In light of recent developments, ADM seek to analyse the dialectical process within the Kurdish Freedom Movement. This process has been waged thus far, from the ideological base of Abdullah Öcalan’s perspectives, which at their core bring to the forefront the internationalist perspective of the struggle. These perspectives have gained international interest, especially with the “Change of Paradigm”. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the current outcome of the call for peace and democracy, and the recent announcement of the PKK’s dissolution and change in strategy.
In a recent article, ADM shared a brief political analysis and understanding of the Kurdish Freedom Movement’s democratic politics. It emphasised the Movement’s capacity in leading democratisation processes in the region amid a third world war context. With an exceptional grasp on the conjunctural opportunities, the Movement’s fifty-year struggle for a political solution has been solidified by its achievements. The Movement strengthened itself through the continuous and historical popular support in Bakur, the resistance in the free mountains of Kurdistan, influencing the uprisings in Iran, and especially, from the development of the DAANES with the Rojava Revolution. This has not only impacted the Middle East, but has inspired and impacted radical and democratic movements worldwide. Undoubtedly, the organisational level and the political, cultural, social, popular, women’s and youth organisations that have grown from the Kurdish Freedom Movement, have positioned it as the most influential socialist movement in the Middle East.
This situation goes beyond the political and ideological parties, the PKK-PAJK. In this sense, the development based on women’s liberation and the Democratic Confederalist strategy has broadened its social and political organisation(s). The organisations and bodies developed on the basis of societal needs and realities have laid the practical, political, and ideological foundations for the entire Movement to advance to new phases of struggle. The Movement is now positioned as a challenging actor in all areas, including direct confrontation, structural strength, diplomacy, self-organisation, legitimacy, and recognition. In the 2000’s, with the dissolution and re-foundation of the PKK after the attempt to develop KADEK1 and Kongra Gel (Peoples’ Congress), a big internal transformation started, and throughout these years this laid the foundations for the organisations that would bring the perspective of Democratic Autonomy into reality, based on the Political and Moral society.
As the slogan says, “PKK are the people and the people are here”. The relationship between the Party and all the different structures of the confederal system (under the umbrella of KCK- KJK) has reached the level of developing the struggle along common principles including: ecological thought, women’s autonomy and the values of Welat Parezî (defending the home land), struggle, organisation, ethics & aesthetics, alongside a common revolutionary stance, unified strategy and sacrifice. This has led to a mutual transformation of the developments of society and the PKK. The structures were not only “following the party” but “embodying the values of the party” and carrying out their own activity through it. Now, with the dissolution of the PKK, all those who have embodied these values take on the responsibility of continuing the struggle. The emptiness of the vanguard organisation will be filled by society, with society becoming the continuation of the party.
In his statement on February 27th , Abdullah Öcalan said, “The collapse of real socialism in the 1990s due to internal reasons, along with the dissolution of identity denial policies in the country and advancements in freedom of expression, led the PKK into a state of meaninglessness and excessive repetition.” Öcalan is thus criticising the meaning of the Party itself and seeking renewal. This step was welcomed by all structures. The relationship between Abdullah Öcalan’s positions and the Movement and society has always led to an advancement of the political struggle: from the proposal of developing guerrilla warfare in 1982, to the need for women’s autonomous organisations, to the change of paradigm. Now the dissolution and reshaping of the Kurdish Movement’s strategy aims to influence, and continue the struggle, for revolutionary processes further than Kurdistan, and even beyond the Middle East. This should be analysed as a new phase due to the achievements gained so far, and from the level of recognition and openness of different political actors, especially civil organisations, the YNK, nationalist Kurdish groups such as the KDP, as well as the Turkish state and international actors. Over the years, a higher level of confidence and stronger organisation have developed within society.
Therefore, the PKK held its 12th Congress in response to Abdullah Öcalan’s call. The main decision was the PKK’s dissolution and laying down of arms. The question remains: What’s next? The Firat News Agency (ANF in English) shared several perspectives from the Congress. Firstly, a new political framework was introduced: “Democratic Society Socialism,” which centres on women’s liberation, ecology, and local governance. This framework rejects traditional state-based socialism and aligns with the paradigm of Democratic Modernity. This emphasis on societal understanding of socialism is rooted in the communal and democratic nature of society. To overcome the attacks of capitalist modernity, society must take the lead in developing confederated political and social structures, breaking away from the centralised approach of traditional party politics by assuming greater responsibility, making decisions, and engagement in the struggle. Therefore, Democratic Society Socialism is intertwined with strengthening the Democratic Confederal system, leading to renewed Democratic Modernity.
