity, and a single unified religious community. Thus it
also enforces a homogeneous citizenship. The notion of citizen has been
created as a result of the quest for such a homogeneity. The citizenship
of modernity defines nothing but the transition made from private
slavery to state slavery. Capitalism can not attain profit in the
absence of such modern slave armies. The homogenic national society is
the most artificial society to have ever been created and is the result
of the “social engineering project”. These goals are generally
accomplished by the use of force or by financial incentives and have
often resulted in the physical annihilation of minorities, cultures, or
languages or in forced assimilation. The history of the last two
centuries is full of examples illustrating the violent attempts at
creating a nation that corresponds to the imaginary reality of a true
nation-state.
It is often said that the nation-state is concerned with the fate of the
common people. This is not true. Rather, it is the national governor of
the worldwide capitalist system, a vassal of the capitalist modernity
which is more deeply entangled in the dominant structures of the capital
than we usually tend to assume: It is a colony of the capital.
Regardless how nationalist the nationstate may present itself, it serves
to the same extent the capitalist processes of exploitation. There is no
other explanation for the horrible redistribution wars of the capitalist
modernity. Thus the nation-state is not with the common people – it is
an enemy of the peoples. Relations between other nation-states and
international monopolies are coordinated by the diplomats of the
nation-state. Without the recognition by other nation-states none of
them could survive. The reason can be found in the logic of the
worldwide capitalist system. Nation-states which leave the phalanx of
the capitalist system will be overtaken by the same fate that the Saddam
regime in Iraq experienced or it will be brought to its knees by means
of economic embargoes. Let us now derive some characteristics of the
nation-state from the example of the Republic of Turkey.
In the past the history of states was often equated with the history of
their rulers, which lent them almost divine qualities. This practice
changed with the rise of the nation-state. Now the entire state was
idealized and elevated to a divine level.
Assuming that we would compare the nation-state to a living god then
nationalism would be the correspondent religion. In spite of some
seemingly positive elements, nation-state and nationalism show
metaphysical characteristics. In this context, capitalist profit and the
accumulation of capital appear as categories shrouded in mystery. There
is a network of contradictory relations behind these terms that is based
on force and exploitation. Their hegemonic strive for power serves the
maximization of profits. In this sense, nationalism appears as a
quasi-religious justification. Its true mission, however, is its service
to the virtually divine nation-state and its ideological vision which
pervades all areas of the society. Arts, science, and social awareness:
none of them is independent. A true intellectual enlightenment therefore
needs a fundamental analysis of these elements of modernity.
The paradigm of a positivist or descriptive science forms another
ideological pillar of the nation-state. It fuels nationalist ideology
but also laicism which has taken the form of a new religion. On the
other hand it is one of the ideological foundations of modernity and its
dogmata have influenced the social sciences sustainably. Positivism can
be circumscribed as a philosophical approach that is strictly confined
to the appearance of things, which it equates with reality itself. Since
in positivism appearance is reality, nothing that has no appearance can
be part of reality. We know from quantum physics, astronomy, some fields
of biology and even the gist of thought itself that reality occurs in
worlds that are beyond observable events. The truth, in the relationship
between the observed and the observer, has mystified itself to the
extent that it no longer fits any physical scale or definition.
Positivism denies this and thus, to an extent, resembles the idol
worshipping of ancient times, where the idol constitutes the image of
reality.
