💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › abdullah-ocalan-democratic-nation.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:23:39. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Democratic Nation Author: Abdullah Öcalan Date: 2016 Language: en Topics: democratic confederalism, decentralization, Direct Democracy, democracy Source: http://ocalan-books.com/downloads/democratic-nation.pdf
The International Initiative “Freedom for Abdullah Öcalan — Peace in
Kurdistan” strives not only to publish Abdullah Öcalan’s works in
different languages but also to prepare brochures compiled from
different books by him on specific topics. This is useful and necessary
not only because it brings together the chain of argument on a specific
topic spread over several books, but also because some of his works are
still untranslated. Therefore, this brochure should only be regarded as
a framework and cannot replace the perusal of the actual books.
Öcalan has been highly critical not only of capitalism but also of real
socialist practices from very early on, since the 1980s. He has examined
the issue of women’s freedom, the phenomena of power and state and how
interrelated they all are. This has led him over and over again to
return to an analysis of history to try to understand how it all
happened. In doing so he stumbled over nation, state and nation-state
and how detrimental these are for any movement; turning even the most
revolutionary individuals into mere practitioners of capitalism.
For Abdullah Öcalan it is not sufficient to produce critique and
self-critique. He feels compelled to lay out what might constitute an
alternative to the way of life that is being imposed on society.
Terefore, he makes an effort to systematise the lives and struggles of
all those oppressed and exploited throughout history, as well as to
propose an alternative model and way of life outside of capitalist
modernity and thus classical civilisation.
These brochures become ever more important in the light of developments
in the region as well as in Kurdistan. With the revival of sectarian and
nationalist conflict in many areas of the world and the consequences of
an aggressive capitalism confronting the world, Öcalan’s proposals and
an evident effort to implement them in Rojava and Bakur might be just
the right remedy for the war-stricken region. He calls upon everybody to
build and defend free life and humanity.
Öcalan’s voice is tremendously important as a voice of peace and reason,
but it is all too often silenced by his solitary confinement on the
isolated Imrali Island where he is imprisoned.
His freedom is in the interest of all peoples in the Middle East — not
only for the Kurds.
International Initiative
“Freedom for Abdullah Öcalan — Peace in Kurdistan”
The PKK’s struggle until now was essentially aimed at making the Kurdish
question visible. The denial of Kurdish reality during the time of its
formation naturally brought the question of existence on the agenda.
Thus, the PKK at first tried to prove the existence of the question, by
means of ideological arguments. The continuation of this denial by the
left through more refined methods placed on the agenda organising
ourselves on the basis of distinct identities and actions.
The Turkish nation-state — who insisted on traditional denial and
annihilation policies — refused to consider the possibility of a
political solution during this period. On the contrary, it chose to
counter the PKK’s initiatives with a campaign of fascist terror that led
up to the 12^(th) of September coup. PKK’s declaration of a
revolutionary people’s war emerged as the only viable option.
Under these conditions, PKK was either going to wither away, like the
other democratic left groups in Turkey, or decide on resistance. The
decisive factor in the transformation of the Kurdish question from being
one of ideological identity into a question of war is state’s insistence
on maintaining previously covert policies of denial and annihilation
through the open terror of 12 September. It would be more realistic to
analyse the offensive of 15 August 1984 within this framework.
Such a move is much closer to the objective of proving the existence of
the Kurdish people and protecting their existence than of being a
liberation movement. It should be pointed out that, in this regard, it
has attained a significant success.
The PKK, while proving Kurdish existence beyond any doubt, remained
rooted in nation-statism. The ensuing period of self-criticism revealed
the anti-socialist and anti-democratic essence of nation-statism. The
speedy dissolution of real socialism in the 1990s contributed to a
deeper understanding of the underlying factors behind the depression.
The dissolution of real socialism was caused by power and real socialist
nation- state problematics. To be more precise, the crisis of socialism
was the result of an inadequate understanding of the problem of power
and the state. When the contradictions of state and power, set out so
starkly by the Kurdish question, coalesced with the wider global crisis
of real socialism, a comprehensive analysis of the issue of the state
and power became inevitable.
To this end, in a significant part of my defence, I try to analyse the
state and power throughout civilisational history.
I concentrated on presenting the transformation of the phenomena of
state and power in the context of capitalist modernity — the present-day
hegemonic civilisation. I specifically argued that the transformation of
power into the nation-state was the basis of capitalism. This was an
important thesis. I tried to demonstrate that in the absence of power
being organised through the nation-state model, capitalism could not
have become the new hegemonic system. The nation-state was the
fundamental tool that made capitalist hegemony possible.
Therefore, I tried to prove that socialism, as anti-capitalism,
presenting itself as what I call “historical-society”, could not
establish itself as based on the same state model, in other words, as a
real socialist nation-state. I tried to show that the idea that
socialism, as proposed by Marx and Engels, could only be constructed
through central nation-states was indeed a fundamental defect of
scientific socialism. I went on to present the thesis that socialism
could not be constructed through the state, especially the nation-state,
and that an insistence on this could only result in the most degenerate
versions of capitalism as experienced in many instances, but especially
in the actually-existing socialism of Russia and China. As a necessary
precursor to this thesis, I analysed the system of central civilisation
throughout history, the concept of power, and the structure of
capitalist modernity’s state and power which is the prevalent structure
unique to our era. My main conclusion was that socialists could not have
a nation-state principle. Rather, the solution to the national question
should be based on the democratic nation principle. The practical
expression of this, as I will try to show, is the KCK — the Union of
Democratic Communities in Kurdistan — experience.
Kurdistan, in a way, has already become the focus of revolution and
counter-revolution in the twenty-first century. It is the weakest link
of capitalist modernity. The national and social problems of the people
of Kurdistan have become so aggravated that they cannot be concealed by
means of liberal prescriptions or the demagogy of individual or cultural
rights.
When it comes to the Kurdish question, nation-statism — which led to
different practices, including cultural genocide — is no longer a
problem-solver; rather, it has long been the source of the problem, both
for the oppressor and the oppressed. Nation-statism is in dissolution
and it has even become a problem for capitalist modernity. More flexible
democratic national developments will spearhead the advances of our era.
Democratic modernity signifies the theoretical expression and the
practical steps of these advances. The KCK, as the concrete expression
of democratic national transformations in Kurdistan, sheds light on the
path of democratic modernity solution in the Middle East.
The nation, as a concept, comes after entities such as clan and tribe
with kinship in the form of people and nationality, and is a social form
that is generally characterised by linguistic or cultural similarities.
National communities are more inclusionary and have larger capacities
than clan and people’s communities; for this reason, they are human
communities with looser ties to one another. National society is more of
a phenomenon of our time. If a general definition can be offered, it is
a community of those who share a common mindset. In other words, it is a
phenomenon that exists mentally, which therefore means it is an abstract
and imagined phenomenon. We can also call this a culturally defined
nation. Sociologically speaking, this would be the correct definition.
Despite differing class, gender, colour, ethnicity and even national
background, in the most general sense, the formation of a shared mindset
and culture is enough to be classified as a nation.
In order to refine this general definition of nation, generated concepts
such as state nation, legal nation, economic nation, military nation are
different categories of nationalism that are used to underpin the
understanding of this general definition of nation. It could also be
called ‘power nation’. It is a fundamental aspiration of capitalist
modernity to become a strong nation; for as much as a strong nation
produces capital privilege, a comprehensive market, colonial
opportunities and imperialism. It is, therefore, important not to accept
these robust versions of the nation as the only possible model of a
nation.
In fact, it is important to see these power nations as nations in the
service of capital. These are the qualities that make it the source of
the problem.
The main problem in the age of modernity derives from the coupling of
power and state with the nation. When we compare the problems of this
age with the problems of dictatorships and dynastic states, we can see
that the problems of the age of modernity derive from the state nation;
this state nation is the biggest difference between the ages. The
nation-state is one of the most convoluted subjects within the social
sciences, yet it is presented as the tool to solve all the problems that
face modernity, like a magic wand. In essence, it only multiplies social
problems. The reason being, it spreads the power apparatus into the
capillaries of societies. Power itself creates problems — it generates
social problems because of the potential character of capital that has
been organised in the form of force, which results in suppression and
exploitation. The homogeneous nation society to which the nation-state
aspires can only construct artificially (supposedly legal) equal
citizens, charged with violence as a result of being amputated by power.
This citizen may be equal in the eyes of the law, but experiences
maximum inequality in every aspect of life as an individual and
collective entity.
When analysing the theory of nation, another aspect that needs to be
critically evaluated is the sacralisation and deification of the nation.
Capitalist modernity has replaced traditional religion and god and
constructed the deified nation-state.
If we interpret nationalism as the religion of the nation-state, then we
can perceive the nation-state itself to be the god of this religion. The
state itself has been constructed in the age of modernity in order to
incorporate the essence of medieval and even antiquarian
conceptualisations of divinity. The phenomenon called ‘secular state’ is
the construction of medieval and antiquarian divinities as state either
in whole or in essence.
There should be no mistake here. Once you scrape off the secular or
modern nation-state veneer, you encounter the divine state of antiquity
and the medieval age. There is a strong correlation between state and
divinity. In the same manner, there is a very strong relationship
between the rising monarch of antiquity and the medieval ages and the
concept of god. After the medieval age, when the monarch lost his
significance, both as an individual and in terms of the monarchy, and
began to institutionalise and transmute into the national state, the
god-monarch was replaced by the nation-state god. Therefore, capitalist
modernity’s ideological hegemony, which makes the attainment of maximum
profit possible, is what underlies the sacralisation of concepts such as
the homeland, nation and market, together with a similar sacralisation
of nation-state institutions. The law of maximum profit becomes more
legitimate as the concepts related to the nation are religionised by the
ideological hegemony and thus validated.
In our age, the use of nation-state symbols and fundamental slogans such
as “one flag”, “one language”, “one homeland”, “one state”, “unitary
state”, and the expression of national chauvinism are ramped up and
turned into a ritual at every opportunity, especially at sporting events
or art activities, should be interpreted as the means of worshipping the
religion of nationalism. In fact, the practice of worship in previous
ages served the same purpose. The main objective here is to validate the
interests of monopolies of power and exploitation either through
concealing or legitimising them. We will be better able to understand
the truth of societal reality once we interpret all the practices and
approaches that serve to hide or exaggerate all things related to the
nation-state under this fundamental paradigm.
