"A good teacher is like a candle - it consumes itself to light the way for others."
~ Author Unknown.
~ Author Unknown.
A little more than a month ago there was some "news" about an unnamed group of intellectuals who charged that HPG had published on its website two articles that threatened, insulted, and denigrated İsmail Beşikçi.
A search for the alleged articles revealed nothing, not even in Google's cache. The group of intellectuals remains unnamed. In fact, the group doesn't even have a name or, at least, not a name that has been named in Turkish media. My guess is that the intellectuals in question sit on the Turkish general staff.
In the meantime, an article by one of the writers named in Bianet's article, Adil Kurtay, appeared on Özgür Gündem. It's a long one but there is never any insult, denigration, threat, or blackmail of Beşikçi. On the contrary, Beşikçi is addressed as "sayın hocamız" right off the bat and Kurtay continues to address him as "hocamız" or "hocam" throughout the article. Kurtay also uses "siz"--the polite and formal pronoun--in speaking to Beşikçi throughout. It's hard to see how that would be construed as "insulting" or "denigrating".
Kurtay uses a quote from Beşikçi, in which Beşikçi says that free criticism is not only a condition of science, but also a basic condition of democracy. Beşikçi asks if there will be democracy without free criticism. For this reason, according to Beşikçi, PKK must be able to criticize Abdullah Öcalan.
Kurtay uses Beşikçi's own notion of "free criticism" against him by replying to various quotes Beşikçi has made regarding Öcalan and the PKK and someone doesn't like the idea that there is a response to what amounts to the Ankara regime's official stance on Öcalan and the PKK. In other words, "free criticism" is not free.
Most of the criticisms that Beşikçi makes, which Kurtay responds to, are the same old ridiculous criticisms that have been going around in anti-apocular circles--including among the Kurdish members of those circles--for some time. What would be truly interesting would be to trace how the very same criticisms flow from Beşikçi's pen or mouth to the eyes or ears of those who really have no connection to Turkish-occupied Kurdistan and how they jump so easily from one language to many others.
Besides, as Kurtay's response shows, many of those claims are, in fact, falsehoods, while others, from notes of Öcalan's meetings with his lawyers, are taken entirely out of context.
The main point of contention is that Öcalan, the PKK, the DTP, and the great majority of Northern Kurds do not want a separation from Turkey. Yeah, I know that little spray of cold water will be painful for many to hear, but it's the truth and that's why PKK has stated over and over again that it does not seek a solution outside the borders of Turkey. Beşikçi, on the other hand, push for a state. Conveniently, that point of view plays into the hands of the TSK.
Kurtay makes an observation that is usually ignored by the so-called "experts" on the Kurdish question, and that is that in the immediate aftermath of Öcalan's capture by international forces, while some thousands of Kurds took to the streets in protest of the international conspiracy and thousands were arrested, where was Beşikçi? This long-time observer of the Kurdish question, who had written books and spent 17 years in prison for his work; this sociologist who was trained to observe and comment in context said absolutely nothing about the global Kurdish reaction. Why?
The only others who refrained from either protesting or condemning were the KDP.
And now that I have mentioned the 17 years that Beşikçi spent in Turkish prisons it's time to recall something that Beşikçi said in a Milliyet interview from 2006:
M: Are you thinking that Öcalan, after he went to Imralı, is his era finished?
İB: He is a man in the hands of the state. He is under the supervision of the state.
M: Can't he speak comfortably?
İB: Yeah, he talks a lot but when he talks he only talks about the state. I know this myself. In 1985 I had written a letter from prison to my friend. It was about the Kurdish question. They returned that letter to me and said, "You are also committing a crime in prison. We will ask for disciplinary proceedings". A situation like that, where you talk about a very innocent thing, like the Kurds . . . But Öcalan, for example, "Declares war!" The state didn't take any step. "Again resort to arms." Under such high control, how can he state such things? Then the state also had a demand for it.
Indeed, the same can be said for Beşikçi. He is a man in the hands of the state, under the supervision of the state, and the state has a demand for the continued fantasy of separatism and for alleged threats, insults, and denigration of Beşikçi from HPG. That makes for excellent propaganda. Yes. Indeed.
Later, KCK Executive Committee member Mustafa Karasu made a statement regarding the Beşikçi incident:
PKK criticizes Besikci, but never blackmails him.