Another ideological pillar of the nation-state is the sexism that
pervades the entire society. Many civilized systems have employed sexism
in order to preserve their own power. They enforced women’s exploitation
and used them as a valuable reservoir of cheap labour. Women are also
regarded as a valuable resource in so far as they produce offspring and
provide the reproduction of men. Thus, woman is both a sexual object and
a commodity. She is a tool for the preservation of male power and can at
best advance to become an accessory of the patriarchal male society. On
the one hand, the sexism of the society of the nation-state strengthens
the power of the men; on the other hand the nationstate turns its
society into a colony by the exploitation of women. In this respect
women can also be regarded as an exploited nation. In the course of the
history of civilization the patriarchy consolidated the traditional
framework of hierarchies, which in the nation-state is fuelled by
sexism. Socially rooted sexism is just like nationalism an ideological
product of the nation-state and of power. Socially rooted sexism is not
less dangerous than capitalism. The patriarchy, however, tries to hide
these facts at any rate. This is understandable with a view to the fact
that all power relations and state ideologies are fuelled by sexist
concepts and behaviour. Without the repression of the women the
repression of the entire society is not conceivable. The sexism within
the nation-state society while on the one hand gives the male the
maximum power on the other hand turns the society through the woman into
the worst colony of all. Hence woman is the historical-society’s colony
nation which has reached its worst position within the nation-state. All
the power and state ideologies stem from sexist attitudes and behaviour.
Woman’s slavery is the most profound and disguised social area where all
types of slavery, oppression and colonization are realized. Capitalism
and nation-state act in full awareness of this. Without woman’s slavery
none of the other types of slavery can exist let alone develop.
Capitalism and nation-state denote the most institutionalized dominant
male. More boldly and openly spoken: capitalism and nation-state are the
monopolism of the despotic and exploitative male.
Even if it acts seemingly like a secular state, the nation-state does
not shy away from using a mélange of nationalism and religion for its
purposes. The reason is simple: religion still plays an important part
in some societies or parts of them. In particular Islam is very agile in
this respect. However, religion in the age of modernity does no longer
play its traditional role. Whether it is a radical of a moderate belief,
religion in the nation-state does no longer have a mission in the
society. It can only do what it is permitted by the nation-state. Its
still existing influence and its functionality, which can be mis-used
for the promotion of nationalism, are interesting aspects for the
nation-state. In some cases religion even takes on the part of
nationalism. The Shi’ah of Iran is one of the most powerful ideological
weapons of the Iranian state. In Turkey the Sunni ideology plays a
similar but more limited part.
After the preceding short introduction into the nation-state and its
ideological basics we will now see why the foundation of a separate
Kurdish nation-state does not make sense for the Kurds. Over the last
decades the Kurds have not only struggled against repression by the
dominant powers and for the recognition of their existence but also for
the liberation of their society from the grip of feudalism. Hence it
does not make sense to replace the old chains by new ones or even
enhance the repression. This is what the foundation of a nation-state
would mean in the context of the capitalist modernity. Without
opposition against the capitalist modernity there will be no place for
the liberation of the peoples. This is why the founding of a Kurdish
nation-state is not an option for me. The call for a separate
nation-state results from the interests of the ruling class or the
interests of the bourgeoisie but does not reflect the interests of the
people since another state would only be the creation of additional
injustice and would curtail the right to freedom even more. The solution
to the Kurdish question, therefore, needs to be found in an approach
that weakens the capitalist modernity or pushes it back. There are
historical reasons, social peculiarities and actual developments as well
as the fact that the settlement area of the Kurds extends over the
territories of four different countries which make a democratic solution
indispensable. Furthermore, there is also the important fact that the
entire Middle East suffers from a democracy deficit. Thanks to the
geostrategic situation of the Kurdish settlement area successful Kurdish
democratic projects promise to advance the democratization of the Middle
East in general. Let us call this democratic project democratic
confederalism.
This kind of rule or administration can be called a non-state political
administration or a democracy without a state. Democratic
decision-making processes must not be confused with the processes known
from public administration. States only administrate while democracies
govern. States are founded on power; democracies are based on collective
consensus. Office in the state is determined by decree, even though it
may be in part legitimized by elections. Democracies use direct
elections. The state uses coercion as a legitimate means. Democracies
rest on voluntary participation. Democratic confederalism is open
towards other political groups and factions. It is flexible,
multi-cultural, anti-monopolistic, and consensus-oriented. Ecology and
feminism are central pillars. In the frame of this kind of
self-administration an alternative economy will become necessary, which
increases the resources of the society instead of exploiting them and
thus does justice to the manifold needs of the society
The contradictory composition of the society necessitates political
groups with both vertical and horizontal formations. Central, regional
and local groups need to be balanced in this way. Only they, each for
itself, are able to deal with its special concrete situation and develop
appropriate solutions for far-reaching social problems. It is a natural
right to express one’s cultural, ethnic, or national identity with the
help of political associations. However, this right needs an ethical and
political society. Whether nationstate, republic, or democracy –
democratic confederalism is open for compromises concerning state or
governmental traditions. It allows for equal coexistence
Knowledge
Then again, democratic confederalism rests on the historical experience
of the society and its collective heritage. It is not an arbitrary
modern political system but, rather, accumulates history and experience.
