Gülcan Kaçmaz Sayyiğit, Member of Parliament for Wan (Van) from the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) and Co-Spokesperson of the Democratic Unity Initiative, stated that bringing together the Kurdish people’s struggle across the four parts of Kurdistan on a common ground is of critical importance for regional democratization.
She noted that Abdullah Öcalan’s paradigm of the democratic nation is based on a culture of coexistence among peoples and faiths in opposition to capitalist modernity and said that the Rojava model stands as a concrete example of this approach.
Gülcan Sayyiğit emphasized that the growing relations among Kurds have gained significant momentum toward national unity, and that the Democratic Unity Initiative aims to organize this process at a societal level. She underlined that the efforts led by women and youth strengthen social solidarity, stressing that building a democratic society is essential for achieving lasting peace.
Sayyiğit also stated that the current political structure in Turkey shows no will to socialize peace and emphasized that the peace process should be approached not as a tactical move but as a strategic objective.
In your statements, you emphasize that Abdullah Öcalan’s democratic solution project represents a regional model. How do you think this model can intersect with the Kurdish people’s struggle across the four parts of Kurdistan? And in this context, how can national unity be concretized?
Finding a solution in the Middle East is, in one sense, possible only by understanding the geography itself. The primary reason behind the first historical intervention in Mesopotamia, a land inhabited by the Kurdish people and many other communities, lies in its geopolitical and geostrategic realities. Although people often describe momentary events with the phrase “geography is destiny,” what is actually meant is the geostrategic reality. Naturally, capitalist powers were aware of this. The defining factor in how global powers approached the Middle East was capital. The culture of coexistence among peoples and faiths was disregarded, while the principle of “divide and rule” prevailed.
The motivation behind the first intervention in Mesopotamia and therefore in Kurdistan, was precisely this. A hegemony was to be established, built upon the framework of capitalist modernity. For nearly a century, this hegemony was reinforced through narrow nationalist and jihadist formations alongside regional states. In the system consolidated in the Middle East, the winners have been global powers, capital groups, and reactionary collaborators, while all peoples and faiths have been the losers. In truth, Arabs, Persians, and Turks have also lost, as the rigid nation-state mentality has perpetuated crises and chaos.
Serious objections to this emerged in Iran and across the Arab world, yet they yielded no tangible results. The fundamental reason was the absence of a political program for liberation. In fact, one must look here to understand why the regime that emerged in Iran after the revolution took its current form. Similarly, the Arab Spring also lacked a political and democratic program.
The rationale behind the international conspiracy of October 9 targeting Mr. Öcalan is also rooted in this context. Mr. Öcalan developed a political analysis that influenced the entire region and proposed a democratic solution model. He positioned democratic modernity against capitalist modernity and put forward the paradigm of the democratic nation as an alternative to the monolithic and assimilationist nation-state domination.
At this stage, it is clear that the international conspiracy has collapsed. The events unfolding in the Middle East have proven Mr. Öcalan right. The Rojava model now exists as a reality. All peoples are shaping their vision for the future by looking to this model, as Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens, Syriacs, Yazidis, Alevis, and Circassians are all integrated into the system. Therefore, the Rojava model has become a spring of peoples and faiths. It is also evident that this has had a profound impact on Kurdish national unity, as Mr. Öcalan’s ideas have rendered the Kurdish people ontologically visible across the world.
For this reason, in his video message on July 9, Mr. Öcalan stated, “Existence has been recognized, the main objective has been achieved.” This statement carries many layers of meaning. In essence, the recognition of existence means that the Kurdish people must now focus more deeply on the agenda of national unity.
How has the Rojava model influenced Kurdish national unity?
Undoubtedly, efforts toward Kurdish national unity have existed since the time of Ehmede Khani. Division and fragmentation have always been the weakest points of the Kurdish people, yet these are also what global and regional powers have most feared. In this sense, Kurdish national unity also aims at promoting regional democratization. Today, relations among Kurds across the four parts of Kurdistan are more vibrant than ever. A Kurd in Northern Kurdistan (Bakur) is curious about what is happening in Eastern Kurdistan (Rojhilat), and for every Kurd, Rojava represents a red line.
One of the outcomes of the democratic society and peace process initiated under the leadership of Mr. Öcalan has been the revitalization of relations among Kurds. In Rojava, the Conference for Unity and Common Stance was held; in Sulaymaniyah, the Kurdish Women’s Unity Platform was established; and significant contacts were made in Southern Kurdistan (Başur). As a result, Kurds are increasingly coming closer together, and their internal contradictions have partially diminished. This development stems from the fact that Mr. Öcalan’s theses have found resonance and succeeded in opening a space for Kurds within the regional equation. Naturally, as Kurds gain greater presence and influence in the Middle East, their dialogue and cooperation will continue to deepen.
However, it is also a reality that efforts toward national unity have not yet become fully visible. What kind of social mechanisms does the Democratic Unity Initiative aim to establish to address this shortcoming? In particular, what role do youth and women’s movements play in this process?
The Kurdish struggle for existence has, in one sense, always been a struggle for the construction of unity. The idea that liberation is impossible without national unity was expressed centuries ago by Ehmede Khani in his work Mem û Zin. Therefore, achieving national unity for people whose geography has been fragmented, whose cultural values have been devastated, whose linguistic unity has been weakened, and whose very existence has been denied, is not an easy task. This is because a systematic policy of categorical denial has been carried out against the Kurdish people.
