The message of Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan, read in all Newroz squares, was undoubtedly of great importance. Each sentence carried deep meaning. It was in the nature of a program for peace and democracy in the Middle East. It proposed an alternative regional structure against the deadlock, war and bloodshed created by global capital forces and the nation-state status quo in the region. It reached almost the entire society and was seriously discussed by many segments.
One particularly important aspect of this message was the call for practical action, addressed especially to women and young people. It underlined the need to move from words to practice, from rhetoric to action. It emphasized that profound ideas must now be transformed into organization and action. It stressed that embracing the Process for Peace and Democratic Society can only gain meaning in this way. It also criticized revolutionary work that remains only at the level of discourse and does not go beyond propaganda.
Undoubtedly, propaganda and agitation are very important in revolutionary work and come first. Without realistic education on this basis, organization and action cannot develop. However, propaganda and agitation that do not turn into organization and action remain nothing more than words and have no impact on life or practice. Therefore, it is essential to always ensure the unity of propaganda, organization, and action.
Why, then, did Abdullah Öcalan place such strong emphasis on this issue in such a crucial context as the Newroz message? This in itself shows how important it is for him. It also indicates that there are serious problems within the current revolutionary stance that make such emphasis necessary. Moreover, he did not limit these points to the Newroz message alone. Whenever he had the opportunity to address the public, he placed particular emphasis on putting ideas into practice, on organizing the people, and on advancing struggle.
For example, in Northern Kurdistan (Bakur) and Turkey, especially in recent times, the concept of the “commune” has been constantly discussed. Everyone speaks of the “commune,” almost adopts it as a label, emphasizes the importance and necessity of communal life, and calls on others to “live as communes.” Yet despite all this, there is no visible, serious effort to organize communes or to build communal life. The importance of a union of communes is frequently mentioned, but concrete organizational work in this direction remains limited. It is clear that Abdullah Öcalan is criticizing this situation and pointing to the need to overcome the disconnect between words and action, between theory and practice, by stressing that it is now necessary to move from rhetoric to action.
A similar situation arises in critiques of state policies and statist politics. For example, it is necessary to criticize Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), who in recent times has spoken most frequently about Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood, yet says, “I celebrate the Nevruz holiday of the Turkish and Islamic world,” without even mentioning Kurds, and does so on Newroz, which is in fact a Kurdish holiday. It is certainly appropriate to criticize and expose this mindset at all times, but it must also be recognized that such criticism alone has limited and temporary impact.
Focusing solely on internal state politics and continuously discussing parties operating within this framework, repeatedly highlighting their actions, does not produce much beyond limited exposure. This remains true even when the policies being pursued are highly dangerous. For example, the policies currently being followed are extremely dangerous for Turkey’s democratic future. It is evident that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government and its Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan are working with all their strength to reach an anti-Kurdish agreement with the United States and Israel and to establish a new Lausanne framework. They are putting forward all their efforts to derive such an outcome from the ongoing war between the United States, Israel, and Iran. Indeed, the calls by Devlet Bahçeli and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to “not rush” the Process for Peace and Democratic Society stem from this.
After all, these forces had long been insisting that “it is necessary to act quickly.” So what changed that led them to now shift their tone and begin advising “patience”? It appears they want to shape their policy according to the course of the war in Iran. Initially, they assumed that Iran would be easily defeated and that they would be next in line, which is why they favored accelerating the process. However, seeing that Iran did not surrender easily and continues the war, they have now turned toward seeking to transform this situation into a new anti-Kurdish policy. Behind the discourse of mediating between the United States–Israel and Iran, together with certain other states, lies an effort to develop new relations and alliances with the United States and Israel. Undoubtedly, the relationship and alliance being pursued also carry an anti-Kurdish character.
Turkey’s diplomatic efforts clearly show that, if it can reach an agreement, it will accept the new United States–Israel hegemony in the Middle East, and in return seek to ensure that this hegemony is built on the denial and elimination of Kurdish existence. It does not require great insight to see and understand that all of Hakan Fidan’s efforts are grounded in this approach. In other words, just as an anti-Kurdish agreement was signed with Britain and France in Lausanne on 24 July 1923, a similar agreement is now being sought with the United States and Israel, the attacking side of what is described as the Third World War. In this sense, an anti-Kurdish, genocidal mindset and policy continues at the level of power. In exchange for the elimination of Kurdish existence and the continuation of Turkey as a fascist, genocidal dictatorship into its second century, it is prepared to align itself under Israel’s regional hegemony. This reflects the extent of its opposition to Kurds and to democracy.
The statement by the AKP–MHP government that “we should not rush, we should act according to developments” corresponds precisely to this approach. They calculate that the ongoing war may open such an opportunity for them. This, of course, poses a very serious danger for Kurdish existence and for Turkey’s democratic future. Undoubtedly, all of this must be analyzed, criticized, and exposed. This work is of great importance. However, limiting this to criticism and exposure alone, remaining only at the level of discourse, will not eliminate the danger. Nor will it be sufficient to counter the risks created by the government’s failure, within the framework of the process, to enact laws for freedom and democracy.
Then what needs to be done? It is not enough to limit ourselves to criticism and exposure, or to remain at the level of words. What is needed is to organize democratic society more broadly against the mindset and policies of the AKP–MHP government, to develop effective actions, and, in short, to build a comprehensive and effective struggle against the fascist, genocidal mindset and politics that stand as an obstacle to a democratic solution. In other words, it is necessary not to remain confined to discourse, but to know how to move from rhetoric to action.
In order to develop effective actions against such a dangerous mindset and policy of the AKP–MHP, it is, of course, necessary to bring forward the forces capable of doing so, that is, to educate and organize society. The struggle to break the fascist, genocidal mindset and politics, and to transform the existing republic into a democratic republic, can only be carried out through an organized democratic society. Such a society, in turn, can only be built on a communal basis. This means that, in order both to achieve a free life and to struggle against genocidal policies, the organization of a democratic communal society is essential.
Those who only advocate such a social model at the level of propaganda cannot, in fact, wage an effective struggle against genocidal policies. Such an approach to revolutionary work is limited and insufficient. Genuine revolutionary practice is one that achieves the unity of propaganda, organization, and action. Therefore, it is necessary to define our agenda correctly and to carry out a comprehensive revolutionary effort on this basis.
Source: Yeni Özgür Politika
Leave a Reply