It is the offspring of the life of the society. The state continuously
orientates itself towards centralism in order to pursue the interests of
the power monopolies. Just the opposite is true for confederalism. Not
the monopolies but the society is at the centre of political focus. The
heterogeneous structure of the society is in contradiction to all forms
of centralism. Distinct centralism only results in social eruptions.
Within living memory people have always formed loose groups of clans,
tribes or other communities with federal qualities. In this way they
were able to preserve their internal autonomy. Even the internal
government of empires employed diverse methods of self-administration
for their different parts, which included religious authorities, tribal
councils, kingdoms, and even republics. Hence it is important to
understand, that even centralist seeming empires follow a confederate
organizational structure. The centralist model is not an administrative
model wanted by the society. Instead, it has its source in the
preservation of power of the monopolies.
The classification of the society in categories and terms after a
certain pattern is produced artificially by the capitalist monopolies.
What counts in a society like that is not what you are but what you
appear to be. The putative alienation of the society from its own
existence encourages the withdrawal from active participation, a
reaction which is often called disenchantment with politics. However,
societies are essentially political and value-oriented. Economic,
political, ideological, and military monopolies are constructions which
contradict the nature of society by merely striving for the accumulation
of surplus. They do not create values. Nor can a revolution create a new
society. It can only influence the ethical and political web of a
society. Anything else is at the discretion of the ethics-based
political society. I mentioned already that the capitalist modernity
enforces the centralization of the state. The political and military
power centres within the society have been deprived of their influence.
The nation-state as a modern substitute of monarchy left a weakened and
defenceless society behind. In this respect, legal order and public
peace only imply the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Power constitutes
itself in the central state and becomes one of the fundamental
administrative paradigms of modernity. This puts the nation-state in
contrast to democracy and republicanism. Our project of “democratic
modernity” is meant as an alternative draft to modernity as we know it.
It builds on democratic confederalism as a fundamental political
paradigm. Democratic modernity is the roof of an ethics-based political
society. As long as we make the mistake to believe that societies need
to be homogeneous monolithic entities it will be difficult to understand
confederalism. Modernity’s history is also a history of four centuries
of cultural and physical genocide in the name of an imaginary unitary
society. Democratic confederalism as a sociological category is the
counterpart of this history and it rests on the will to fight if
necessary as well as on ethnic, cultural, and political diversity. The
crisis of the financial system is an inherent consequence of the
capitalist nation-state. However, all efforts of the neoliberals to
change the nation-state have remained unsuccessful. The Middle East
provides instructive examples.
In contrast to a centralist and bureaucratic understanding of
administration and exercise of power confederalism poses a type of
political self-administration where all groups of the society and all
cultural identities can express themselves in local meetings, general
conventions and councils. This understanding of democracy opens the
political space to all strata of the society and allows for the
formation of different and diverse political groups. In this way it also
advances the political integration of the society as a whole. Politics
becomes a part of everyday life. Without politics the crisis of the
state cannot be solved since the crisis is fuelled by a lack of
representation of the political society. Terms like federalism or self
administration as they can be found in liberal democracies need to be
conceived anew. Essentially, they should not be conceived as
hierarchical levels of the administration of the nation-state but rather
as central tools of social expression and participation. This, in turn,
will advance the politicization of the society. We do not need big
theories here, what we need is the will to lend expression to the social
needs by strengthening the autonomy of the social actors structurally
and by creating the conditions for the organization of the society as a
whole. The creation of an operational level where all kinds of social
and political groups, religious communities, or intellectual tendencies
can express themselves directly in all local decision-making processes
can also be called participative democracy. The stronger the
participation the more powerful is this kind of democracy. While the
nation-state is in contrast to democracy, and even denies it, democratic
confederalism constitutes a continuous democratic process.
