💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › ramazan-mendanlioglu-rojava-s-everyday-democracy.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:41:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Rojava’s everyday democracy Author: Ramazan Mendanlioglu Date: June 4, 2021 Language: en Topics: Rojava, democracy, decentralization, self-management Source: Retrieved on 23rd June 2021 from https://www.redpepper.org.uk/rojavas-everyday-democracy/ Notes: This article first appeared in Red Pepper Issue #231
In the villages, cities and regions of Rojava, in the predominantly
Kurdish north east of Syria, political upheaval has resulted in the
largely decentralised self-administration of many areas, including
health, economy, law, education and internal security. The Rojava
revolution led to both the secularisation and democratisation of
institutions that had, until then, been controlled by an
elitist-centralist national state. But what exactly does this mean? How
is Rojava’s decentralisation expressed in everyday life?
Located in north eastern Rojava, Amûdê County demonstrates what
decentralisation and self-administration can look like in practice.
Starting at the end of government rule in 2012, its communes, district
people’s council and the municipality (Şaredarî) were all subjected to
processes of democratisation. This has meant that the administration and
politics of the city of Amûdê are now shaped by the people themselves.
The city is divided into four quarters, which together make up 31
communes. Each commune includes about 100 to 250 households. One to four
communes each share a komîngeh (neighbourhood office), a public space
that anyone can visit during opening hours – even just to drink tea. The
process of local self-government in these neighbourhoods can be divided
between two main areas: administration (the basic supply and
distribution of resources) and politics (law, culture, education and
health).
These two areas are organised by specific commissions at all political
levels, from the communes up. Typical commissions include health,
economy, defence, education, art and culture. In addition to linking
horizontally, these commissions also link and communicate with each
other vertically. For example, the defence commission of a commune
organises the HPC (civil defence forces) at the local level. At the same
time, it meets with the defence commissions of the next higher unit of
the district defence commission, while the district defence commission
exchanges information with the cantonal defence commission, and so on.
Written reports thus reach the top from below, while at the same time
coordinative top-down processes take place.
In elections for the co-chairs of commissions, only residents of the
respective commune are eligible for election. Before the revolution, the
national state appointed administrators who not only did not speak
Kurdish but an elitist bureaucratic Arabic. Today, the neighbourhood
offices are run by people from the neighbourhood who share the same
everyday language and life with the residents.
The active persons in the communes carry out two basic types of tasks.
First, the communes carry out logistical and distributive tasks, such as
regulating the distribution of relief goods, fuel and electricity (via
generators). Second, activists in the communes (co-chairs and commission
members as well as the activists of the women’s commune) are also active
in social and legal matters.
Every bureaucratic matter starts with the communes. For example, if
somebody wants to get married or go abroad, they first need a document
from their commune office. The komîngeh also serves as the contact point
for those in economic need or for social and family disputes. In
coordination with other commissions at the city level, women’s meetings,
educational activities or people’s meetings are organised.
This everyday aspect of the communes has proven its worth in times of
war, especially in terms of collective security. As an active citizenry
breeds a collective familiarity, residents are attuned to observing the
unusual. Many terror cells have been discovered and dissolved as
residents report suspicious activity to their commune, which is then
followed up by the defence commission.
Those who are active in the communes do not receive financial
compensation for their efforts, which can prove difficult when they must
also ensure their economic livelihoods. But compensation comes in the
form of other resources gained from their work: social networks,
education, knowledge. They become friends and establish diverse
relationships with people from their neighbourhood and other communes,
developing a rich understanding of the political and administrative
governance of their city. Above all, this kind of experience and
knowledge is a new phenomenon for people at the grassroots, providing an
opportunity for communities to govern themselves.
Every commune has a women’s assembly that takes care of women’s affairs
and also serves as a contact point for women. Women also administer and
make politics in the public sphere. A co-chair system ensures that every
commune has both a male and female co-chair, breaking with the strong
patriarchal representation that characterises the centralised state.
Along with some practical advantages, this system has significant
feminist-revolutionary symbolic power. But representation is only one
part of a subtle and comprehensive process of addressing and
transforming old attitudes and building new egalitarian social relations
in the process.
The co-chairs of all the communes of the city meet in a large monthly
district council meeting, where the city municipality or, if necessary,
representatives of other offices are also brought in. There are often
heated debates between the commune co-chairs and the municipality when
it comes to infrastructural points. Much is needed, but resources are
few.
The decentralised processes in Rojava provide a demonstrable alternative
to the centralist tendency of nation states and the problems they create
in the mosaic Middle East. The significance of Rojava is thus not only
the national liberation of the Kurds in western Kurdistan and Syria, but
the deepening and widening of democracy, emancipation and participation
of society in a decentralised and local form of self-government.
This is the real strength of Rojava – and it is an immense and inspiring
strength. The people of Rojava, a small political-geographical entity
caught in a conflict between imperialist states and other hostile
actors, have managed to build and maintain a fertile democratic
experiment. It is the task of all of us to keep the Rojava experiment on
its feet.