We have criticized Ismail Besikci's approach to our leadership. We stressed that the remarks he had made about PKK and its struggle are not true. We stated that it is being done wrong both to PKK and Leader Apo regarding this issue. Naturally our ideological approaches and paradigms are different than Ismail Besikci's perspective. Our perspective on the state is ideological. We see every kind of state against democracy and freedom. About this issue, the Kurdish people's leader has a comprehensive analysis. Of course, naturally, we did not find it correct for Besikci to make different kinds of remarks rather than criticizing Leader Apo and PKK's approach to the state on an ideological basis. Especially his approach to the leadership is not ethical. We conveyed openly our view and criticisms to him through media.
It has been said that a writing showed up on HPG's site that had blackmailed Ismail Besikci. We didn't read it. We don't think blackmail would be done. Maybe it was a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe an inappropriate tone had been used; however as a movement we do not have neither such an attitude or approach to blackmail Ismail Besikci. It is not true that our movement blackmailed Ismail Besikci. There are associations that make evaluations on behalf of the movement. In addition to that, there are friends who talk on behalf of the movement whose speech binds the movement. For this reason we see the phrase, "Ismail Besikci has been blackmailed" as a provocation. It has been said that signatures have been collected. We haven't received them yet. But we want those people who signed that paper to know this.
I don't blame Beşikçi. He is old now and I'm sure he doesn't want to see the inside of a prison again. It appears to me that the state is using him, conjuring up imaginary "insults" by HPG and then conjuring up imaginary "intellectuals" to become chagrined at the imaginary "denigration". Beşikçi has done his part and helped to make the world aware of the Kurdish situation at a time when it was extremely dangerous to speak out. Sayın hocamız may rest with honor now, and let us sincerely hope that he does so.
20 comments:
Does a teacher really consume his or her self through the act of imparting knowledge to his or her students?
Just like the article ostensibly written to respond to Besikci's criticisms, you also begin by setting a disturbing mindset -- that we should not trust Besikci.
You can share your knowledge with another without having any less for yourself. Unlike a burning candle, it is always a light onto itself. And, I would argue, that in fact, the act of dialogue itself deepens the knowledge of both the teacher and the student.
I think there are many people who either vocally or silently agree with Besikci's criticisms. However, the strongest point in Kurtay's article (and one that does not truly address Besikci's criticisms) is that it is the PKK who is actively struggling against oppression and on that basis it is a bit of a luxury for us to quibble with its overall aims and objectives.
I honestly don't know what the current PKK ideology is and nor do I understand it -- nor can I put a name to it without actually going to find some article on the subject. However, that's besides the point isn't it?
~nistiman
Respect to Mizgin, for yet again untangling such a sensitive issue with such delicacy. I think sometimes many people cannot see the trees for the wood.
Of course you must step out of the forest and climb the mountain to get an overall view.
And when you do this, of course, it becomes much clearer.
Besikci helped to shine the light with his candle and it was all the more bright because he is, of course, Turkish.
It was because of this that he had such respect among the Kurdish Movement and continues to be respected today, whatever his criticisms.
But our movement would not of gained what it has without the disciplined movement of the PKK and Serok Apo. And of course our Martyrs.
Whatever those who sit on the sidelines say and try to look for some ideology or 'positions' of the movement or critise this or that.......the struggle goes on!!
And history will show us that both Ocalan and Besikci, however the conditions of the struggle change in this or that period made massive contributions to Kurdish Freedom.
And for years in the future Kurdish youth will burn the flame from the candle to the Newroz fire and remember them.
Biji Serok Apo!
Biji Besikci!
Biji Newroz and the Flame of Resistance!
Biji the Kurdish Freedom Struggle!
Berxwedan Jiyane!
Should one trust Besikci, Nistiman? Why would it be disturbing to not trust him? You and I have heard these same criticisms coming from the mouths (or keyboards) of complete morons, so why should we trust him? How is it that he is untouchable? Infallible?
The burning reminds me of something else . . .
Blessed is the heart that knows, for honors sake, to stop its beating.
Blessed is the match, consumed in kindling flame.
But that's more appropriate for Sehid Mazlum.
Yes, KCC, Besikci has made contributions to the cause; there is no doubt of that.
Jiyan berxwedane!
If the point of the article was to denigrate Besikci's character and effectively call him a burnt out candle who, in his senility, is being used by the deep state or the shallow state, then the article should not pretend to call him "Sayin Hocamiz" and pretend to have any respect for him. You're free to make your case against Besikci as you have done against everyone who has been a vocal critic of Ocalan or the PKK.