The organisation of capitalist modernity as nation-state plays a much
more suppressive and exploitative role then its organisation as an
economic monopoly. The inability of Marxism, and sociology in general,
to see the nation-state’s relationship with suppression and
exploitation, or its presentation of the nation-state as an ordinary
institution of the superstructure, is a fundamental flaw and distortion.
When an analysis of class and material capital is made independent of
the nation-state, what’s being produced is the most stale and abstract
generalisation that cannot generate a useful social result. The role
played by the consequences related to such abstractions underlies the
failure of real socialism.
That the solution to all national and social problems is linked to the
nation-state represents the most tyrannical aspect of modernity. To
expect a solution from the tool which is itself the source of problems
can only lead to the growth of problems and societal chaos. Capitalism
itself is the most crisis-ridden stage of civilisation. The
nation-state, as the tool deployed in this crisis-ridden stage, is the
most developed organisation of violence in social history. It is society
besieged by the violence of power; it is the tool deployed forcefully to
hold together society and the environment after they have been
disintegrated through industrialism and capitalism’s law of maximum
profit. The reason behind it being excessively charged with violence is
due to the capitalist system’s tendency for maximum profit and
uninterrupted accumulation. Without an organisation of violence like the
nation-state, the laws of capitalist accumulation could not operate and
industrialism could not be maintained. The society and the environment
are on the brink of total disintegration in this present era of global
finance capitalism. The crises, which were initially cyclical, have now
attained a structural and permanent character.
Under these circumstances, the nation-state itself has turned into an
obstacle that locks the system down completely. Even capitalism, which
is a crisis-ridden system itself, has made getting rid of the obstacle
of the nation-state a priority. The sovereignty of the nation-state is
not only the cause of societal problems, but is also the main obstacle
in the way of solutions.
The theory of democratic modernity, on the other hand, is not only
critical of capitalism’s political economy, but of its whole systematic.
It criticises its relationship with civilisational history as a
hegemonic system; the changes it has caused in city, class and state;
and the elements upon which it constructs its modernity in order to
uncover its reality. Capitalist modernity continuously legitimises
itself through the ideological hegemony it establishes over science,
philosophy and the arts.
By instrumentalising these fundamental fields of thought and draining
them of their content, it deepens its destruction of society.
The alternative modernity of democratic nation is democratic modernity.
An economy free of monopolism, an ecology that signifies harmony with
the environment, and a technology that is friendly to nature and
humanity are the institutional bases of democratic modernity and thus
democratic nation. I am neither discovering nor inventing democratic
modernity.
Democratic modernity, since the formation of official civilisation, has
always existed as its counterpart in a dichotomy. It has existed
wherever and whenever the official civilisation has existed. What I am
trying to do, albeit as a rough outline, is to give this other form of
modernity, which exists at each location and time of official
civilisation, the recognition it deserves and offer explanations in
terms of its main dimensions. I am also trying to understand its
fundamental forms of mindset, its structures and its existing society
and to define them. There is nothing baffling about the idea that,
according to dialectics, there exists a counterpart to civilisation,
although alleged to be singular, at all places and periods that it has
existed. To the contrary, the baffling thing is why this most natural
equivalent of dialectical method has not been systematically
articulated.
Democratic modernity, though it has changed form according to the
different eras, has always existed and is a reality that has always had
its own counter history throughout civilisational history. It signifies
the system of the universal history that is outside of the forces of
tyranny and exploitation. Kurdish reality represents a culture that has
received the severest blows from civilisational forces and is the
culture that has been attacked by forces intent on exterminating it.
Therefore, it can only realise its existence through a civilisation
which is outside the traditional classed civilisation — the democratic
socialist civilisation. If a meaningful Kurdish history is to be
written, it can only be done so within this framework. The present day
expression of this is democratic modernity.
Democratic modernity responds to the universalist, linear, progressivist
and determinist methodology (the methodological approach that is closed
to probabilities and alternatives) deployed by the modern nation-state
to achieve the homogenisation and herdification of society with methods
that are pluralistic, probabilistic, open to alternatives and that can
make the democratic society visible. It develops its alternative through
its properties of being open to different political formations,
multicultural, closed to monopolism, ecological and feminist, creating
an economic structure that is grounded in satisfying society’s
fundamental needs and is at the disposal of the community.
As opposed to capitalist modernity’s nation-state, democratic
confederalism is democratic modernity’s political alternative.
Democratic confederalism is the basic political format of democratic
modernity, represents a vital role in reconstruction work and is the
most appropriate tool for democratic politics in generating a solution.
Democratic confederalism presents the option of a democratic nation as
the fundamental tool to resolve the ethnic, religious, urban, local,
regional and national problems caused by the monolithic, homogeneous,
monochrome, fascist social model implemented by modernity’s
nation-state. Within the democratic nation every ethnicity, religious
understanding, city, local, regional and national entity has the right
to participate with its own identity and democratic federate structure.
There have always been attempts to solve the national problems caused by
capitalist modernity by nation-statist and nationalist mindsets and
paradigms. The nation-state itself has been presented as the main actor
of the solution. In order to gain a true understanding of the
nation-state one must understand its place in the hegemonic system and
its links to capitalism and industrialism. The inadequate analysis of
the question of state by socialist ideology only obscured the problem
further. However, in “the right of nations to self-determination”, the
vision of a state for every nation was fundamental in aggravating the
issue even more.
The essence of my defence is to research the Kurdish reality and Kurdish
people’s existence in relation to civilisation and modernity. The aim is
to explain that capitalism was primarily responsible for the rise of the
Kurdish question and to separate the democratic essence of the solution
from nation-statism for the first time. This approach constitutes the
essence of the transformation within the PKK. This defence explains the
difference between forms of statist and democratic solutions that have
not been clarified since the PKK’s group phase. This is where it differs
from real socialism and the classic Marxist-Leninist doctrine behind it.
It takes the right of nations to self-determination from its enclosure
as a bourgeois right, and includes it within the scope of societal
democracy.
In other words, the Kurdish question could be solved without being
contaminated by statism, without gravitating towards a nation-statist
pursuit and, without being forced into solutions under these categories,
it could be resolved within democratic governance models of society.
This is the essence of the trans- formation of the PKK.
The democratic solution model is not just an option, it is the primary
method for achieving a solution. The democratic solution signifies the
pursuit of the democratisation of society outside of the nation-state.
As a concept, it sees the nation- state, along with capitalism, as the
source of ever increasing problems and not the solution in relation to
social problems.
One should not think of the democratic solution model as a unitary
nation-state that has been transformed into a federal or confederal
form. The federal or confederal state of the nation-state is not the
democratic solution. These are solutions that rely on different forms of
the state, and yet only aggravate the problem. Perhaps the
transformation of a rigidly centralised nation-state into federal or
confederal forms within the capitalist system’s mindset may ameliorate
problems and offer partial solutions, but it cannot lead to
comprehensive solutions. Federal and confederal forms can be deployed as
possible solutions between the nation-statist forces and the forces for
a democratic solution. However, to expect a deep-rooted solution as a
result will only lead yet again to self-deception.
Indeed, we know that states described as national liberationist states
or real socialist states are just nation-states with a leftist mask.
It is important to note that the democratic solution method is not
completely independent of the nation-state. Democracy and the
nation-state can play a role under the same political roof as two
authorities. A democratic constitution can determine the domain for each
of them. A positive transformation of the nation-state is closely linked
to the development of democratisation, democratic autonomous governance,
the construction of the democratic nation, local democracy and
democratic culture in all social spheres.
KCK should be evaluated as a radical transformation in the solution to
the national question as it represents the non- statist democratic
interpretation of the right of nations to self- determination for the
Kurdish question. KCK is the concrete expression of the democratic
solution to the Kurdish question and differs from traditional
approaches. The solution is not regarded as taking a share from the
state. It is not in the pursuit of state, even in terms of autonomy for
the Kurds. Not only does it not aim for a federal or confederal state,
it does not see them as the solution. Its main demand from the state is
for it to recognise the Kurdish people’s right to self-governance and to
remove the obstacles in the way of the Kurdish people becoming a
democratic nation. The democratic solution cannot be developed by
governments or states. Societal forces are themselves solely responsible
for developing the solution.
Societal forces seek to find a compromise with the government or the
state through a democratic constitution. The sharing of governance
between the democratic societal forces and the state or government
forces is determined through constitutions.
Essentially, the democratic solution is the state of being a democratic
nation and of society constructing itself as a democratic national
entity. It is neither becoming a nation nor ceasing to be a nation
through the state; it is the ability to use the right of a society to
construct itself as a democratic nation.
At this stage, a new definition of the nation must be created.
First, it is worth noting that the term nation does not have a single
definition. I touched on this above. The democratic nation, on the other
hand, is the common society formed by the free-will of free individuals
and communities. The unifying factor in the democratic nation is the
free-will of the people and those groups who decide to belong to that
nation. The understanding that binds the nation to a common language,
culture, market or history is descriptive of state-nations and cannot be
generalised, that is, it cannot be reduced to a single understanding of
the nation. This understanding of nation, which was also acknowledged by
real socialism, is the opposite of democratic nation. This definition,
as developed by Stalin for Soviet Russia, is one of the main reasons for
the dissolution of the Soviet Union. If this definition of nation,
absolutised by capitalist modernity, is not abandoned, then the solution
to all national problems will continue to confront an impasse. The fact
that national problems have persisted for the past three centuries is
closely linked to this inadequate and absolute definition.
For societies the nation-state model is nothing but a pitfall and
network of suppression and exploitation. The democratic na- tion concept
reverses this definition. The definition of a demo- cratic nation that
is not bound by rigid political boundaries, one language, culture,
religion and interpretation of history, signifies plurality and
communities as well as free and equal citizens existing together and in
solidarity. The democratic nation allows the people to become a nation
themselves, without resting on power and state, becoming a nation
through much needed politicisation. It aims to prove that not only
through politicisation but also, in the absence of becoming a state or
acquiring power, a nation can be created with autonomous institutions in
the social, diplomatic, and cultural spheres as well as in economy, law
and self-defence, and thus build itself as a democratic nation.