Despite this, Kurds organized themselves and presented the framework of democratic modernity as a model for life. It is evident that Mr. Öcalan’s perspective on resolution has revitalized efforts toward national unity. Today, if all the peoples of Kurdistan are paying attention to this, progress will be inevitable.
If what is meant by national unity is a national congress, that can be debated. If the argument is that efforts toward national unity are not yet sufficient, there is some truth to that. However, there have been significant developments toward unity. Not only today, but throughout history, the issue of national unity has never disappeared from the agenda.
Of course, the Kurdish efforts for national unity have always most alarmed the regional powers. The Sadabad Pact, the Ankara Agreement, and even the Adana Memorandum were, in essence, related to the Kurds. Through these agreements, each state sought to keep “its Kurds” under control. Yet this goal was never achieved. The Kurdish reality emerged at the level of collective consciousness, however slowly. The sense of unity among Kurds has always shown steady progress, as the Kurdish freedom struggle has persisted in every context under its own unique conditions. Now, after half a century of struggle, we have reached a new stage in this ongoing process.
What stage is this?
At this stage, the freedom of the Kurdish people and the democratization of the Middle East have become deeply intertwined. The fundamental lever of this freedom will, of course, be national unity. The Democratic Unity Initiative was established to strengthen solidarity among the peoples of Kurdistan, to promote a democratic and pluralistic way of life, and to expand efforts toward Kurdish national unity. In this sense, we emphasize that the Kurdish question is a matter of political status and advocate for a democratic solution.
The most important characteristic of the Initiative is its pluralism. Representatives of various peoples and faiths are brought together and represented under this umbrella. Therefore, when we speak of national unity, we mean not only Kurds but all peoples. Alongside associations, political parties, and trade unions, there is also a 60 percent public delegation. Our goal is to further expand this structure and make the idea of unity a strategic agenda.
Achieving this requires a strong struggle, which is only possible through the leadership of women and youth, as they are the most dynamic elements of society. It is also they who are targeted by the special warfare policies imposed in Kurdistan. Therefore, as the Initiative grows, it will become a balancing force both among peoples and within society.
Today, social tensions are rising, and conflicts even occur within families. Every day, we receive news of deaths from the streets, and we continue to lose our young people. The only way to overcome this is to strengthen social solidarity, achieve national unity, and create a common purpose. For this reason, our work continues to make the Initiative a key reference point for these goals.
On the other hand, for peace to become permanent, social participation is also crucial. In your view, how should the social system built by the Kurdish people, with its capacity for organization and inclusion, relate to Turkey’s current political structure?
The Kurdish freedom struggle has, over decades, evolved into a deeply social movement. A struggle cannot endure if individuals are not political subjects and if society is not organized. The path forward lies in establishing a pluralistic and participatory democratic understanding.
For this reason, we can see that Mr. Öcalan, when formulating his paradigm, focused on all the components and elements of society. Today, we are not only discussing peace and resolution; one of the most essential issues on the agenda is the construction of a democratic society. Peace can sometimes be achieved temporarily, sometimes permanently, but it is the democratic society that sustains an enduring and honorable peace. A democratic society, in a sense, is a political society, one capable of cultivating a culture of consensus that eliminates the reasons for conflict and war.
With this awareness, the DEM Party organized public assemblies in many cities even before the end of 2024. The determination of Kurds and democratic forces in their demand for a solution and insistence on peace was made visible. After the February 27 call for Peace and a Democratic Society, these gatherings became more systematic. More than two thousand meetings were held, and everywhere, the principles of lasting and honorable peace were laid out.
Peace is not a gift that political powers can grant to peoples. If democracy and peace are to come, they must emerge through social participation and the construction of a democratic society. Acting with this awareness, the DEM Party also held meetings with trade unions, associations, and political parties, in addition to its public assemblies.
At this point, the Kurdish people’s insistence on peace is evident, and their democratic demands are now widely known. However, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has shown no real effort to socialize peace. Although the opposition offers partial support for the process, it is not operating within a genuine atmosphere of peace.
This process should not be treated as a tactical maneuver; rather, peace must be viewed as a strategic objective. The resolution process should not be reduced to a matter of political conjuncture or an election tool. Kurdish politics and especially Mr. Öcalan are fully aware of this. That is why Mr. Öcalan insisted on the establishment of a parliamentary commission. Through that commission, the existing political structure and opposition came together, and people from many different backgrounds were heard. Therefore, it is essential that the political power and the state reassess their approach to the process.
If peace is to be achieved, the discourse toward Rojava must change, and a climate of tolerance among peoples must be fostered. Yet the Kurdish people cannot wait passively for peace and democracy; they must expand their social organization as much as conditions allow. Peace cannot be treated as a favor, nor can democratic rights be offered as charity.
Dialogue and negotiation are of critical importance for the interests of the Kurdish people and all peoples. In this sense, the groundwork created by Mr. Öcalan through dialogue represents a golden opportunity not only for Kurds but for everyone in the region. Therefore, every step taken toward resolving the Kurdish question also broadens the foundation for the struggle for democracy and freedom. Advancing this process is only possible through the collective consciousness of a democratic society.