If indeed one does have respect for Ismail Besikci, then one can do the greatest honor to him by responding to his criticisms and not denigrating his character.
~nistiman
The criticisms were responded to in the article by Adil Kurtay. I didn't see any denigration there nor have I denigrated him.
I realize that in Turkey to say anything is to denigrate, blackmail, incite hatred, make terrorist propaganda, etc., ad nauseum.
I have been following Besikci´s articles about the so-called critics he have been made towards Öcalan and PKK. Especially from kurdistan-post (Note, the Kurdish website ruled by opportunist Hasan Bildirci and Yasar Kaya.) and to be honest, Besikci´s strongest argument against PKK´s “new” paradigm-shift is too weak. He claims that PKK with their new paradigm demand less than their potential. PKK should demand more. That’s from a person with no clue about the paradigm; I will call the leftish-nationalist Besikci, for “kücük burjuva” and PKK current democratic paradigm is not a dream for types like Besikci. Öcalan, came with a statement, that either PKK or he have changed, but there ideas have been refined. PKK and Öcalan have been searching for alternative solution to the Kurdish question sense beginning of 1990. Öcalan, wrote some books under this period, (notes, some of this books have are like “trilogy” or if you people want to call it volumes.) well known PKK “intellectuals” like Besikci (I think, he thinks he knows PKK, but in the fact he thus not.) should know that the paradigm-shift came much earlier than the complot against Öcalan and the Kurdish freedom struggle. Cemil Bayik, in a long interview to ANF, after the last PKK congress explained in detail why PKK today struggles for a democratic confederation and self-governing in Kurdistan. Besikci, should begin reading Öcalans. Not only the “meeting notes”.
Besikci, is a big hypocrite. Thanks to PKK and their comrades Besikci is well known among kurds. It was PKK and their comrades that went from house to house to sell Besikci books and risk jail for that. I have Besikci books from that time. Not the “tirsikci” (note, word that Mazlum Dogan always used towards so-called Kurds) groups that today support and push Besikci against PKK. Like a child he is been driven from both Turkish state and the tirsikci groups. Besikci, so-called supported PKK then, and wrote how big Öcalan and PKK is. What happened, Besikci?
Tirsikci groups like Hak-Par, Kadep, PSK, PWD and the list can be longer came with announcement that Kurdish people should confront PKK, because of the insult and blackmailing of Besikci. I have been reading all the articles about that in HPG´s official site and found nothing, because nothing like that has been written. When I went to read tirsikci sites, I was laughing so my stomach hurt. They are really living a different world from us other. The only hard word against Besikci was when one heval wrote an article with both Besikci and Fethullah Gülen. We should blame PKK for that? Besikci, should stand up and confront those people who use him against PKK. What are Besikci, doing instead? Nothing!
We should instead discuss why Besikci wants to be used and the reason behind. Rêber Apo, have right, Besikci really want to become the Kurdish people Ziya Gökalp.
Tolhildan
Thanks for the contribution, Tolhildan.
This kind of thing has been going on (and going around) for a while. The last time this really came up was after the Milliyet interview--something about how Serok was threatening to sue Saint Besikci or something--and there was a discussion about it on DozaMe at the time. The same imbeciles that you mention, Hak-Par, Kadep, PSK, PWD, blah, blah, blah, were pushing the BS back then.
What is fishy in this current situation is that the so-called "intellectuals" who are so concerned about Besikci are not named. Now why is that? Because they don't exist? If they do exist, where is their signature list? Where is their statement? Can't the Ankara regime doctor up some kind of paperwork on this? I mean, they did a good job doctoring up all of Abdullah Catli's passports, you'd think they'd be able to operate Microsoft Office in order to make some fake documents in this situation.
But with these people it's always the same thing. They say something will be forthcoming or that there's something in the works and you never hear anything more about it. Kind of reminds me of how Sherri Laizer--OOPS! I mean PWD--was going to come out with all the evidence after Kani Yilmaz was blown up. And here we are, years later, and there's been nothing.
Put up or shut up, you know what I mean?