Democratic society can only be realised through such a nation model. The
nation-state society is closed to democracy by its very nature. The
nation-state represents neither a universal nor a local reality; on the
contrary, it disavows universality and locality. The citizenship of an
uniformised society represents the death of the human. On the other
hand, the democratic nation makes the reconstruction of universality and
locality possible. It enables societal reality to express itself. All
other definitions of nation lie between these two main models.
Although there is a wide range of definitions for nation- building
models, an all-encompassing definition is also possible; and this is the
definition of nation in relation to its mindset, consciousness and
belief. In this case, the nation is a community of people who share a
common mindset. In such a definition of nation language, religion,
culture, market, history and political borders do not play a decisive
but a bodily role.
Defining nation essentially as a certain mindset gives it a dynamic
character. Whereas in state’s nation nationalism leaves its mark on the
common mindset, in a democratic nation it is the consciousness of
freedom and solidarity. However, defining nations only through their
mindset would be incomplete. Just as mindsets cannot exist without
bodies, nations too cannot function without a body. The body of nations
with a nationalist mindset is the state institution. Tis is why such
nations are called the state-nation. When legal and economic
institutions outweigh the rest, these nations can be differentiated by
categorising them as law or market nations.
Nations with a mindset based on freedom and solidarity exemplify
democratic autonomy. Democratic autonomy essentially denotes the
self-governance of communities and individuals who share a similar
mindset through their own will. This could also be called democratic
governance or authority. It is a definition open to universality. A
nation model that can be derived from culture nation, but kerbs and
excludes exploitation and suppression, is a democratic nation model. A
democratic nation is the nation closest to freedom and equality. And in
accordance with this definition, this is the ideal understanding of
nation for communities who strive for freedom and equality.
Capitalist modernity and the science of sociology that it has inspired
have not dealt with the concept of the democratic nation due to their
structure and ideological hegemony. The democratic nation is not content
with a common mindset and culture, it is a nation that unifies and
governs all its members in democratic autonomous institutions. This is
its defining quality. The democratic autonomous way of governance is the
foremost condition of becoming a democratic nation. In this regard, it
is the alternative to the nation-state. Democratic governance as opposed
to state governance is a significant opportunity for freedom and
equality. Liberal sociology equates the nation essentially either to an
already established state, or to a movement that aims to establish a
state. The fact that even real socialism had such ambitions shows the
strength of liberal ideology.
A common homeland and market are generally presented as preconditions
for national societies; these are material components and cannot be
considered to be determinant characteristics of the nation. The
democratic nation’s understanding of homeland and market are different.
The democratic nation values the homeland because it is a huge
opportunity for the nation’s mindset and culture; a mindset and culture
that does not keep the homeland in mind can not be thought of. However,
it should not be forgotten that the reason why capitalist modernity
fetishises and prioritises the country- homeland concept over society is
profit motivated. It is also important not to exaggerate the homeland.
“Everything for the country” derives from a fascistic understanding of
the nation. It is more meaningful to devote everything to a free society
and a democratic nation, but this should not be fetishised.
What really matters is to render life valuable. The homeland isn’t an
ideal, it is merely a tool for the life of the individual and the
nation. While the state’s nation pursues homogenised society, the
democratic nation mainly consists of different collectivities. It sees
diversity as richness. Life itself is only possible through diversity.
The nation-state forces citizens to be uniform; in this regard, too, it
is contrary to life. The ultimate goal is to create a robotic human. In
this sense, it actually runs towards nothingness. The citizen or member
of democratic nation is different, this difference is due to the diverse
communities it embodies. Tribal entities are a source of strength for
the democratic nation.
Although language is as important as culture in creating a nation, it is
not a precondition. Different languages are no obstacle to a sense of
belonging to the same nation. Just as it is un- necessary for every
nation to have a state, it is also unnecessary for every nation to have
a single language or dialect. Although a national language is needed, it
is not an indispensable condition. It is possible to count different
languages and dialects as a richness for a democratic nation. However,
the nation-state bases itself on a strict imposition of a single
language. It does not easily give multilingualism, especially official
multilingualism, a chance to be practised. In this regard, it tries to
benefit from the privileges of being the dominant nation.
When democratic nations are unable to develop and nation- statism is
unable to resolve problems it is possible to talk of a law nation as a
concept and to find a compromise. What is meant by “constitutional
citizenship” is actually a solution based on law nation. A
constitutionally guaranteed legal citizenship does not discriminate
between race, ethnicity and nationality. These characteristics do not
accord rights. In this regard, “law nation” is a developing category.
European nations in particular are transitioning from nationality
nations to law nations. In democratic nations, autonomous governance is
fundamental; in a law nation, rights are fundamental. Whereas in the
nation-state, it is the rule of power that is decisive. The most
dangerous nation type is the ‘army-nation’ mindset and its
institutionalisation. Although it may seem as if it represents a strong
nation, in essence it is the most difficult nation to live in,
containing a mindset that always imposes duties and leads to fascism.
The economic nation is a category very similar to the nation-state. This
understanding of a nation, seen in countries such as the USA, Japan and
even Germany, where the economy is given a leading role, was more
prevalent in Europe’s past. Although a socialist nation was attempted,
it can’t be said that it was very successful. This is partially what we
are witnessing in Cuba. However, this example of a nation is also the
real socialist form of the nation-state; in place of a nation-state with
mostly private capitalism, it is a nation-state form that contains
mostly state capitalism.
The democratic nation is the model of a nation that is the least exposed
to such illnesses of being a state nation. It does not sacralise its
government. Governance is a simple phenomenon that is at the service of
daily life. Anyone who meets the requirements can become a public
servant and govern.
Leadership is valuable, but not sacred. Its understanding of national
identity is open-ended, not fixed like being a believer or a member of a
religion. Belonging to a nation is neither a privilege nor a flaw. One
can belong to more than one nation. To be more precise, one can
experience intertwined and different nationalities. If a law nation and
a democratic nation reach a compromise, they can comfortably coexist.
Homeland, flag and language are all valuable but not sacred. To
experience the admixture of common homeland, languages and flags through
amity and sharing and not confrontation is not only possible, but
necessary for historical-society life. With all these characteristics,
the democratic nation is once again taking its place in history as a
robust alternative to capitalist modernity’s maddening instrument of
war; nation-statism.
The democratic nation model, as a constructive solution model,
re-democratises those societal relations that have been shattered by
nation-statism; it renders different identities tolerant, peaceful and
reconciliatory. The evolution of state’s nation into a democratic nation
will bring about enormous gains. The democratic nation model ameliorates
violence loaded social perceptions through a right social consciousness
and renders them humane (a human being who is intelligent, sensitive and
empathetic). It may not completely eliminate social anti pathies but it
can minimise the violence of exploitation, and help to realise the
possibility of a more equal and free society.
It not only fosters internal peace and tolerance, it also transcends
suppressive and exploitative approaches to other nations and transforms
common interests into synergies through which it realises its mission.
Once national and international institutions are reconstructed according
to the fundamental mindset and institutions of the democratic nation, it
will be understood that this new modernity, democratic modernity, not
only theoretically but also its implementation has the attributes of a
renaissance. The alternative to capitalist modernity is democratic
modernity, with the democratic nation at its core, and the economic,
ecological and peaceful society it has woven within and outside of the
democratic nation.
It is possible to think of the process through which Kurds became a
nation within the context of two fundamental concepts.
The first is the intellectual dimension. We are talking about the
dimensions of existence of those who unite their state of consciousness
in relation to these fundamental areas through a feeling of common
solidarity and sharing an intellectual world without neglecting their
own language, culture, history, economy and population centres. The main
criteria for this dimension is to share the mindset of the ideal or
project of a free and equal world based on diversity. We can call this
world the communal world or a utopia of free individuals. The important
thing is to continuously maintain a mindset of freedom and equality that
does not reject differences within the public sphere and the moral and
political life of society.
Because the intellectual dimension concerns the world of thought and
imagination as well as the solidarity of individuals and communities
wanting to become a nation, it requires a limited rearrangement. To this
end, developing education in science, philosophy and art (including
religion) and opening schools with this objective, are the foremost
practical steps; the intellectual and emotional education in relation to
becoming a nation is the task of these schools.
It is essential to understand the social culture in relation to now, to
our epoch, just as much as in relation to the historical-societal
entity, and to share their true, good and beautiful aspects in common
thoughts and emotions. In a nutshell, the KCK’s main intellectual task
is to envisage the Kurds as a nation within their true, good, and
beautiful world of thought and emotions jointly shared in relation to
their own existence. In other words, its task is to encourage the
Kurdish people to become a nation by means of a scientific,
philosophical and artistic revolution and to create the fundamental
conditions (intellectual and emotional) for becoming such a nation,
freely sharing the scientific, philosophical (ideological) and artistic
truth of the Kurdish reality, through self-thought and self-education,
sharing the good and living beautifully. The main demand in terms of the
intellectual dimension from the sovereign nation-states is for them to
adhere fully to freedom of expression and thought. If nation-states want
to coexist with the Kurds under common norms, then they must respect the
Kurdish people’s desire to create their own intellectual and emotional
world and to turn themselves into a national society on the basis of
their own differences: the freedom of expression and thought required
for this must be constitutionally guaranteed.
The second dimension is the reorganisation of social existence in
accordance with its mental world. How is society to be reorganised in
accordance with the intellectual world of a nation that is shared
commonly? Democratic autonomy lies at the heart of the reorganisation of
this physical existence. It is possible to define democratic autonomy in
both a broad and narrow sense. In the broadest sense, democratic
autonomy is the expression of the democratic nation. The democratic
nation has dimensions divided across a wider range. It can be defined in
terms of its cultural, economic, social, legal, diplomatic and other
dimensions. In the narrow sense, democratic autonomy represents the
political dimension; in other words, it means democratic authority or
governance. The democratic autonomy dimension of becoming a democratic
nation is much more problematic in terms of relations with sovereign
nation-states. Sovereign nation-states generally reject democratic
autonomy. They do not wish to recognise it as a right unless they are
obliged to do so. With regard to the Kurds, the acceptance of democratic
autonomy lies at the heart of a reconciliation with nation-states.