In a video released at the end of the congress, the militants committed to “reviving all the values that the PKK established as a socialist organisation and building a democratic commune system based on women’s liberation and playing a vanguard role in building a democratic society. [They will] defend Democratic Socialism and free life.” Ayten Dersim, a member of the PAJK coordination, declared: “In the restructuring of the Middle East, it has become clear that the current PKK charter, despite its significant roles and responsibilities, is no longer sufficient. This is why the charter and program must now be embraced by society, internalised through people’s own strength and consciousness, and brought into lived reality. In this sense, the PKK is a culture. It has formed a foundation of ethics, consciousness, and existence. Now, it is time for us to build on that foundation.” In the same vein Bese Hozat, whose words have also been shared, poses “We clearly understand that it is a brand-new beginning, a process of change, transformation, and restructuring. When we look deeply at history, at our own struggle, and at the Leadership’s perspectives, especially those developed for this period, we can easily reach this conclusion. This allows us to step outside the emotional atmosphere”.
From the statements of the top leaders of the PKK, it seems clear that the Movement is taking a step forward in their strategy for Democratic Socialism. They are moving beyond the local Kurdish reality to an internationalist perspective. During the congress, Murat Karayilan said, “In order for Democratic Modernity to succeed against Capitalist Modernity, we must now cast off the chains that restrain us, those that confine us to being a voice only within Kurdistan.” For years, the PKK has recognised the need to expand the struggle beyond Kurdistan, aiming to unite and federate different regions and realities under a perspective of unity in diversity. The confederation of territories, peoples and units based on democratic politics ultimately aims to create parallel structures that can surpass the current UN and other international bodies of the nation-state system. Abdullah Öcalan established a foundation for an internationalist struggle and has proposed a process to develop a Democratic Middle East Confederation and a World Democratic Confederation of Peoples. Karayilan’s declaration, as well as the Movement’s perspective, can be understood in this sense. Karayilan added that Chairman Apo (Abdullah Öcalan) never gave up on the process of transformation and change despite broader interventions, liquidation efforts, and serious threats against the Movement.
After many years of struggle, it has become clear that the Movement’s main strength lies in its popular organisation. The stronger the organisation within society, the greater the achievements. For classic national liberation struggles, guerrilla warfare was the starting point for negotiations. In the Kurdish case, NATO’s second-biggest army’s inability to defeat the guerrilla, has brought the situation to the current point. Now, confrontation and negotiation with the state have reached a new level. Although it is difficult to grasp the concessions made by the Turkish state as they are mostly internal negotiations, it is clear that Erdogan himself has taken responsibility for the process. Therefore, all parties are deeply involved in meeting the conditions posed by the Kurdish Freedom Movement (“Undoubtedly, the laying down of arms and the dissolution of the PKK in practice require the recognition of democratic politics and a legal framework” —ending of the November 27th declaration).
The PKK has also taken a stance on the need for Turkey to take steps. Karaylan stated, “There must be a shift in the state’s policy of denial and annihilation. Without a change in this mindset, on what basis will internal peace be established? (…) The existing laws are hostile; they reject the Kurdish people and society. Therefore, only through legal and constitutional reform by the state can this Movement implement disarmament. Otherwise, it will be extremely difficult”. Likewise, Evîndar Ararat remarks that the struggle for democratic politics cannot be without self-defence. She elaborates “the democratic struggle strategy, democratic politics, encompasses self-defence in a very comprehensive way. In other words, it is not one-sided. It is also incorrect to limit self-defence solely to armed struggle. In our new paradigm, the Leader evaluates self-defence in a very broad sense. It includes alliance, diplomacy, the struggle for democracy, and social organisation; it is defined as the fundamental defence force that includes society as a whole in the defence”.
The political reality of a third world war centred in the Middle East has created significant dangers for societies, even annihilation and genocide, but also opportunities in the region and worldwide. The truth of this reality is that the main strength and self-defence cannot rely on concrete, focused regional wars, but must encompass a multitude of strategies to expand organisational capacity. We should consider organised and connected societies and peoples as the main force of self-defence. Just as attacks are not solely military but also occur through multiple means of special warfare, self- defence is also being diversified. For the Kurdish Question, the key is whether the power balance has been primarily through the military capacity by HPG-YJA Star or goes beyond that, and what meaning the decision of laying down weapons has. Without denying the role of weapons and of the guerrilla in self-defence, which took its historical role, the Movement has achieved a situation to open other means of stabilisation and defend the advancements made, and has even been able to strengthen this process which the label of “terrorist organisation” and the constant war have slowed down. With this perspective, we also need to understand that practical and big steps must be developed by the contrary parts, in order to dialectically bring the situation to a point of democratic basis.