Again it's the same thing now with this alleged HPG webpage that allegedly attacks Besikci. Well, where is it? I never found it. Others searched cached pages and never found it. And then, how do a bunch of "intellectuals" in Turkey access HPG's website? Yeah, the universities used to be able to access stuff like that but I don't know if they can now. However, there is one group that I'm absolutely certain can and does access HPG's website from Turkey and I'll bet a year's wages on it that that group is the Turkish general staff. And if Bianet is going to publish this news, then why don't they check with any contacts they might have outside of Turkey to verify the existence of the HPG webpage in question?
Even more guilty than Bianet are all those jackasses outside of Turkey who go ahead and talk the shit when they have every opportunity and every access to locate said webpage. But they don't do it, do they? And they claim to be "journalists". Okay, fair enough, because in my experience, journalists are all a bunch of lazy assholes who want YOU to do all their research for them, hand it to them, and MAYBE they'll do something on it if they're not too busy that day.
And, yes, I have to agree with you that there were changes in PKK underway a long time ago, even back to 1990 but I have found that the imbeciles we have mentioned don't want these facts to cloud their issue. The fact is that they live in some kind of mental time warp and they drag the willingly ignorant along with them.
For a long time now I have lost all patience with the imbeciles and that's part of the reason I started Rasti. There are plenty of online places where these vermin lurk and whoever wants to join the fantasy of the imbeciles can move along until they find those places and they can become the new Ziya Gokalps.
Tolhildan,
I think you hit the nail on the head. Besikci's main criticism against Ocalan is that he does not agree with the paradigm shift. I haven't read enough of his criticisms or earlier works to know whether he is a leftist or a Marxist and honestly, all the different dogmatisms bore me, however, his character and his life are proof to me that there does not have to be anything sinister about his criticisms. It is quite natural for intellectuals to disagree on fundamental points and to voice their disagreements.
Surely, there are opportunists out there and Ziya Gokalps and traitors, but to put every person who disagrees inside the same waste bin -- and especially ISMAIL BESIKCI -- is truly a crime against Intellectual Honesty. Fortunately for those who commit this act, it is rather rampant and there's really no punishment.
It is rather ingenious to call those who seek maximalist rights for Kurds as "tirsikcis" :) Wasn't the term originally intended for a person who stripped Kurdish rights out of significant meaning and who only wanted individual, cultural rights for Kurds? Remember all the fake Kurds who didnt' want independence or autonomy and who were just content with "kasetcilik"?
To say that a person who is seeking MORE rights for Kurds, rather than less, someone who rejects autonomy and seeks independence as a Tirsikci or a Ziya Gokalp is extremely offensive.
Call him a rigid Leftist, call him a rigid nationalist, but don't call him a Tirsikci or a Ziya Gokalp.
infuriating....
~nistiman
Nistiman
I have never called Besikci, tirsikci. Read my post again, hypocrite, but not tirsikci. Secondly tirsik, is a Kurdish food. The meaning behind it will I explain now. Tirsik, the Kurdish food, was given to Kurdish “slaves” who made aghas duty. The agha gave tirsik, to the Kurdish person who made aghas dirty work. Tirsikci, is a term we use for slave-master relationship. Like the empire of Rome with their patron-client relationship. Thirdly, Besikci, have all the right in the world to criticize, Öcalan. Öcalan, said, everybody can criticize me, and should also do so. Constructive critic is good and Öcalan honestly wants people to have opinion about, Confederation. Besikci, weak critic and insulting Rêber Apo by saying he is a leader who talks much, and should think more. Remember, it is Besikci who insult Öcalan, Rêber Apo have analyze Besikci character really well. Rêber Apo, said such critic from any one, will he never take seriously. Besikci, wants to become Ziya Gökalp. What is not true about that? Ziya Gökalp, Kurdish person fron Diyarbekir (Amed) who spread turkishness and the Turk Besikci wants to form Kurdish nationalism. We have ex-guerilla that today is weapon against their people. This people served there people in the beginning. What is the different from, Besikcis case? Turk?
~Tolhildan
Can you please explain how Besikci is a hypocrite? Is a hypocrite a person who once supported Ocalan and the PKK and who no longer agrees with them? Another way of looking at it is that a person can support Ocalan and PKK because they reflect his/her own position/view point on the Kurdish struggle. It seems fair that if that position or view point shifts drastically -- for example, from seeking independence to seeking some vague form of local self governing entities -- then that person would not be a hypocrite for withdrawing their support Ocalan or PKK, or expressing their discontent. That doesn't seem hypocritical to me. Rather, it seems quite natural.