Democratic autonomy is the minimum requirement to live under a common
political roof of a nation-state with a dominant ethnicity. Anything
less would lead to an increase in conflict and a worsening of the
situation — not a solution. Especially lately, there is the effort to
implement the liberal “individual and cultural rights” project —
originally developed by the English capitalism in order to rule their
working class and colonies — in the Republic of Turkey via AKP. This
project, which is alien to Middle Eastern culture, will only serve to
expand the conflict. Democratic autonomy is the most suitable solution
for the nation-state.
Anything less would only fuel further conflict and war.
The democratic autonomy solution can be implemented in two ways:
The first is predicated on finding a compromise with nation- states. It
finds its concrete expression in a democratic constitutional solution.
It respects the historical-societal heritage of peoples and cultures. It
regards the freedom of expression and organisation of these heritages as
one of the irrevocable and fundamental constitutional rights. Democratic
autonomy is the fundamental principle of these rights. The foremost
conditions of this arrangement are that the sovereign nation-state
renounces all denial and annihilation policies, and the oppressed nation
abandons the idea of forming its own nation-state. It is difficult for a
democratic autonomy project to be implemented without both nations
renouncing statist tendencies in this regard. EU countries took more
than 300 years of nation-state experience before they could accept
democratic autonomy as the best solution for solving nation-states’
regional, national and minority related problems.
In the solution to the Kurdish question, too, the path that is
meaningful and consistent is the one that does not rely on separatism
and violence and that accepts democratic autonomy. All other paths will
either lead to a postponement of problems, and therefore to a deepening
of the impasse, or to violent conflict and separation. The history of
national problems is littered with such examples. The relative peace,
wealth and prosperity of the EU countries — the home of national con-
flicts — in the past 60 years were achieved by their acceptance of
democratic autonomy and their ability to find flexible and creative
solutions to regional, national and minority problems.
The opposite has been true of the Republic of Turkey. The nation-statism
that was wished to be brought to completion through the denial and
annihilation of Kurds has drawn the republic to the brink of
disintegration, huge problems, continuous crises, military coups that
are resorted every ten years, and a special warfare regime that is
conducted together with Gladio. Only when the Turkish nation-state
abandons these policies, and accepts the democratic autonomy of all
cultures (including Turkish and Turkmen), and specifically the Kurdish
cultural entity’s democratic autonomy, will it achieve lasting peace and
prosperity as a normal, lawful, secular and democratic republic.
The second path for a democratic autonomy solution — one that does not
depend on finding a compromise with nation- states — is to implement its
own project unilaterally. In the broad sense, it recognises the Kurdish
people’s right to become a democratic nation through the implementation
of democratic autonomy. It goes without saying that in this case
conflicts will intensify with those sovereign nation-states who do not
accept this unilateral implementation of becoming a democratic nation.
If this happens, the Kurds will have no other choice but to adopt a
full-scale mobilisation and war position in order to protect their
existence and to live freely against the individual or joint attacks of
nation-states (Iran, Syria and Turkey). They will not hold back from
becoming a democratic nation with all its dimensions and to develop and
realize their aspirations through their own efforts until they either
reach a compromise or achieve independence amidst the warfare.
In light of these general definitions of the nation, the KCK rejects
state-nationist approaches and bases itself on the democratic nationist
model, acknowledging the Kurdish people’s right to become a nation or
achieving their transformation to a national society through democratic
autonomy.
If we liken societies, especially the democratic nations of our era, to
a live organism, then we can say that all its parts and dimensions are
interconnected and co-exist as in the integral whole of a live organism.
Therefore, although each and every dimension is discussed on their own
right they must always be considered as parts of a whole. A more
detailed understanding of the way in which a democratic nation can be
created follows:
The individual-citizen of a democratic nation has to be communal as well
as free. The allegedly free individual of capitalist individualism, who
has been provoked against the society, essentially lives a life of
abject slavery. However, liberal ideology creates an image where the
individual apparently possesses limitless freedom. In reality the
individual, enslaved by waged labour, represents the most developed form
of slavery. This type of individual is produced through the relentless
education of, and life in, nation-statism. Because his or her life is
bound to the sovereignty of money, the wage system, in effect like a
dog’s leash, ensures that the individual can be manipulated as desired:
He or she has no other means of surviving. If he seeks to escape, that
is, if he opts for unemployment, it is in effect a death sentence.
Moreover, capitalist individualism has been shaped on the basis of
society’s denial. He thinks that he can only realise himself insofar as
he rejects the culture and traditions of historical society. Tis is the
biggest distortion of liberal ideology. Its principal slogan is “there
is no society, there is the individual”.
As opposed to this, the democratic nation’s individual sees his or her
freedom in the communality of society, in the form of the more
functional life of small communities. A free and democratic commune or
community is the main school in which the individual of the democratic
nation takes shape.
Without a commune or communal life, the individual cannot be fully
realised. Communes are diverse and valid in every sphere of societal
life. In accordance with their diversity, individuals can exist in more
than one commune or community.
The important thing is for the individual to know how to live in a
communal community in accordance with his or her talents, labour and
diversity. The individual considers her responsibility towards her
commune or the social units to which she is attached to be the guiding
moral principle. Morality means respect and commitment to the community
and communal life. The commune or community in turn protects the
individual and enhances his or her life. After all, the fundamental
principle behind the founding of human society is this very principle of
moral responsibility. The democratic character of the commune or
communities is what realises the collective freedom — in other words,
the political commune or community. A commune or a community that is not
democratic cannot be political. A commune or community that is not
political cannot thus be free. Tere is a close correlation between the
political and democratic character of the commune and its freedom.
The definition of the democratic nation’s individual-citizen becomes
slightly broader when she or he lives under the same political roof with
a nation-state. In this case, within the framework of “constitutional
citizenship”, she is as much an individual-citizen of the nation-state
as she is of the democratic nation. The point here is the recognition of
the status of the democratic nation, whereby democratic autonomy is
acknowledged to have legal status in the national constitution.
Democratic national status is two-fold. First, it denotes the status,
law and constitution of democratic autonomy.
Secondly, autonomy is incorporated as a sub-section of the national
constitutional status.
Although the unilateral construction of a democratic nation based on the
free individual-citizen and communal unity of KCK is a priority, it is
also possible for KCK to arrive at an agreement with those sovereign
nation-states who acknowledge the status of democratic autonomy within
the national democratic constitution. KCK recognises both the life of
the free individual-citizen and community and the extent to which this
life is bound by a legal and constitutional status.
Capitalist individualism requires absolute servitude to the nation-state
god; whereas democratic nation citizenship fosters the development of
the free individual in the truest sense.
The democratic nation citizenship of the Kurds can be realised under the
KCK status. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to define membership
of the KCK as being democratic nation citizenship. It is an irrevocable
right and duty for the Kurdish people to be citizens of their own
democratic nation. To be unable to be a citizen of one’s own nation is a
huge alienation and is indefensible.
It is possible to define the school of social sciences that studies the
ontology and development of societal nature on the basis of moral and
political society as the system of democratic civilisation. Determining
moral and political society to be our fundamental unit is also important
as this comprises the dimensions of historicity and integrality. Moral
and political society is the most historical and holistic narrative of
society.
Morality and politics can be seen as history itself. A society with a
moral and political dimension is a society that is in harmony with its
existence and development. Society can exist without exploitation,
classes, cities, power, nation and the state, but a society devoid of
morals and politics is unthinkable.
A moral and political society is a democratic society.
Democracy can only attain meaning on the basis of the existence of an
open and free society; that is, moral and political society. Democratic
society, where individuals and groups become a subject, corresponds with
a form of governance that most effectively develops moral and political
society. More precisely, the functionality of political society is what
we already call democracy. Politics and democracy, in the true sense,
are identical concepts. If freedom is the arena in which politics
expresses itself, then democracy is the modus operandi of politics
within that arena. The trio of freedom, politics and democracy cannot be
devoid of a moral base. We can also define morals as the
institutionalised or traditional form of freedom, politics and
democracy.
Moral and political societies are in dialectical contradiction with the
state, which is the official expression of all forms of capital,
ownership and power. The state constantly desires to replace morals with
law and politics with bureaucratic administration. On the twin poles of
this historical contradiction, the official state civilisation and the
unofficial democratic civilisation coexist. Two separate typologies of
meaning emerge.
The contradictions can either intensify and lead to war, or reconcile
and lead to peace.
Today, in particular the problematic nature of nation-states is
propelling political societies and their governing forces towards
becoming a democratic nation, compelling them to become democratic
nations either through reform or revolution. While nation-states were
the dominant tendency during the rise of capitalism, under the current
conditions of its downfall the dominant tendency is evolving towards the
democratic nation. In this regard, it is very important not to equate
political force with state power. Politics cannot be equated with power
and its institutionalised form, the state. Freedom is in the nature of
politics. Politicised societies and nations are societies and nations
that are becoming free.
Politics not only liberates, it also regulates. Politics is a unique
regulatory force; is a kind of art. It represents the opposite of the
suppressive regulations of states and rulers. The stronger the politics
in a society or nation, the weaker the state and ruling powers. The
opposite is also true: the stronger the state or ruling power is in a
society or nation, the weaker the politics — and hence freedom — in that
society.
Just as a society or nation that gains state and ruling power does not
become free even if there were any democratic features, it also faces
the prospect of losing whatever freedoms it previously had. This is why
the more we clear the society from the state and power, the more we open
it up to freedom. And the fundamental condition that is necessary for
liberating that society and nation is for it to maintain itself in a
permanent political position.
It will be seen that the democratic civilisation system has always
existed and sustained itself as the other face of official
civilisation’s history, in essence as the moral and political unity of
societal nature. Despite the suppression and exploitation by the
official world system, the other face of society could not be
eliminated. In any case, its destruction is not possible. Just as
capitalism cannot exist without a non-capitalist society, civilisation
as the official world system too cannot exist without the existence of
the democratic civilisation system. More concretely, the civilisation
with monopoly could not exist without the civilisation with no monopoly.
The opposite of this is not true.
In other words, democratic civilisation, the historical flow of the
moral and political society, could exist quite comfortably and more
unobstructedly without the official civilisation. I define democratic
civilisation both as a thought system, an accumulation of thought, as
well as a totality of moral rules and political organs.