The social actors, which are each for itself federative units, are the
germ cells of participative democracy. They can combine and associate
into new groups and confederations according to the situation. Each of
the political units involved in participative democracy is essentially
democratic. In this way, what we call democracy then is the application
of democratic processes of decision-making from the local level to the
global level in the framework of a continuous political process. This
process will affect the structure of the social web of the society in
contrast to the striving for homogeneity of the nation-state, a
construct that can only be realized by force thus bringing about the
loss of freedom.
I have already addressed the point that the local level is the level
where the decisions are made. However, the thinking leading to these
decisions needs to be in line with global issues. We need to become
aware of the fact that even villages and urban neighbourhoods require
confederate structures. All areas of the society need to be given to
self-administration, all levels of it need to be free to participate.
Essentially, the nation-state is a militarily structured entity.
Nation-states are eventually the products of all kinds of internal and
external warfare. None of the existing nation-states has come into
existence all by itself. Invariably, they have a record of wars. This
process is not limited to their founding phase but, rather, it builds on
the militarization of the entire society. The civil leadership of the
state is only an accessory of the military apparatus. Liberal
democracies even outdo this by painting their militaristic structures in
democratic and liberal colours. However, this does not keep them from
seeking authoritarian solutions at the highpoint of a crisis caused by
the system itself. Fascist exercise of power is the nature of the
nation-state. Fascism is the purest form of the nation-state.
This militarization can only be pushed back with the help of
self-defence. Societies without any mechanism of self-defence lose their
identities, their capability of democratic decision-making, and their
political nature. Therefore, the self-defence of a society is not
limited to the military dimension alone. It also presupposes the
preservation of its identity, its own political awareness, and a process
of democratization. Only then can we talk about self-defence.
Against this background democratic confederalism can be called a system
of self-defence of the society. Only with the help of confederate
networks can there be a basis to oppose the global domination of the
monopolies and nation-state militarism. Against the network of
monopolies we must build up an equally strong network of social
confederacies.
This means in particular that the social paradigm of confederalism does
not involve a military monopoly for the armed forces, which do only have
the task of ensuring the internal and external security. They are under
direct control of the democratic institutions. The society itself must
be able to determine their duties. One of their tasks will be the
defence of the free will of the society from internal and external
interventions. The composition of the military leadership needs to be
determined in equal terms and parts by both the political institutions
and the confederate groupings.
In democratic confederalism there is no room for any kind of hegemony
striving. This is particularly true in the field of ideology. Hegemony
is a principle that is usually followed by the classic type of
civilization. Democratic civilizations reject hegemonic powers and
ideologies. Any ways of expression which cut across the boundaries of
democratic self-administration would carry self-administration and
freedom of expression ad absurdum. The collective handling of matters of
the society needs understanding, respect of dissenting opinions and
democratic ways of decisionmaking. This is in contrast to the
understanding of leadership in the capitalist modernity where arbitrary
bureaucratic decisions of nation-state character are diametrically
opposed to the democratic-confederate leadership in line with ethic
foundations. In democratic confederalism leadership institutions do not
need ideological legitimization. Hence, they need not strive for
hegemony
Although in democratic confederalism the focus is on the local level,
organizing confederalism globally is not excluded. Contrariwise, we need
to put up a platform of national civil societies in terms of a
confederate assembly to oppose the United Nations as an association of
nation-states under the leadership of the superpowers. In this way we
might get better decisions with a view to peace, ecology, justice and
productivity in the world.
Democratic confederalism can be described as a kind of
selfadministration in contrast to the administration by the nationstate.
However, under certain circumstances peaceful coexistence is possible as
long as the nation-state does not interfere with central matters of
self-administration. All such interventions would call for the
self-defence of the civil society.