And, who knows what position you, the PKK or Ocalan will hold in -- God willing -- ten years time? Perhaps, just perhaps, the Democratic Republic might be untenable and confederalism unworkable. These are recent paradigm shifts and just like the Peace Process, they might also be illusory concepts ...
Your point that he is a Ziya Gokalp may be construed as a compliment considering Reber Apo also found redeeming qualities in Ataturk and wanted to emulate his role as someone who was a trailblaster for founding freedom and democracy in Turkey (albeit for the Turks). However, I would like to think that Besikci is not attempting to create a Kurdish ultra-nationalist ideology which is premised upon a hierarchy of cultures but rather asserting the Kurdish people's inalienable rights.
My main point, again, is that I find no reason to doubt Besicki's character, his sincerity to the Kurdish struggle or his desire to be a true intellectual rather than a fawning follower. It's a shame that only Tirsikcis have defended his right to criticize, but I suppose, doesn't have anything at all to do with Besikci.
~nistiman
Nistiman/
” Can you please explain how Besikci is a hypocrite? Is a hypocrite a person who once supported Ocalan and the PKK and who no longer agrees with them? Another way of looking at it is that a person can support Ocalan and PKK because they reflect his/her own position/view point on the Kurdish struggle. It seems fair that if that position or view point shifts drastically -- for example, from seeking independence to seeking some vague form of local self governing entities -- then that person would not be a hypocrite for withdrawing their support Ocalan or PKK, or expressing their discontent. That doesn't seem hypocritical to me. Rather, it seems quite natural.”
I will do that. Besikci, the so-called intellectual Kurdfriend, not so long ago, 90 century, was a “friend” of PKK and Öcalan. Why didn´t he come up with his so-called critic beginning of 90-century and waited after the international complot? That’s not good manner. If he thinks PKK ideology and political strategy is wrong then why all the years of waiting? If you answer this question, you will in return answer your own question.
PKK leaved the struggle for so-called “independence” in 1990. In fact discussion really took big step when the freedom movement analyzes so-called revolutionary liberation movement failure for example in Algeria and other places in the world. Öcalan and PKK saw that national-state liberation didn´t stand up against the capitalist system. In fact the national-state is a part of the capitalist world order. If PKK truly wanted to become socialist movement, then they were forced to do dialectic digging. Abdullah Öcalans, dialectic work after many years, formed to something we today call Kurdistan Democratic Confederation system. Women, freedom, national-state, power, religion, democracy, politic, gender, culture, Kurdistan, Kurds, Meddle East, Capitalist System etc . took part of the books that Öcalan wrote in Imrali. No so-called intellectual Kurd or Kurdfriends have written constrictive critic about Öcalans ideas from his books. They, judge him after some minutes talks with his lawyers, Besikci should know that to truly understand Öcalan he should begin to read the books and come up with self-critic. That’s what Öcalan started to do when he begun refined his ideas.
Critic against the paradigm-shift is good. The system is built on truly PKK principles. Self-critic platform took part in PKK last congress. Historical congress in my opinion, that took me back to fifth, second and third congress. The absence of self-critic was the biggest mistake. Because after the international complot PKK lost their self-critic culture and in the same way didn´t understand Öcalan correctly. PKK, now, have gain more knowledge to understand Öcalan, like Cemil Bayik explained, it’s much left. PKK, have given him the opportunity to deliver critic about what I desire, but it must be based on knowledge.
Today, I read, Besikci last post about Newroz and Ehmede Xani. Particularly the part about PKK, not impressed at all. Critic that Besikci deliver is nonsense. You have the article here:
http://www.kurdistan-post.com/modules.php?name=Niviskar&op=viewarticle&artid=1707
“And, who knows what position you, the PKK or Ocalan will hold in -- God willing -- ten years time? Perhaps, just perhaps, the Democratic Republic might be untenable and confederalism unworkable. These are recent paradigm shifts and just like the Peace Process, they might also be illusory concepts”
PKK paradigm is dynamic and not stationary. You can find articles in Turkish, Kurdish and if you are lucky in English about the statement different important PKK congress members came up after PKK 29 year’s anniversary. The reason I write about this, is because you can read parallels in PKK old ideology and the new paradigm. Of course in the same time the differences. If you are lazy and don’t want to read books to find it out, it is a good tip. :)
Confederation in Kurdistan is our reality and a part our Kurdish history. Much longer than today’s national-state, the “concept” is there even if PKK works for it or not. Democracy principle PKK have now, is different from back then. Notes, from Öcalan about democracy:
“Even though the roots of the democratic system go way back to the early history of humanity, it acquired a comprehensive meaning when it was incorporated into a state system in ancient Athens. Basically, democracy is the most realistic system that insures the most freedom for the individual while allowing society to exercise self-rule. It derives its real power from corresponding to the natural in society. Perhaps, authoritarian regimes bring about rapid development, but no matter how strong, sooner or later, they collapse because they alienate themselves from what is socially natural. Giant empires based on slavery, capitalist fascist totalitarian dictatorships and even the totalitarian real-socialism, all shared the same fate [due to this alienation].