We conceptualised the political dimension of the KCK’s construction of
democratic nation as democratic autonomy.
Without self-governance democratic nation is unthinkable. In general all
forms of nations and in particular democratic nations are societal
entities that have their own self-governance.
If a society is deprived of self-governance, it ceases to be a nation.
The Kurds were not only prevented from becoming a nation, they also
ceased to exist as a society. The guidance by the PKK and the policies
of the KCK not only stopped this process, but also initiated the process
of becoming a democratic nation rather than a political society. Kurds,
in the current stage, are not only a society that has become an
intensely political society, but a society that also works to transform
this political reality into a democratic nation.
The KCK plays a key role in the construction of the democratic nation
and may be translated as the equivalent of democratic autonomy. The
KCK’s fulfilment of its role as the organ for democratic politics is
indispensable in the creation of a democratic nation. To confuse it with
a nation-state is a deliberate distortion. The KCK, as a principle, has
ceased to employ nation-statism as a tool for a solution. It is neither
the first nor the last stage of nation-statism. They are both
qualitatively different concepts of authority. Although it may contain
features that are reminiscent of the nation-states’ institutionalisation
in terms of its organisational structure, it is quintessentially
different. KONGRA-GEL, as the KCK’s decision-making body, means People’s
Assembly. Its importance is derived from people making their own
decisions themselves. The People’s Assembly is a democratic organ. It is
the alternative to becoming a nation governed by the upper classes or
the bourgeoisie. KONGRA-GEL signifies becoming a nation governed by the
popular classes and stratum of intellectuals. It is essentially
different from the bourgeois parliamentarian system. The Executive
Council of the KCK expresses the condensed and centralised daily
administration pyramid. It ensures coordination between the working
units scattered among the people. It coordinates the daily
organisational-operational work involved in becoming a democratic nation
as well as governing and defending it. The Council should not be
confused with government organs of the state.
It is closer to the system of confederations of democratic civil
societies. The KCK’s General Presidential Institution, resting on
election by the people, is the most general and highest level of
representation. It supervises and monitors the compatibility between all
the KCK’s units and the application of fundamental policies.
It is clear that during such a period and under new conditions there
will be considerable competition, contention and conflict between the
nation-states’ institutions and forces and the KCK’s institutions and
forces. There will be different authorities and governances in the
cities and rural areas.
In the process of becoming a democratic nation, important
transformations occur in social life. Traditional life in capitalist
modernity undergoes great changes.
The dominant modern lifestyle has turned into a complete trap based
around the oldest slave, the woman. In capitalism, women have been
turned into the ‘queens of commodity’.
They are not only unwaged workers, as ‘housewives’, they are the lowest
wage earner outsides of the house and the main tool for lowering wages.
The woman is the foremost constituent of flexible employment. She is an
industrial incubator producing the new generations required by the
capitalist system. She is the principal tool for the advertising
industry. Her servitude perpetuates sexism. From the global to the
little emperor in the family, she is the instrument of unlimited
pleasure and power of all dominant men. She is the object that gives
birth to the power of those who never had power. At no point in history
has the woman been exploited as much as she has been during capitalist
modernity. All other slaveries — child and male slavery — have developed
in the footsteps of women’s enslavement. This is why in the social life
imposed by capitalism everyone, except for those who rule, has been
infantilised as much as enslaved.
The family, which is shaped around the woman and is the oldest
institution of society, is disintegrating yet again around the woman.
What disintegrates the family is capitalism’s manner of accumulation.
This manner can only materialise itself as it consumes society and the
expected result is that society can be consumed and atomised in so far
as it is able to destroy the fundamental cell of the society; the
family.
No matter how much the field of medicine is developed, it is unable to
stop the rapid spread of disease within society.
Nationalism, religionism, powerism and sexism are the cognitive and
emotional DNA of capitalism, constantly generating diseases both
individually and institutionally. The increasing number of inherent
illnesses is an indicator of mental and psychological disease — the
inevitable outcome of capitalism’s destructive effect on society.
In modern social life, the education system is responsible for the
creation of the anti-social individual. Both the liberal individualist
life and the life of the nation-statist citizen are programmed and
implemented in accordance with the requirements of capitalism. For this
purpose, a huge industry called the education sector has been formed. In
this sector, individuals are bombarded twenty-four hours a day both
mentally and spiritually in order to be turned into anti-social beings.
They are stunted from being moral and political. They are turned into
individuals who are compelled to consume, who run after money, are
sexist, chauvinist and lickspittle. This is how social nature is
destroyed. Education is not used to enhance the healthy functioning of
society, but to destroy it.
A democratic nation is above all adamant about remaining as a society;
it stands against capitalist modernity with the slogan “society or
nothing”. It insists on the sustenance of society as a historical-social
reality, although the society is dissolved within the grindstones of
modernity.
Because the democratic nation’s understanding of education targets
sociality and the free individual-citizen, the dialectic of the
development of the individual with the society and society’s development
with the individual is restablished. The socialising, liberating and
equalising role of sciences is reaffirmed. Democratic nation is the
nationhood of a society that has acquired a true awareness of its
existence.
We know that there are three main functions for all living or- ganisms:
nutrition, self-preservation and preservation of the species. Tese
fundamental functions take on a new level in humans.
Once the consciousness of the desire to live is attained, it should also
be understood that through procreation alone one can not grasp the
meaning of life. Just as reproduction does not make life meaningful, it
might even distort and weaken the emergent power of consciousness.
Having awareness of one’s own self is undoubtedly an amazing formation
in the universe. Ascribing divinity to the human being was not in vain.
Continuing the bloodline of the conscious human not only impairs the
balance, to the detriment of other living beings, it also endangers
humanity’s power of consciousness. In short, the main problem of the
conscious human cannot be the continuation of its bloodline. If, as far
as we know, the universe has achieved the highest level of power to know
itself within the human being for the very first time, then this is
something worth getting very excited about. Maybe understanding the
universe is the true meaning of life. This, in turn, would mean that the
life-death cycle has been transcended; there could be no greater source
of excitement and rejoicing for humanity.
The most important result of the PKK’s revolutionary peo- ple’s war in
relation to male chauvinism is its understanding that the liberation and
freedom of society is only possible through the analysis of phenomenon
of woman, as well as her liberation and freedom. However, as it has been
pointed out, the Kurdish male mistakenly defines his so-called honour in
terms of his absolute sovereignty over women. This egregious
contradiction needs to be resolved.
On the way to building a democratic nation, we will have to do the
opposite of what has been done to date in the name of honour. I am
talking about a transformed Kurdish man- hood, and in part I am talking
about myself. And it should be done like this: we must abandon any
notion of ownership in relation to women. Women should only belong to
herself. She should know that she has no owner, and that the only owner
she has is herself. We should not be attached to women with any emotions
of subordination, including love and blind love. Likewise, the woman too
should stop herself from being dependent and owned. This should be the
first condition of being a revolutionary, a militant. Those who come
through this experience successfully, are those who realise freedom in
their personality, and who can build the new society and democratic
nation starting with their own liberated personalities.
The liberation of women is very important in the process of becoming a
democratic nation. The liberation of women is the liberation of society.
The society that becomes free on the other hand is democratic nation. I
talked about the revolutionary significance of reversing the role of the
man. This means, instead of approaching the woman as a means of
continuing his bloodline or dominating her, he should sustain the
process of becoming a democratic nation through his own strength, he
should form the ideological and organisational power needed for this,
and should ensure the sovereignty of his own political authority; thus
he should ideologically and politically produce himself. Thus, rather
than physical reproduction, he must ensure spiritual and intellectual
empowerment. Capitalist modernity is a system based on the denial of
love. The denial of society, the uncontrollability of individualism,
pervasive sexism, the deification of money, the substitution of
nation-state for god, and the transformation of women into unwaged or
low paid workers also mean denial of the material basis of love.
The female nature must be well understood. To approach a woman’s
sexuality solely by finding her biologically attractive, and to relate
to her on this basis is the loss of love from the very beginning. Just
as we don’t call the biological mating of other species love, we cannot
call biologically based sexual intercourse between humans love either.
We can call this the normal breeding activity of living beings. There is
no need to be human to conduct these activities. Those who want true
love have to abandon this animal-human type of reproduction.
We can see women as valuable friends and comrades only to the extent
that we transcend viewing them as objects of sexual appeal. The most
difficult relationship is one of friendship and camaraderie with a woman
that transcends sexism. Even when life is freely shared with a woman as
a partner, the building of society and democratic nation should form its
basis. We must overcome the traditional boundaries, and as in modernity,
of seeing women only in the roles of partners, mothers, sisters or
lovers. First and foremost, we must forge strong human relationships
based on a common understanding and the building of society. If a man
wants to have a relationship with a woman that has a strong ideological
and societal foundation, then he needs to leave the choice and the
courting to the woman. The more woman’s level of freedom, ability to
choose freely, and mobility based on her own strength have developed,
the more one can live with her meaningfully and beautifully.
We continuously emphasise that the conditions under which jin and jiyan
cease to be woman and life reflect the collapse and disintegration of
the society. Without this reality being understood and acted on, it is
impossible for those components that we call revolution, revolutionary
party, guides and militants to play their role. It is impossible for
those who are themselves in a deadlock to solve other peoples’ deadlocks
and to make them free. The most important consequence of the PKK and its
revolutionary people’s warfare in this regard is that the liberation and
freedom of society can only be achieved through the analysis of the
phenomenon of woman, and her liberation and freedom.
When state power is arranged as nation-state, capitalist modernity and
especially its maximum profit and capital accumulation realised over
economy can be materialised. Without this instrument, maximum profit and
capital accumulation cannot be achieved. It represents the realisation
of the maximum level of economic plunder with a certain amount of
legitimacy in the history of civilisation. A correct definition of the
nation- state cannot be made without analysing its relationship to
maximum profit and capital accumulation. The nation-state cannot solely
be defined as a system of tyranny and power either. Only when state
power is organised as a nation-state can capitalist modernity and, in
particular, its maximum profit and capital accumulation over the economy
be materialised.