Democratic confederalism is not at war with any nation-state but it will
not stand idly by at assimilation efforts. Revolutionary overthrow or
the foundation of a new state does not create sustainable change. In the
long run, freedom and justice can only be accomplished within a
democratic-confederate dynamic process.
Neither total rejection nor complete recognition of the state is useful
for the democratic efforts of the civil society. The overcoming of the
state, particularly the nation-state, is a long-term process.
The state will be overcome when democratic confederalism has proved its
problem-solving capacities with a view to social issues. This does not
mean, though, that attacks by nation-states have to be accepted.
Democratic confederations will sustain self-defence forces at all times.
Democratic confederations will not be limited to organize themselves
within a single particular territory. They will become cross-border
confederations when the societies concerned so desire.
1. The right of self-determination of the peoples includes the right to
a state of their own. However, the foundation of a state does not
increase the freedom of a people. The system of the United Nations that
is based on nation-states has remained inefficient. Meanwhile,
nation-states have become serious obstacles for any social development.
Democratic confederalism is the contrasting paradigm of the oppressed
people.
2. Democratic confederalism is a non-state social paradigm. It is not
controlled by a state. At the same time, democratic confederalism is the
cultural organizational blueprint of a democratic nation.
3. Democratic confederalism is based on grass-roots participation. Its
decision-making processes lie with the communities. Higher levels only
serve the coordination and implementation of the will of the communities
that send their delegates to the general assemblies. For limited space
of time they are both mouthpiece and executive institutions. However,
the basic power of decision rests with the local grass-roots
institutions.
4. In the Middle East, democracy cannot be imposed by the capitalist
system and its imperial powers which only damage democracy. The
propagation of grass-roots democracy is elementary. It is the only
approach that can cope with diverse ethnical groups, religions, and
class differences. It also goes together well with the traditional
confederate structure of the society
5. Democratic confederalism in Kurdistan is an anti-nationalist movement
as well. It aims at realizing the right of self-defence of the peoples
by the advancement of democracy in all parts of Kurdistan without
questioning the existing political borders. Its goal is not the
foundation of a Kurdish nationstate. The movement intends to establish
federal structures in Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq that are open for
all Kurds and at the same time form an umbrella confederation for all
four parts of Kurdistan
Solution
The national question is not a phantasm of the capitalist modernity.
Nevertheless it was the capitalist modernity which imposed the national
question on the society. The nation replaced the religious community.
However, the transition to a national society needs the overcoming of
the capitalist modernity if the nation is not to remain the disguise of
repressive monopolies.
As negative as is the over-emphasis of the national category in the
Middle East as severe would be the consequences of neglecting the
collective national aspect. Hence the method in handling the issue
should not be ideological but scientific and not nationstatist but based
on the concept of democratic nation and democratic communalism. The
contents of such an approach are the fundamental elements of democratic
modernity.
Over the past two centuries nationalism and tendency for nation-states
have been fuelled in the societies of the Middle East. The national
issues have not been solved but rather have been aggravated in all areas
of the society. Instead of cultivating productive competition the
capital enforces internal and external wars in the name of the
nation-state.
The theory of communalism would be an alternative to capitalism. In the
framework of democratic nations which do not strive for power monopolies
it may lead to peace in a region which has only been the field of gory
wars and genocides.
In this context we can speak of four majority nations: Arabs, Persians,
Turks, and Kurds. I do not wish to divide nations into majority or
minority as I do not find this to be appropriate. But due to demographic
considerations I shall speak of majority nations. In the same context we
may also use the term minority nations.
1. There are more than twenty Arab nation-states which divide the Arab
community and damage their societies by wars. This is one of the main
factors responsible for the alienation of cultural values and the
apparent hopelessness of the Arab national question. These nation-states
have not even been able to form a cross-national economic community.