The fact that democracy declared its total victory at the end of this Century, the century of astounding production and technology, is no coincidence. This is closely related to the [functional operation] of democratic system’s mechanisms. No other system has managed to render the society and the individual this creativity in their own naturalness. The democratic system obtains its power from freeing people. Democracy is simple, but develops slowly. However, without a doubt, the results it bore in our times are more impressive and rapid than those a most powerful regime can afford. Democracies possess mostly an evolutionary language, but essentially, they rest on revolutions. The most crucial thing to know is when to democratize a revolution. Revolutions that fail to democratize might either lead to dictatorship or deteriorate into anarchism. Revolutions that succeed in democratizing life become permanent and manage to bring about creative development. To become stuck to a revolutionary stage is to become stuck to bureaucracy as much as to counter-revolution. It is this [principle] that constitutes the secret of past and present success of the mightiest societies that pursued successful democratization.
The theoretical - ideational dimension of today’s democracies developed during the 17th-18th centuries. The institutional and administrative developments relating to democracy gained momentum starting with the mid-19th Century. During the 20th Century, democracy resisted the totalitarian, unforgiving dictatorship of fascism and its adversary, real-socialism. It was at the end of the century that democracy announced its final victory. The two totalitarian systems, although producing rapid (economic) development, collapsed because of excessive suppression of the freedom and creative abilities in the individual and in society. Coercion could produce rapid development, but also a rapid downfall. Whereas the democratic system develops slowly, but it does not collapse easily. This is because the individual and society would not easily let go of it. Democracy derives its power from this. Society’s enlightenment of itself, that is, its acquisition of scientific power [understanding] is mostly related to its level of democracy. Likewise, it is no coincidence that scientific and artistic talent develops in societies that provide the most freedom.
Even with the collapse of the socialist system in the 1990s and its transformation into [some form of] democracy, the great advance of democracy is still in the making. In a way, the remnants of other systems will continuously exert a pressure on democracy and a pure version of it could, one way or another, not be established. However, [more and more democratization] will be the trend of the future. The crucial thing is to apply democratic values to solve social problems and to rule the society. The best politics or politician is the one that seeks its/his identity through the individual, the party and the leadership that represent power.
Generally speaking, societies where democracy is likely to flourish are the ones that -after manifesting their very sharp conflicts in the form of revolutionary explosions- choose to solve the rest of their problems (relating to conflicts in group’s and individual’s interests) through non-violent methods with the mediation of political parties and institutions. If and when a society matures to this degree, all it takes is to correctly identify the principles and institutions of democracy, and then, make them operational to solve existing problems. This requires creativity on the part of the political leaders and defines the democratic essence of political leadership.
The art of successful democratic politics requires the ability to correctly identify the interest groups, the nature of social conflicts and to balance the relations among them peacefully. It also includes the ability to handle power and the fall from the power.
The economic wealth of a nation or the lack of it cannot be the criteria for the practice of democracy. Democracy can be implemented in rich and poor countries alike. Perhaps the only condition that is required is to accomplish one or a few of the necessary revolutionary steps.
Democracy has little to do with political borders or with the existence of the state. Democratic systems do not deal with these issues. Democratic systems deal essentially with the interests, freedom and equality of the social groups and the individuals; and the rules and regulations that govern political institutions, governing, coming to power or losing power. National borders are a datum, a given. They are a framework within which policies are made and implemented. Coercion does harm democracy. Democratic politics does not relate to the existence of the state or its indivisibility. It relates intensely, though, to the forms of the state, how it handles social problems, its rules and regulations, how it selects and delineates political-moral values, the issue of representation and harmonious-peaceful transfer of power. The recognition of the rights and freedoms for those individuals and groups that lack them, and the incorporation of these actors into the system are also one of the essential political and moral requirements of democracy. As long as there are oppressed and powerless individuals and strata who lack basic freedom and rights, that democracy has major shortcomings. If conflicts and tensions are not solved peacefully, rebellions, civil wars, insurgencies and other revolutionary conflicts would break out and cause bloodshed, ushering in perhaps a new democratization process.
