Dr. Seevan Saeed said that the PKK played a historical role and stressed that peace can only be achieved on the basis of the democratic confederalism paradigm.
The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) resisted denial policies for decades and has now dissolved itself, withdrawing from the method of armed struggle. Breaking the denial of a people, the PKK led social and political transformation for half a century. Its struggle, together with Abdullah Öcalan’s paradigm of Democratic Confederalism, laid the foundations of the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) system.
This half-century of struggle transformed the Kurdish freedom movement into not only a party-based struggle but also a social and political force, bringing values such as women’s liberation, equality, and communal life into practice.
Dr. Seevan Saeed is an academic and researcher who studies the historical and ideological dimensions of this process. He completed his undergraduate and graduate studies in Sociology and Social Policy in the United Kingdom and earned his PhD in Middle East Politics at the University of Exeter. In his doctoral dissertation, he comprehensively examined the PKK’s struggle, the formation of the KCK, and the role of Abdullah Öcalan’s paradigm. He later published his book Kurdish Politics in Turkey: From the PKK to the KCK, analyzing the evolution of Turkey’s Kurdish national movement.
In this book, Dr. Saeed academically demonstrated how the PKK transformed from a traditional armed political struggle into a more inclusive, multidimensional social movement.
Currently, Dr. Saeed serves as an Associate Professor at Shaanxi Normal University in China, where he teaches Middle East Studies, and continues his academic research as a Research Fellow at the University of Exeter. He spoke to ANF about the emergence of the PKK as a half-century movement, its role in social transformation, the social and political impacts of its paradigmatic shift, its reflections across the four parts of Kurdistan, and Abdullah Öcalan’s call for a democratic society.
How would you define the 50-year journey of the PKK? What did its emergence mean for the Kurds?
The Kurdish Freedom Movement, under the leadership of the PKK, has shaped the political course of Kurdish society over the past half century. Emerging in the 1970s, the PKK was not only an armed organization but also a historical rupture from decades of enforced silence and denial. For Kurds, who had long been deprived of social and political rights, political recognition, and collective dignity, the PKK represented a radical break: it advanced the idea that Kurdish existence could not only be defended but also transformed into a new social and political project. Therefore, the emergence of the PKK must be seen both as a rebellion against assimilationist nation-states and as a transformative force that reshaped Kurdish identity, politics, and social aspirations.
What distinguishes the PKK from classical organizations and parties?
The PKK is not only a political movement; it is a social movement. In many respects, it differs from other political parties in the Middle East. The PKK never aimed to replace the system and rule over it. It is essential goal was to change the mentality: to lead a people from slavery to a free life. That is why the 50-year journey of this movement is not a dissolution but a transformation. The current debate framed as ‘laying down arms’ or ‘dissolution’ is, in my view, misguided. What is at stake here is a change in method.
Could you elaborate on this point? How do you assess the dissolution and the end of armed struggle?
Armed struggle has always been a small dimension within the Kurdish Freedom Movement. The struggle in the mountains was essentially for self-defense. The real weight of the movement has always been on social transformation. For example, the transformation achieved in the last fifty years on gender equality has not been achieved in the Middle East in a thousand years. Women became co-leaders and moved to the center of society. Likewise, different faiths and identities such as the Yazidis, the Zazas, and the Shiites have gained recognition and value within society. This struggle has therefore advanced not only as a political change but through a profound social transformation.
The PKK has been dissolved, but the struggle for social transformation continues. What is your view on the debates around ‘dissolution’?
If the issue is dissolution, which dissolution are we talking about? The five or six thousand guerrillas in the mountains, or the hundreds of political, diplomatic, and academic institutions operating across the world? There are at least twenty million people behind this movement. For this reason, speaking of a ‘dissolution’ of such a structure is meaningless. It is also not correct to see the weapon merely as an instrument of iron; it was also understood as a moral, human, cultural, and educational form of resistance. For this reason, the struggle will continue, but the methods will change. In other words, we are not talking about dissolution, but about transformation.
The Kurdish Freedom Movement struggled against policies of denial. How did this struggle create social transformation? How do you assess its impact on daily life and social organization?
For many years, the Kurdish question in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria was regarded solely as a ‘security issue.’ Kurdish cultural expression was criminalized, and demands for autonomy were met with repression. The PKK rejected this approach and reframed Kurdish existence as an issue of collective rights and political agency. The struggle was not limited to the battlefield; through mobilization, literacy campaigns, cultural revival, and grassroots organization, profound changes took place in daily life. Political participation increased, and women and youth became central actors. Neighborhood assemblies, cultural centers, and women’s organizations became part of a new political culture. This meant not only resisting denial but also building an alternative way of life.
It is well known that, in particular, the foresight and intuition of Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan were decisive in this transformation. How were the foundations for the shift to Democratic Confederalism laid?
Abdullah Öcalan’s leadership is both symbolic and practical. In the early period, the Marxist-Leninist framework provided the initial revolutionary orientation of the movement. However, his imprisonment in 1999 triggered a profound ideological transformation. In his writings from Imrali, Öcalan rejected the nation-state model and instead developed the paradigm of Democratic Confederalism, a decentralized system based on ecology, gender equality, and local self-governance. This was not only a theoretical proposal but a transformation that redefined Kurdish politics. Within this paradigm, Kurdish political organization was no longer in pursuit of ‘a nation-state belonging only to the Kurds,’ but rather aimed at a democratic society that transcends borders. Women and youth, as co-leaders, came to shape political life.
So today, is Abdullah Öcalan’s Call for a Democratic Society also rooted in this paradigmatic transformation?
When the PKK first emerged, it was not merely an armed resistance organization; it was also a radical objection to the historical denial of the Kurdish people. This meant not only a rupture with the state but also with the social structures that upheld that state and with the homogenizing mentality of the nation-state.
Over time, the movement sought to go beyond classical national liberation models and to find a new path. This became possible through Abdullah Öcalan’s paradigm of Democratic Confederalism. As I emphasize in my research, the PKK’s initial spirit of resistance laid the political and social groundwork for this paradigm.
Today, this model offers an alternative way of life not only for Kurds but also for marginalized peoples such as the Yazidis, Alawite, Druze, and Assyrians. What we call a Democratic Society takes shape here: a communal life built on moral values, where peoples, identities, and faiths live together equally.
You say there is harmony between the Call for a Democratic Society and this paradigm. Could you elaborate on this?
Yes, we can definitely speak of harmony. In fact, the paradigm of Democratic Confederalism is the practical and systematic expression of Mr. Abdullah Öcalan’s Call for a Democratic Society. This call is a model of organization that centers on society and is based on the idea of a moral and political community. At this point, Öcalan proposes a political structure that is not state-centered but society-centered.
As I have also examined in my research, this paradigm aims to overcome the alienation created by capitalist modernity. In a society where one is hungry and another is full, there can be no justice. That is why this system is founded on a moral social contract. And this is not merely an ideological discourse; it is being implemented and lived by peoples in Rojava, in Northern Kurdistan (Bakur), and elsewhere.
In short, Democratic Confederalism carries the spirit of the Call for a Democratic Society. Both envision a future based on the self-power, self-governance, and the will for an equal life of society.