This means that the nation-state’s control over the economic life of
society has allowed the state to seize more surplus- value than ever. It
is coated with the varnish of nationalism and patriotism, deified
through education, and penetrates society completely to legitimise the
economic extortion it has perpetrated. Concepts, theories and
institutions developed in the fields of law, political economy and
diplomacy all pursue legitimacy with the same objective. Enforcement of
a relentless terror together with attainment of maximum profit in the
economic domain on the one hand condemns society to minimum waged
labour, while on the other hand it transforms the majority into an army
of unemployed. Low-wage slavery and an enormous army of unemployed are
the natural consequences of maximum profit, the nation-state and
industrialism.
The realisation of these three fundamental components of capitalist
modernity is only made possible when society looses control and the
freedom to make choices over its economic life, is condemned to waged
slavery, the majority of the population is transformed into an army of
the unemployed, and when women are condemned to unpaid or low-wage
slavery.
Capitalism’s social sciences in general, and in particular its political
economy, are mythologies which concocted to conceal and distort these
facts; one must never believe them and must know what these myths
entail.
Kurdish society is a society that has been frightened to standup for
itself as a consequence of the cultural genocide it has endured through
conquests, occupations, invasions, looting, colonialism, and
assimilation, as well as the consequences of capitalist modernity. It is
a society that has lost control over its own economy and has been taken
under the complete control of the three-legged modern monster of foreign
and collaborationist elements. The fact that it only works to be able to
feed itself shows that it is a society that has been tied down to a
genocidal intent. It is a society in which women, the creators of
economy, are completely rendered unemployed and their labour the least
valued. It is a society whose men have been scattered across the world
in search of work in order to support their families. It is a society in
which people kill each other for a chicken or a plot of land. Clearly,
such a society has ceased to be a society and is one that has crumbled
and dissolved.
Economic occupation is the most dangerous of all occupations. It is the
most barbaric way to degrade, and destroy a society. More than the
suppression and tyranny of the nation- state, Kurdish society has been
eviscerated by the loss of its economic tools and of control of its
economic domain. It is not possible for a society to maintain its
freedom once it has lost control over its means of production and
market. The Kurds have not only effectively lost control over their
means and relations of production; they have also lost control over
their production, consumption and trade. More precisely, it was only
possible for them to make use of their property, and partake in trade
and industry insofar as they attached themselves to sovereign
nation-states through relinquishing their identities. Economic captivity
was an effective tool in the denial of identity and loss of freedom. The
unilateral enterprises established over the rivers and oil reservoirs
have not only destroyed ancient cultural artefacts but also much fertile
land.
The intensification of economic colonialism which came after political
and cultural colonisation was the final nail in the coffin. The final
point arrived at is: “either cease to be a society, or die!”
The economic system of a democratic nation not only puts a stop to these
barbaric practices, it bases itself on society re- establishing control
over its own economy. Economic autonomy is the minimum compromise to be
reached between the nation-state and democratic nation; any lesser
compromise is a mandate for surrender and annihilation. The furthering
of economic autonomy to independence would mean establishing an opposing
nation-state, which is ultimately surrendering to capitalist modernity.
Relinquishing economic autonomy, on the other hand, would mean
surrendering to the dominant nation-state. The essence of economic
autonomy predicates neither private capitalism nor state capitalism. It
is predicated on ecological industry and communal economy — the form
where democracy is reflected in the economy. Industry, development,
technology, businesses and ownership are bound by the principle of being
an ecological and democratic society. In economic autonomy there is no
room for industry, technology, development, ownership or rural-urban
settlement that negate ecological and democratic society. The economy
cannot be left to be a domain where profit and capital accumulation
materialises.
Economic autonomy is a model in which profit and capital accumulation is
minimised. Although it does not reject the market, trade, product
variety, competition and productivity, it does, however, reject the
dominance of profit and capital accumulation. Finance and financial
systems are validated only insofar as they serve economic productivity
and functionality.
Making money from money is regarded as the most effortless form of
exploitation, which has no place in economic autonomy. The economic
autonomy of a democratic nation does not regard work as drudgery, but as
an act of liberation. To see work as drudgery is to be alienated from
the results of labour.
When the results of labour serve one’s own identity and the individual’s
freedom, the situation changes for the better. This isn’t the same as
real socialism’s efforts of collectivisation either.
In the commune, there is no place for drudgery or for work and labour
that are not liberating.
The dams built on Kurdistan’s rivers have led to historical genocide and
ecological disaster. No dam that ignores ecology, the fertile land or
the history can be permitted; even those that have already been built
will not be replaced when they decay. If possible, early elimination
should not be avoided.
Opposition to deforestation and erosion — the biggest enemy of society
and life — chimes with the spirit of total mobilisation. It declares the
protection of land and reforestation to be the most valuable forms of
labour.
The KCK, as the backbone of the democratic nation, predicates itself on
and sees economic autonomy and communal economy as essential to the
self-defence of society. Just as society cannot sustain itself without
self-defence, the nourishment and sustenance of society is only possible
with economic autonomy, dependent on soil conservation and
reforestation, ecology and commune.
Economic autonomy also requires a legal basis. The uniformity and
centralism of the laws of the sovereign nation-state hamper economic
creativity, the environment and competition under the pretext of unity.
In place of such an understanding of law essentially based on economic
colonialism, there is an urgent need for a localised economy that
functions autonomously but which takes into account coordination with
the national economy. An economic law that makes allowance for local
market dynamics, but which does not deny the national market, is
crucial. A single central legal system is the biggest factor for
conservatism. It is completely political and makes no economic sense.
Democratic law is a law based on diversity. More importantly, it makes
little reference to legal regulation and is a simple construct.
Throughout history, the sovereign nation-state is a state form that has
developed legal regulations to the greatest extent, in order to
eliminate the moral and political society. Past societies attempted to a
large extent to solve their problems through moral and political
regulations. Capitalist modernity attempted to vest all of its
legitimacy on law. Capitalist modernity’s excessive intervention in and
exploitation of society led it to resort to a complicated tool called
law that formalized justice.
Law, rather than consisting of laws regulating the rights and duties of
individuals and society, as it is so often claimed to be, it is the art
of ruling through excessive regulation intended to legitimise the
injustices caused by capitalism. Ruling through laws rather than moral
and political rules is specific to capitalist modernity. Rejecting
morals and politics, the bourgeoisie resorts to the instrument of law,
which gives it enormous power. In the hands of the bourgeoisie, law is a
powerful weapon. It defends itself through law against both the former
moral and political order and the workers. The power of the nation-state
is largely derived from the power of a legal system that has been
unilaterally regulated. The laws, in a sense, are the verses of the
nation-state god. It prefers to rule its society through these verses.
It is for this reason that the democratic nation is sensitive towards
law, especially constitutional law. The democratic nation is more of a
moral and political nation than a nation based on law. The need for law
arises if a life with nation-states under a common political roof and
compromise is opted for.
When this happens, the distinction between national law and the laws of
local government gains importance. When the nation-state laws, which are
based on unilaterally centralised bureaucratic interests, constantly
face the resistance of local and cultural democratic groups they must
embrace the laws of the local government.
Due to the fact that the existence of Kurdistan and Kurds has been
denied, the Kurds have no laws specific to them. In the Ottoman period,
the Kurds had both written and traditional laws. From 1925 onwards
Kurdish identity was regarded as non-existent, to be wiped from history
through conspiracies, coups and assimilation. While PKK’s resistance has
reestablished the existence of the Kurds, it has not yet been able to
ensure a legal definition. During this period the KCK will work to
persuade the nation-states to recognise the Kurdish entity legally but
if this does not happen, it will unilaterally develop its own autonomous
legal system. However, KCK will give priority to find itself a place
within the national constitutions. Thus, in accordance with such
priority, it will work to express its democratic autonomy status within
the national democratic constitutions. This is what is meant by a
peaceful and democratic solution to the Kurdish question: National
democratic constitutional compromise based on democratic autonomy
status. If the KCK does not succeed in its preferred national democratic
constitutional solution with democratic autonomy status based on a
compromise, it will make the transition to unilateral Democratic
Autonomous Governance as its second preferred option. The Democratic
Autonomous Governance in Kurdistan is not a nation-state with governance
through laws. It is the governance of democratic modernity on a local
and regional scale.
The state rests on thousands of years of patriarchal culture.
The state institution is a male invention, where wars with the objective
of pillaging and looting have almost become a form of production.
Instead of woman’s social effectivity based on production, a transition
to man’s social effectivity based on wars and booty occurred. There is a
close correlation between the enslavement of women and warrior society
culture. War does not produce, it seizes and pillages. Although in
certain specific circumstances violence has played a decisive role in
societal development — clearing the path to freedom, resisting
occupation, invasion and colonialism — it is largely destructive and
negative. The internalised culture of violence in a society is also
fuelled by wars. The sword of war among the states and the hand of man
within the family both epitomise domination.
In addition, by formalising the cultural norms of a dominant ethnicity
or a religious community under the name of national culture, capitalist
modernity declares war against all other cultural entities. By claiming
that religions, ethnicities, peoples, nations, languages and cultures
that have preserved themselves for thousands of years “harm national
unity”, capitalist modernity prepares to destroy them either by force or
through material incentives. In no other time in history have so many
languages, religions, denominations, ethnic tribes and aşiret as well as
peoples and nations fallen victim to these policies, or to be more
precise, genocides. Physical genocides are actually a drop in the ocean
when compared with immaterial genocide. Cultural and linguistic values
together with their communities that have existed for thousands of years
are sacrificed, for the sake of the sacred act of creating ‘national
unity’.
The cultural dimension, too, is very important in the formation of
nations. In the narrow sense, culture represents the traditional
mentality and emotional reality of a society. Again, in the narrow
sense, religion, philosophy, mythology, science and various art forms
constitute the culture of a society. In a way, they represent the
mindset and mental state of a society. In a nation-state, or as nations
are formed by the state, the world of culture is greatly distorted and
decimated. This is because in no other way can the state legitimise its
rule of maximum profit and capital accumulation. Modernity and the
nation- state cannot develop without first reconstructing culture and
history according to their own interests. The resulting reality of
modernity and nation-state has no relation to reality of history and
culture; it represents a different meaning in terms of the truth.