Democratic development in societies dominated by dogmatism, authoritarian principles and institutions, requires above all, a struggle with these hurdles. What feeds the authoritarian and the totalitarian regimes is such dogmatism and traditionalism.
Democracy has its own principles, institutions and traditions too. They are freedom, equality, lack of oppression, evolutionary development, respect for rights and responsibilities and consensual solutions. Democracy is closely related to scientific [objective] definition of the society and [the need for] its enlightenment. With such qualities, democracy is a wonderful way of creating mature, responsible individuals and social classes.
This comprehensive framework in which we have defined democracy, very clearly shows as to why democracy is both the cause and the outcome of scientific-technological developments and the enlightened society.
The failure of the suffocating totalitarianism of fascism and bourgeois nationalism, and the excessive egalitarian totalitarianism of the working class are related to having moved out of the democratic framework described above. It seems that the democratic system has insured its victory into the 2000s and cannot be stopped spreading in depth to all societies. It is certain that those who resist this [wave of democratization] will lose while those who implement it will surely win.”
“Your point that he is a Ziya Gokalp may be construed as a compliment considering Reber Apo also found redeeming qualities in Ataturk and wanted to emulate his role as someone who was a trailblaster for founding freedom and democracy in Turkey (albeit for the Turks). However, I would like to think that Besikci is not attempting to create a Kurdish ultra-nationalist ideology which is premised upon a hierarchy of cultures but rather asserting the Kurdish people's inalienable rights.”
Respect your way of thinking, but I don’t agree with you. You can read about how he talks about Turkish nationalism vs Kurdish nationalism. If you analyze the article, you may see how he pushes for Kurdish nationalism. Besikci, hypocrate, even go so far that he really thinks PKK doesn’t crisis Turkish nationalism, but always Kurdish nationalism. How should I take him serious when I write like 10 years old frustrated boy?
“My main point, again, is that I find no reason to doubt Besicki's character, his sincerity to the Kurdish struggle or his desire to be a true intellectual rather than a fawning follower. It's a shame that only Tirsikcis have defended his right to criticize, but I suppose, doesn't have anything at all to do with Besikci.”
Nobody has taken his freedom of criticize. Tirsikci, support Besikci, because they are against everything to do with the freedom movement.
I rest my case! :)
Tolhildan
Tolhildan, I appreciate your thorough response. The extensive defence of democracy by Ocalan was impressive. There is nothing I would fault in his explanation of the virtues of democracy, the democratic society and democratic values.
Before I respond, however, can you explain a little more about confederalism.
In reliance upon the quote you have provided, Ocalan states:
"Democracy has little to do with political borders or with the existence of the state. Democratic systems do not deal with these issues. Democratic systems deal essentially with the interests, freedom and equality of the social groups and the individuals; and the rules and regulations that govern political institutions, governing, coming to power or losing power. National borders are a datum, a given. They are a framework within which policies are made and implemented."
By this, I understand that a democratic revolution can occur within or without state borders. States do not necessarily prohibit the development of democracy. Ocalan cites for example the fact that Athenian democracy "acquired a comprehensive meaning when it was incorporated into a state system in ancient Athens". Today, all the successful democratic systems are within state models and there are countless variations of how minority rights are protected within these state models -- from limited autonomy to federalism, etc.
Can you explain what it is about confederalism -- which will exist within the unitary state model of the Turkish republic -- that is preferable to a de-centralized state model that could be realized through autonomous regions or a federalist solution?
As I see it, the issue has never been whether or not to incorporate democratic institutions and values but rather how can this be achieved?
What is it about the Turkish Republic's unitary system (and the proposed "Democratic Republic") that deserves priority of defence? The unitary system in Turkey has never attempted to reconcile minority rights.
Why is the pursuit of democracy within a Kurdish state model or a de-centralized state model prohibitive, anti-democratic and "primitive"?