They are the main reason of the problematic situation of the Arab
nation. A religiously motivated tribal nationalism together with a
sexist patriarchal society pervades all areas of the society resulting
in distinct conservatism and slavish obedience. Nobody believes that the
Arabs will be able to find an Arab national solution to their internal
and crossnational problems. However, democratization and a communalist
approach might provide such a solution. Their weakness towards Israel,
which the Arab nation-states regard as a competitor, is not only the
result of international support by the hegemonic powers. Rather, it is
the result of a strong internal democratic and communal institutions
within Israel. Over the last century, the society of the Arab nation has
been weakened by radical nationalism and Islamism. Yet, if they are able
to unite communal socialism which they are not a stranger to with that
of the understanding of a democratic nation then they may be able to
find themselves a secure, long-term solution.
2. The Turks and Turkmens form another influential nation. They share a
similar understandings of power and ideology with the Arabs. They are
strict nation-statists and have a profound religious and racial
nationalism engraved in them. From a sociological point of view, the
Turks and Turkmens are quite different. The relations between Turkmen
and Turkish aristocracy resemble the tensed relations between Bedouins
and Arab aristocracy. They form a stratum whose interests are compatible
with democracy and communalism. The national problems are quite complex.
The power strive of the nation-state, distinct nationalism and a sexist
patriarchal society prevail and create a very conservative society. The
family is regarded as the smallest cell of the state. Both individuals
and institutions have taken in these aspects. Turkish and Turkmen
communities struggle for power. Other ethnic groups are subjected to a
distinct policy of subjugation. The centralist power structures of the
Turkish nation-state and the rigid official ideology have prevented a
solution to the Kurdish question until today. The society is made to
believe that there is no alternative to the state. There is no balance
between the individual and the state. Obedience is regarded as the
greatest virtue
In contrast to this, the theory of the democratic modernity offers an
adequate approach to all national communities in Turkey to solve their
national problems. Community based project of a democratic Turkish
confederation would both strengthen its internal unity and and create
the conditions for a peaceful coexistence with the neighbours that it
lives with. Borders have lost its former meaning when it comes to social
unity. In spite of geographic boundaries today’s modern communication
tools allow for a virtual unity between individuals and communities
wherever they are. A democratic confederation of the Turkish national
communities could be a contribution to world peace and the system of
democratic modernity.
3. The Kurdish national society is very complex. Worldwide, the Kurds
are the biggest nation without a state of their own. They have been
settling in their present settlement areas since the Neolithic.
Agriculture and stock breeding as well as their readiness to defend
themselves using the geographic advantages of their mountainous homeland
helped the Kurds to survive as a native people. The Kurdish national
question rises from the fact that they have been denied their right to
nationhood. Others tried to assimilate them, annihilate them, and in the
end flatly denied their existence. Not having a state of their own has
advantages and disadvantages. The excrescences of state-based
civilizations have only been taken in to a limited extent. This can be a
benefit in the realization of alternative social concepts beyond the
capitalist modernity. Their settlement area is divided by the national
borders of four countries and lies in a geo-strategically important
region, thus providing the Kurds a strategic advantage. The Kurds do not
have the chance to form a national society through the use of
state-power. Although there is a Kurdish political entity today in
Iraqi-Kurdistan, it is not a nation-state but rather a parastatal
entity.
Kurdistan had also been home to Armenian and Aramaic minorities before
these fell victims to genocides. There are also smaller groups of Arabs
and Turks. Even today there are many different religions and faiths
living side by side there. There also rudiments of a clan and tribal
culture while there is almost no presence of urban culture there.
All these properties are a blessing for new democratic political
formations. Communal cooperatives in farming but also in the water
economy and the energy sector offer themselves as ideal ways of
production. The situation is also favourable for the development of an
ethical political society. Even the patriarchal ideology is less deeply
rooted here than in the neighbouring societies. This is beneficial for
the establishment of a democratic society where women’s freedom and
equality are to form one of the main pillars. It also offers the
conditions for the creation of a democratic environment-friendly nation
in line with the paradigm of the democratic modernity. The construction
of a democratic nation based on multi-national identities is the ideal
solution when faced with the dead-end street nation-state. The emerging
entity could become a blueprint for the entire Middle East and expand
dynamically into neighbouring countries. Convincing the neighbouring
nations of this model shall change the fate of the Middle East and shall
reinforce the chance of democratic modernity to create an alternative.