The role of culture in capitalist modernity is vital. Culture, as the
total mentality of all social spheres, is first subjected to
assimilation (to accommodate economic and political hegemony), then it
is turned into an industry to be spread extensively and intensively to
all the societies (nations, peoples, nation- states, civil society,
corporations) of the world. The industrialisation of culture is the
second most effective means of enslavement. Culture, in a narrow sense,
represents the mindset of societies. Thought, taste and morals are its
three fundamental issues. It has taken centuries for political and
economic power to besiege and buy off the cultural elements. They have
regard- ed the appropriation of cultural elements as indispensable for
their legitimacy throughout civilisational history. Economic and ruling
powers were quick to notice this and to take precautions. The
assimilation of culture by the rulers dates back to the inception of
hierarchy. It is the essential tool for ruling.
Without cultural hegemony, economic and power monopolies cannot rule.
The empire stage of capitalism is only possible with a developed
cultural industry. It is for this reason that the struggle against
cultural hegemony requires constant diligence.
In contrast, democratic society, the moral and political society’s
contemporary form of modernity, is a society that truly accommodates
difference in the broadest sense. All social groups within democratic
society can co-exist on the basis of differences that form around their
own culture and identity without being confined to a uniform culture and
citizenship.
Societies can reveal their potential in terms of identity
differentiation to political differentiation, and transform it into an
active life. None of the communities has any concern that they would be
homogenised. Uniformity is seen as deformity, poverty-stricken and
boring. Pluriformity, however, offers richness, beauty and tolerance.
Freedom and equality flourish under these conditions. Only equality and
freedom that rest on diversity are valuable. As a matter of fact,
freedom and equality attained via the nation-states is only for
monopolies, as proven around the world. Power and capital monopolies
never allow true freedoms or equality. Freedom and equality can only be
acquired through the democratic politics of democratic society, and
protected with self-defence.
Just as it is possible to bring together different ethnic cultures
within the scope of the democratic nation, it is also important to
utilise the democratic content of religious culture within the
democratic nation as a free, equal and democratic component and allow
room for it in a resolution. The reconciliatory alliance approach
developed by democratic modernity towards all anti-systemic movements
should also be developed towards the religious culture with democratic
content; this is within the scope of another task that is of vital
importance.
The democratic nation tries to compose itself by reinstating the true
meaning of history and culture, which in the process is reborn in the
formation of the democratic nation.
The democratic nation solution of the Kurdish question is first and
foremost linked to the correct definition of Kurdish history and
culture. The correct definition of its history and culture will bring
the recognition of its social existence with it- self. The denial and
annihilation of the Kurds in the Republic of Turkey’s history began with
the denial of Kurdish history and the annihilation of its cultural
heritage, first eliminating its immaterial culture and then its material
culture. It is for this reason that it was right for the PKK to begin
building with an awareness of history and culture. By attempting to
explain Kurdish history and culture through comparison with other
people’s history and culture around the world, and to proclaim it in a
manifesto called The Path of the Kurdistan Revolution al- lowed the PKK
to play the role of a revolutionary Renaissance in the reinvigoration of
Kurdish history and culture.
The construction of the Kurdish democratic nation is qualitatively
different from the nationalist and statist nation- building processes.
It is different from sovereign nation-state nationalism and Kurdish
nationalist and statist approaches; it is an alternative construction of
a nation grounded on the history and culture of workers and peoples.
The Kurdish democratic nation will gradually acquire a further
structural quality under KCK and present a new praxis of nation
construction that will become a model for the Middle Eastern peoples. It
is open to more extensive democratic national unions and alliances with
other peoples on the basis of an open-ended understanding of democratic
nation. It will initiate the rise of a new era, the era of democratic
modernity, through the revolutionary and democratic nation renaissance
against the cultural and historical denialism of nation-states that
cannot transcend their role as agents of Western modernity.
All species of living organisms have defence systems of their own. There
is not a single defenceless species. As a matter of fact, it is possible
to interpret the resistance shown by each element or particle in the
universe to protect its existence as self-defence.
The same system is more than valid for human species and societies too.
Defence in human species is as much social as it is biological.
Biological defence is performed by the defensive instincts of every
living organism. In societal defence, however, all the individuals of
the community collectively defend themselves. Moreover, the number of
communities and their organisational form constantly change according to
the means of defence. Defence is an essential function of society. Life
cannot be sustained without it.
Another important conclusion we can draw from the self- defence
mechanisms of living organisms is that this defence is only intended for
the protection of their existence. They do not establish dominance and
colonisation systems over their own species or any other species.
Systems of domination and exploitation were first developed by the human
species. The mental development of the human species that resulted in
possibilities of exploitation and in connection with this the attainment
of surplus-product plays a role in this. This situation leads to
protecting its existence along with defending the values of labour, in
other words, social wars.
When we view things from the democratic society perspective we must
underline the following: when we talk about self- defence rather than a
military stance or an armed organisation what we mean is the
organisation of society to protect itself in every sphere, and for it to
struggle based on these organisations.
This said, in order to counter the attacks of the statist system against
society and to protect society, military organisations may also be
needed, to defend society in all its diversity. And this could be deemed
as legitimate defence. But this sort of military organization, organised
in this way, serving to protect society and its reorganisation, cannot
merely be evaluated as a military organisation either. The function of
the military forces at the service of society, the fundamental
self-defence forces, is to play the role of a catalyst to speed up and
protect the struggle of democratic society. Military forces that move
away from these functions cannot avoid being transformed into an
offensive force that is an instrument of hegemonic forces.
Self-defence does not only stipulate an armed structure; al- though it
does not reject the use of force when necessary, it can not be viewed
only as an armed structure. It represents the organisation of the
society in all spheres and in relation to its own identity and life: the
decisions taken to this end reflect society’s own will and are
implemented at society’s behest. Values that used to belong to the
people and the country but were usurped by the colonialist powers are
retrieved and returned to social values in an act of self-defence. The
society should attain a position where it can both protect its values
and recover its usurped rights in order for it to govern itself. This is
the way to create a democratic nation.
A self-defence mechanism for women, as the most oppressed and suppressed
segment of society, is also of vital importance. Under the patriarchal
system all rights of women were usurped. Women can circumvent these
policies of degradation, harassment, rape and slaughter through the
formation of their own self-defence mechanisms. For this reason, they
need to learn their history, create their own organisations and
institutions, carve out space for themselves in all areas of life and if
necessary create their own military forces.
An important and indispensable heading within the KCK’s programme for
the construction of a democratic nation is how self-defence is going to
be tied to a permanent systematic. The nation-states, who are the sole
armed monopoly, will be unsparing if they have the opportunity to
implement new policies of denial, annihilation and assimilation. These
policies have compelled the creation of a permanent self-defence system
by the KCK. The minimum requirement for coexistence with nation-states
is for the Kurdish identity and existence to be constitutionally
guaranteed. Constitutional guarantee is not enough: concrete grounds for
this guarantee should be sought through statuses determined by law.
Apart from the joint national defence for external threats, Kurdish
society should meet their own security requirements. This is because a
society can only ensure its internal security in accordance with its
requirements. Therefore, the related nation-states (the centralised
nation-states of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria) must implement important
reforms in their own internal security policies.
If a compromise cannot be agreed with the relevant nation- states, the
KCK, on the basis of protecting the unilateral construction of the
democratic nation with all its dimensions, should try to organise the
quantitative and qualitative status of its own self-defence forces
according to new needs.
One of the most developed activities by the nation-state is diplomacy
between nation-states. Diplomacy describes pre- war activities between
nation-states. It may even be defined as the preparatory phase for wars
in the history of nation-states.
Throughout history there have always been certain rituals of expressing
neighbourhood relations between different types of communal units. These
are deemed very valuable. The reason nation-states have
institutionalised this relationship can be linked to the profit tendency
of capitalist modernity. If relationships are more profitable in times
of peace then there is no need for war. Diplomacy serves to achieve
profitable relations. If the maximum profit tendency is linked to war,
then diplomatic forces will be unable to avert a profitable war, thus
terminating the need for diplomacy. Diplomacy has been reduced to the
logic of profit; it no longer has any link to the meaningful
inter-societal relations that existed throughout history. Diplomacy has
been degraded to a manipulative tool in the game of profitable wars
between nation-states.
Democratic nation diplomacy must first create a common platform between
Kurds who are fragmented and divided in various ways. All other
diplomatic activities, especially those that each organisation wishes to
develop on their own and according to their own interests, have done
more harm than good and have served further to fragment, create conflict
and divide Kurds. It is for this reason that establishing the Democratic
National Congress is the most vital priority for Kurdish diplomacy.
Diplomacy that rests on the Iraqi-Kurdish Federal State is important,
but cannot meet the needs of all Kurdish people. This state has neither
the ability to meet this demand nor the conditions that would allow it
to do so. A diplomacy that meets the needs of all Kurds can be developed
only through a Democratic National Congress. Therefore, the primary task
is to assemble the Democratic National Congress and declare it to be a
permanent general integrative national democratic organisation. It is
clear that for some time to come, relations and contradictions both
ideologically and politically will continue between KCK as it builds a
democratic nation and the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq’s
nation- statist construction. In this regard, the Democratic National
Congress may serve as a solution orientated umbrella organisation.
Diplomacy, which once again becomes a tool for peace and solidarity as
well as creative exchanges between societies, deals essentially with the
solution of problems. Democratic nation diplomacy is a tool for peace
and beneficial relations, not wars.
It signifies a mission where wise people play a role and which has high
ethical and political values. It plays an important role in developing
and maintaining bilaterally beneficial processes and friendly relations
especially amongst neighbouring peoples and related communities. It is
the constructive force of common socialities and the synthesis of
societies at higher levels.
The diplomacy of the democratic nation can play a lasting role and
provide solutions in the context of democratic modernity between the
peoples and nations of the Middle East who have endured chaos and
conflict because of nation-state diplomacy.
The global union of democratic nations, as an alternative to the UN, is
the World Confederation of Democratic Nations.
Continents and large cultural regions can form their own Confederations
of Democratic Nations, too.