The steps taken by the PKK must be understood as strategic steps to ensure the Kurdish Freedom Movement’s wider capacity for action and influence in the four parts of Kurdistan and beyond, rather than as tactical calculations. The question of stopping the armed struggle shatters the main tool of repression and attack used by the Turkish state. This opens the way for a much stronger connection within society. If the Turkish state responds positively to the process, it will benefit not only the millions of Kurds living and struggling in Bakur, but also the Democratic Autonomous Administration of NE Syria and the whole Middle East. The development of political and grassroots structures will be possible and will have an even greater impact across the rest of the Middle Eastern societies.
In this process, the various members who shared their perspectives at the congress emphasised the importance of all of society embracing the responsibility of the struggle. The success of these major steps, particularly the perspective of transcending the “borders” of Kurdistan and the Middle East, also requires a good understanding of the Movement’s transformation and the role of internationalist support in achieving success.
Self-defence, in its broader sense, necessitates stronger diplomatic and political pressure worldwide, as well as a clear stance and collaboration with the Kurdish Freedom Movement by all democratic forces. Internationalist solidarity has always played its role, and rather than slowing down this pressure, now is the time to take responsibility for the historical success of establishing a foundation for peace and a long-term solution. Moreover, the Kurdish Freedom Movement is introducing new forms of political organisation and actively implementing the paradigm, thereby strengthening connections and collaborative efforts, while understanding and developing the political, intellectual, and moral tasks2 necessary to forge an internationalist struggle that aligns and broadens the opportunities in the context of a larger process of restructuring of Capitalist Modernity. In its calls, the Movement has referred specifically to the Turkish and wider Middle Eastern democratic and anti-systemic forces to take their role. And more broadly, the Kurdish Freedom Movement breaks away from its regional struggle, and calls to action all political links and collaboration of democratic forces worldwide.
The Kurdish Peoples have demanded the freedom of Abdullah Öcalan since he was kidnapped by international powers in Kenya. The campaign to end his isolation, through the struggle of the Kurdish community and the committed internationalist solidarity of people around the world, has achieved valuable developments in the the struggle for a free-life. In this sense, the question remains. The Movement stated that only Abdullah Öcalan is able to lead this process. At the same time, the Turkish legal committee hinted at the possibility of invoking the Right of Hope, thereby suggesting the possibility of his release. Now, attention on Öcalan’s situation is greater than ever before, as he has proven to play a key role in achieving a lasting political solution in Kurdistan and Turkey. Despite some gains, the Kurdish Freedom Movement underlined clearly that the Imrali system is the biggest obstacle to finding a political solution and maintains the necessity for the physical freedom of Abdullah Öcalan, as a key actor in this process. A new phase in the “Freedom for Öcalan, Political Solution for Kurdistan” campaign has begun, demanding international visits for Öcalan.
In conclusion, the Kurdish Freedom Movement’s latest transformation reflects an internal transformation of the strategy, deepening on the process that started with the change of paradigm, and made possible after the political assessment of the rounds of negotiations and discussions held with regional and international actors. The development of the paradigm and the political and social organisations created in recent years, as well as those still to become, have become a strategic priority, rather than continuing a war that has not led to progress. The cessation of hostilities in different areas of Kurdistan and the release of Öcalan are the main priorities in order to lay the political foundations for peace and a democratic society. It is not only the responsibility of the Turkish state, but moreover it is the role of all democratic forces (Turkish, Syrian, Middle Eastern, and global) to strengthen this process. At a time where militarisation and security discourses are suffocating society from Ukraine to Kashmir and from Kurdistan to Palestine, the “Call for Peace and Democratic Society”, constitutes a beacon of hope and a political and philosophical perspective for all peoples struggling for a free-common-life.
- In 2002 the PKK abolished itself and formed a political organisation named KADEK (Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress) to move forward as a purely political organisation ↩︎
- Find more information in our brochure “The Theory of Democratic Modernity as a Guide for Building a New Internationalism” ↩︎