In this sense, therefore, the freedom of the Kurds and the
democratization of their society would be synonymous with the freedom of
the whole region and its societies.
4. The reasons for today’s problems of the Persian or Iranian nation can
be found in the interventions of historical civilizations and the
capitalist modernity. Although their original identity was a result of
Zoroastrian and Mithraic tradition these have been annulled by a
derivative of Islam. Manichaeism that emerged as the synthesis of
Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism with Greek philosophy was not
able to prevail against the ideology of the official civilization.
Indeed, it went no further then to nurture the tradition of rebellion.
It has hence converted the Islamic tradition into Shi’ah denomination
and adopted it to be its latest civilizational ideology. Presently there
are efforts made to modernize itself by passing the elements of
capitalist modernity through its Shi’ah filter.
The Iranian society is multi-ethnic and multi-religious and blessed with
a rich culture. All national and religious identities of the Middle East
can be found there. This diversity is in strong contrast to the
hegemonic claim of the theocracy, which cultivates a subtle religious
nationalism and the ruling class does not shrink back from
anti-modernist propaganda whenever it serves their interests.
Revolutionary and democratic tendencies have been integrated by the
traditional civilization. A despotic regime skilfully governs the
country. The negative effects of American and European sanctions are not
negligible here.
Despite strong centralist efforts in Iran, from the grass-roots already
some kind of federalism exists. When elements of democratic civilisation
and federalist elements including Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, and
Turkmens intersect, the project of a “Democratic Confederation of Iran”
can emerge and become attractive. Women’s movement and communal
traditions will play a special role here
5. The Armenian national question contains one of the greatest tragedies
that the progress of the capitalist modernity has brought about in the
Middle East. The Armenians are a very old people. They shared much of
their settlement area with the Kurds. While the Kurds live primarily on
agriculture and animal husbandry the Armenians engaged in arts and
crafts. Just like the Kurds, the Armenians cultivated a tradition of
self-defence. Apart from some short episodes the Armenians never
successfully founded a state. They rely on Christian culture which gives
them their identity and their faith in salvation. Because of their
religion they often suffered repression at the hands of the Muslim
majority. Hence, the emerging nationalism bore fruit with the Armenian
bourgeoisie. Soon there were differences with the Turkish nationalists
eventually ending in the genocide of the Armenians by the Turks.
Apart from the Jews the Armenians are the second-largest people which
live primarily in the Diaspora. The foundation of an Armenian state in
the west of Azerbaijan, however, did not solve the Armenian national
question. The consequences of the genocide can hardly be put into words.
The search for the lost country defines their national psyche and is at
the heart of the Armenian question. The issue is aggravated by the fact
that these areas have been settled by other people since then. Any
concepts based on a nation-state cannot offer a solution. There is
neither a homogenous population structure there nor any clear borders as
is required by the capitalist modernity. The thinking of their opponents
may be fascist; however, it is not enough to only bring the genocide to
one’s mind. Confederate structures could be an alternative for the
Armenians. The foundation of a democratic Armenian nation in line with
the paradigm of the democratic modernity promises the Armenians an
opportunity to reinvent themselves. It could enable them to return to
their place in the cultural plurality of the Middle East. In the event
that they renew themselves under the Armenian democratic nation not only
shall they continue to play their historical role within the Middle East
culture but they shall also find the right path to liberation.
6. In modern times the Christian Arameans (Assyrians) also suffered the
fate of the Armenians. They too are one of the oldest people in the
Middle East. They shared a settlement area with the Kurds but also with
other people. Like the Armenians they suffered from repression by the
Muslim majority paving the way for European-style nationalism among the
Aramean bourgeoisie. Eventually the Arameans too fell victims to
genocide at the hands of the Turks under the leadership of the fascist
Committee of Unity and Progress. The collaborationist Kurds lent a
helping hand in this genocide. The question of Aramean national society
has its roots in the civilization but has also developed further with
Christianity and ideologies of modernity. For a solution there is a need
for a radical transformation of the Arameans. Their real salvation may
be to break away from the mentality of classical civilization and
capitalist modernity and instead embrace democratic civilization and
renew their rich cultural memory as an element of democratic modernity
in order to re-construct themselves as the “Aramean Democratic Nation”.