The construction of the democratic nation in Kurdistan is the new
historical and societal expression of the Kurdish existence and its free
life that requires both theoretical and practical concentration and
transformation. It represents a truth that requires devotion at the
level of real love. Just as there is no room for false love in this
voyage, there is also no room for uncommitted travellers. In this
voyage, the question of when the construction of the democratic nation
will be completed is a redundant one. This is a construction that will
never be finished: it is an ongoing process. The construction of
democratic nation has the freedom to re-create itself at every instant.
In societal terms, there can be no utopia or reality that is more
ambitious than this. In accordance with their historical and societal
reality, the Kurds have vigorously turned towards the construction of a
democratic nation. As a matter of fact, they have lost nothing by
ridding themselves of a nation-state god in which they never believed;
they are rid of a very heavy burden, a burden that brought them to the
brink of annihilation.
Instead, they have gained the opportunity to become a democratic nation.
The Kurds, as individuals and as a society, must conceive, internalise
and implement the construction of a democratic nation as the synthesis
of all expressions of truth and resistance throughout their history,
including the most ancient goddess beliefs, Zoroastrianism and Islam.
The truths that all the past mythological, religious and philosophical
teachings as well as contemporary social sciences have tried to teach
and that all resistance wars and rebellions have individually and
collectively tried to voice are represented in the mind and body of
constructing a democratic nation. It was this reality and its expression
as truth that was my point of departure, not only when I re-created
myself at times but especially arriving at the present as I tried to
re-create myself almost at every instant.
In this way, I freely socialised myself, and concretised this as a
democratic nation (in a Kurdish context), and presented it as democratic
modernity to all humanity, to the oppressed peoples and individuals of
the Middle East.
It is clear that care needs to be taken in order to prevent liberalism —
as it so often has done throughout its history — from degenerating and
dissolving these positive tendencies of democratisation under its own
ideological and mate- rial hegemony. The most strategic task is to unify
not only all system opponents but also the flow of historical-society
with all its urbanist, local and regional political formations in a new
ideological and political structure. In this regard, inter- twined with
comprehensive theoretical work that needs to be taken up, there is a
need to develop a programme and structures for organisation and action.
The conditions are ripe in the twenty-first century to avoid the fate of
confederal structures which were eliminated by the nation-states in the
mid-nineteenth century, and to achieve the victory of democratic
confederalism. In order for democratic modernity to come out of the
sustained depression, which is the deepest and the longest lasting
depression, sustained only through crisis management during modernity’s
finance capital era, the ability to succeed in the intellectual, moral
and political duties of reconstruction has never had such a vital
significance.
In that case, if new parties for freedom and equality want to be
consistent, then they must develop politics and social forms that are
not centred around the state. The alternative to the state is democracy.
All paths — aside from democracy — that have been attempted in efforts
to counter the state have come to nothing. Contrary to popular belief,
democracy is not a form of capitalist state. In addition, nothing other
than democracy can restrict the state, and keep it within the law. To
topple a state doesn’t mean you have overcome the state culture. A new
one can always be created to fill the vacuum. Only democracy shares the
same area with the state; by restricting the state, it widens society’s
sphere of freedom. It can thus approach equality a little more by
reducing the number of appropriated values.
Therefore, we can define democracy to be the self-governance of a
non-state society. Democracy is governance that is not state; it is the
power of communities to govern themselves without the state. Contrary to
popular belief, since its formation human society has experienced
democracy more than it has experienced the state. Perhaps, the situation
of a general country or nation’s democracy has not been intensely
experienced. But the emergence of society’s existence is communal and
democratic. Without communality, or in the absence of having a
democratic reflex, it is impossible for a society to be solely ruled by
the state. The state can only rule by growing at the expense of
communality and democracy. The grounds out of which the state rises and
on which it thrives are the society’s communality — the need for
coexistence — and dem- ocratic stance. There is a dialectic relationship
between the two. Therefore, when society and civilisation meet, the main
contradiction is between the state and democracy. Less of one is more of
the other. Full democracy is statelessness. Full state sovereignty is
the denial of democracy. States can only be toppled by states; democracy
does not topple the state; it can only pave the way for a newer state
like real socialism did.
Democracy’s fundamental function becomes evident in this manner. It can
only increase the opportunities for freedom and equality by restricting
the state, making it smaller and by trimming its octopus like tentacles
over the society. Towards the end of the process, perhaps the state will
become redundant and fizzle out. The conclusion we draw from this is
that the relationship between the state and democracy is not of one
toppling another, but of transcendence.
What I am trying to show with this short analysis is that our world-view
contained a fundamental mistake from the beginning because of being a
state-oriented party. These parties, whether they form a state or not,
cannot achieve their objectives of democracy, freedom and equality
through state formation. Without deviating from this path, one cannot
become a new libertarian and egalitarian party. In short, the way to
become a democratic and socialist party is to ensure renewal by making
the transition in the state-oriented theory, programme, strategy and
tactics. There is a need for a non-state orientated democratic socialist
theory, programme, strategy and tactics. If self-criticism develops
within this context, it will be meaningful. Otherwise, the old methods
will persist under the guise of the new. The state of real socialism,
social democracy and national liberation parties is enough to prove this
reality.
Just as it has been the case many times throughout history between
civilisational forces and democratic forces, capitalist modernity forces
and democratic modernity forces can accept the existence and identity of
one another, and can coexist peacefully on the basis of recognising
democratic autonomous governances. Within this scope and under these
conditions, within and outside the borders of a nation-state, democratic
confederal political formations can peacefully coexist with nation-state
formations.
I have tried to puzzle out and comprehensively analyse the proposition
that while capitalist modernity survives on the basis of capitalism,
industrialism and nation-statism, democratic modernity can only come
into existence through democratic communality, ecological industry and a
democratic nation. I defined democratic communality not as the
egalitarianism of a homogeneous society but as any type of community
(from women’s to men’s communities, from sports and arts to industry,
from intellectuals to shepherds, from tribes to corporations, from
families to nations, from villages to cities, from localities to
universality and from clan to any type of global society) of any size. I
defined eco-industrial communities as communities in which the
eco-industrial society, the agricultural society of villages, and the
industrial society of the cities nurture each other and are strictly
aligned with ecology. On the other hand I defined the democratic nation
too. It is a new type of nation that encompasses all cultural entities
from ethnicity to religion; from urban, local, regional to national
communities formed through democratic autonomous political formations
and its main political form, democratic confederalist implementations.
More precisely, against the nation-statist monsters, the democratic
nation is a nation that has multi- political formations, multiple
identities and is multi-cultural.
As we try to analyse the 5,000 years of civilisational history in terms
of the two conflicting poles, we understand that these two poles will
continue to coexist for some time to come. The eradication of one of the
poles by the other is not foreseeable in the near future. Moreover,
dialectically this does not seem realistic. The rashness of real
socialism in this regard and its attempt to try its own system without
first analysing civilisation and modernity have resulted in its own
dissolution. The important thing is to take into account this bipolarity
in all theoretical and practical work, and continuously to develop
democratic civilisation and modernity within daily life and through new
constructive work. The more we develop our system through both
revolutionary and evolutionary methods, the more we can positively solve
the problems of term and space and make the solution permanent.
Democratic modernity as a system, including its fundamental elements, is
well suited for true peace. The democratic nation, with its clear
ability to create solutions from the smallest national community through
to a world nation, offers a very valuable peace option.
The important thing is to institutionalise the communal and democratic
identity, which is also the basic stance of peoples historically, with
contemporary science and technological resources by unifying them. In
order to have a more democratic, liberated and ecological social
structure, there is a need above all for a new social sciences
structure. It should not be forgotten that the most comprehensive and
permanent component of democratisation is women’s freedom. Without the
attainment of societal gender equality, no demand for freedom or
equality can be meaningful or realised.
Nowadays, democracy is needed, just like bread air and water, but
nowhere more so than for the peoples of the Middle East. There is no
other option but democracy — all others have been tested throughout
history — that has the ability to bring happiness to the people. Kurds
are at the forefront of these peoples. If they can successfully mobilise
their geography, historical time and societal characteristics — all of
which have become significant strategic elements — in favour of
democratic civilisation in the Middle East, they will have done the
greatest good for their neighbours and for humanity. What we have
undertaken is a draft for this noble and exciting task.
Abdullah Öcalan, born in 1949, studied political sciences in Ankara. He
actively led the Kurdish liberation struggle as the head of the PKK from
its foundation in 1978 until his abduction on 15 February 1999. He is
regarded as a leading strategist and one of the most important political
representatives of the Kurdish people.
Under isolation conditions at Imrali Island Prison, Öcalan has written
more than ten books, which have revolutionised Kurdish politics. Several
times he initiated unilateral ceasefires of the guerilla and presented
constructive proposals for a political solution to the Kurdish issue.
The so-called “peace process” started in 2009 when the Turkish state
responded to Öcalan’s call to resolve the Kurdish issue politically.
This process broke down in April 2015, when the Turkish state
unilaterally terminated the talks and returned to a policy of
annihilation and denial.
Since 27 July 2011, Öcalan has been held again in almost total isolation
at Imrali Island Prison. Since 5 April 2015, the whole prison has been
completely cut off from the rest of the world.
On 15 February 1999, the President of the Kurdistan Workers Party,
Abdullah Öcalan, was handed over to the Republic of Turkey following a
clandestine operation backed by an alliance of secret services directed
by their corresponding governments. Disgusted by this outrageous
violation of international law, several intellectuals and
representatives of civil organisations launched an initiative calling
for the release of Abdullah Öcalan. With the opening of a central
coordination office in March 1999, the International Initiative “Freedom
for Abdullah Öcalan — Peace in Kurdistan” started its work.
The International Initiative regards itself as a multinational peace
initiative working for a peaceful and democratic solution to the Kurdish
question. Even after long years of imprisonment, Abdullah Öcalan is
still regarded as an undisputed leader by the majority of the Kurdish
people. Hence, the solution of the Kurdish question in Turkey will be
closely linked to his fate. As the main architect of the peace process,
he is viewed by all sides as key to its successful conclusion, which
puts Öcalan’s freedom increasingly firmly on the agenda.
The International Initiative is committed to play its part to this end.
It does this through disseminating objective information, lobbying and
public relations work, including running campaigns. By publishing
translations of Öcalan’s prison writings it hopes to contribute to a
better understanding of the origins of the conflicts and the possible
solutions.