7. The history of the Jewish people also gives expression to the overall
problematic cultural history of the Middle East. The search for the
backdrop of expulsion, pogroms and genocide amounts to balancing the
accounts of the civilizations. The Jew-ish community has taken up the
influences of the old Sumerian and Egyptian cultures as well as those of
regional tribal cultures. It has contributed a lot to the culture of the
Middle East. Like the Arameans they fell victims to extreme developments
of modernity. Against this background, intellectuals of Jewish descent
developed a complex point of view towards these issues. However, this is
by far not enough. For a solution of the problems as they exist today a
renewed appropriation of the history of the Middle East is needed on a
democratic basis. The Israeli nationstate is at war since its
foundation. The slogan is: an eye for an eye. Fire cannot be fought by
fire, though. Even if Israel enjoys relative security thanks to its
international support, this is not a sustainable solution. Nothing will
be permanently safe as long as the capitalist modernity has not been
overcome.
The Palestine conflict makes it clear that the nation-state paradigm is
not helpful for a solution. There has been much bloodshed; what remains
is the difficult legacy of seemingly irresolvable problems. The
Israel-Palestine example shows the complete failure of the capitalist
modernity and the nation-state.
The Jews belong to the culture bearers of the Middle East. Denial of
their right to existence is an attack on the Middle East as such. Their
transformation into a democratic nation just as for Armenians and
Arameans would make their participation in a democratic confederation of
the Middle East easier. The project of an “East-Aegean Democratic
Confederation” would be a positive start. Strict and exclusive national
and religious identities may evolve into flexible and open identities
under this project. Israel may also evolve into a more acceptable open
democratic nation. Undoubtedly though its neighbours must also go
through such a transformation.
Tensions and armed conflicts in the Middle East make a transformation of
the paradigm of modernity seem inevitable. Without it a solution of the
difficult social problems and national questions is impossible.
Democratic modernity offers an alternative to the system that is unable
to resolve problems.
8. The annihilation of Hellenic culture in Anatolia is a loss that
cannot be compensated. The ethnic cleansing arranged by the Turkish and
Greek nation-states in the first quarter of the last century has left
its mark. No state has the right to drive people from their ancestral
cultural region. Nevertheless, the nationstates showed their inhuman
approach towards such issues again and again. The attacks on the
Hellenic, Jewish, Aramean and Armenian cultures were stepped up while
Islam spread throughout the Middle East. This, in turn, contributed to
the decline of the Middle-Eastern Civilization. The Islamic culture has
never been able to fill the emerging void. In the 19^(th) century when
the capitalist modernity advanced into the Middle East it found a
cultural desert created by self-inflicted cultural erosion. Cultural
diversity also strengthens the defence mechanism of a society.
Monocultures are less robust. Hence, the conquest of the Middle East had
not been difficult. The project of a homogeneous nation as propagated by
the nation-states furthered their cultural decline.
9. The Caucasian ethnic groups also have social problems which are not
insignificant. Again and again they have migrated into the Middle East
and stimulated its cultures. They have unquestionably contributed to its
cultural wealth. The arrival of modernity almost made these minority
cultures disappear. They, too, would find their adequate place in a
confederate structure.
Finally, let me state again that the fundamental problems of the Middle
East are deeply rooted in the class civilization. They have tightened
with the global crisis of the capitalist modernity. This modernity and
its claim to dominance cannot offer any solutions not to mention a
long-term perspective for the Middle-East region. The future is
democratic confederalism.
Writings by Abdullah Ocalan Prison Writings: The Roots of Civilisation,
London, 2007 ISBN: 978–0745326160 Prison Writings: The PKK and the
Kurdish Question in the 21^(st) Century, London, 2011 ISBN:
978–0956751409 War and Peace in Kurdistan, Cologne, 2009, PDF
The Road Map for Democratization of Turkey and Solution to the Kurdish
Question (Summary), Cologne, 2011, PDF