~nistiman
Nistiman/
” Tolhildan, I appreciate your thorough response. The extensive defence of democracy by Ocalan was impressive. There is nothing I would fault in his explanation of the virtues of democracy, the democratic society and democratic values.
Before I respond, however, can you explain a little more about confederalism.”
Thanks, Nistiman, can say the same for you. Be more specific, what do you want to know about Confederation? Democrat values or the systems view of power?
“By this, I understand that a democratic revolution can occur within or without state borders. States do not necessarily prohibit the development of democracy. Ocalan cites for example the fact that Athenian democracy "acquired a comprehensive meaning when it was incorporated into a state system in ancient Athens". Today, all the successful democratic systems are within state models and there are countless variations of how minority rights are protected within these state models -- from limited autonomy to federalism, etc.”
Read the text carefully. Democracy doesn’t have anything to do with state system. Abdullah Öcalan, wants to point out that meaning of democracy and politic. Today, thanks to the state system, this both terms are misleading. State institutions have dictated new way of thinking, all that for its own purpose. That’s what Öcalan is pointing out when he writes;” comprehensive meaning when it was incorporated into a state system in ancient Athens.”
Successful, if you are referring it from a state perspective. If not, the state has not stood for the democracy process of the society. If you think so, give me then fact. If you are referring to Southern America, Spain, Sweden, Bulgaria, Southern Africa etc, then it isn’t correct. Democracy of the society and the gain of rights for minorities is the work of the grass-root organization. Remember every step for democracy is return step from the central-state.
If you want to understand the paradigm, very is expressed, then you should read Kasim Engins article “Demokratik Özerklik ve Demokrat Özerk Kürdistan” in ciwanen azad, from 2008. You will see how PKK paradigm works in parallel. Sorry that I force you to read, the reason is because I want you to form your own view. If you only get my perspective of Confederation, then it will not be good for your own thinking.
“Can you explain what it is about confederalism -- which will exist within the unitary state model of the Turkish republic -- that is preferable to a de-centralized state model that could be realized through autonomous regions or a federalist solution?”
First of all Öcalan point out in the book;” From Sumerian Priest-state to Democratic Civilization”, the Kurdish reality will force this national-states today that divide our land to undergo democratic process. Secondly, Rêber Apo, talks about the peoples republic, it doesn’t mean, a national-state. Not even a state in your way of thinking. It’s more the unit of different people in Middle East. Öcalan, says Turkish nationalism is a reaction of the Ottoman Empire's fall and one of the earliest nationalism in the area. With this in mean, the so-called Turkish republic is shaped to a dictator regime, thanks to the nationalism. Problem lines in the national-state, one ethnical elite rule. That was not what Kurds fought for or supported in the so-called Turkish independence war. This is a message to the Turkish society.
All states in the world have this problem for example the national-state of Belgium is near falling apart because of the state structure.
Confederation, don’t care about the state border; it will work to build a Kurdish unit for Kurds in all part of Kurdistan to organize itself.
“As I see it, the issue has never been whether or not to incorporate democratic institutions and values but rather how can this be achieved?
What is it about the Turkish Republic's unitary system (and the proposed "Democratic Republic") that deserves priority of defence? The unitary system in Turkey has never attempted to reconcile minority rights.”
I think you will get your answer from my earlier comments.
“Why is the pursuit of democracy within a Kurdish state model or a de-centralized state model prohibitive, anti-democratic and "primitive?”
Problem underlines in the national-state model, the nature of the state. But I must point out that Duran Kalkan explained that our Confederation system don’t have any problem if Southern Kurdistan will form to a state. Even if it is ideological incorrect with a national-state, PKK will then stand for democratizes the Kurdish nation. Nail in the eye. PKK itself will not fight for a national-state.
I know that even Dalia Lama, the Zapatista and other leaders/movement of oppressed nation worldwide don’t fight for so-called independent state. I don’t like the term independent in the same context with defining the greatness of the state. There is nothing independent with a state. Or is it, nistiman? :)
Tolhildan
Nistiman, read this careful:
"
Democracy has little to do with political borders or with the existence of the state. Democratic systems do not deal with these issues. Democratic systems deal essentially with the interests, freedom and equality of the social groups and the individuals; and the rules and regulations that govern political institutions, governing, coming to power or losing power. National borders are a datum, a given. They are a framework within which policies are made and implemented. Coercion does harm democracy. Democratic politics does not relate to the existence of the state or its indivisibility. It relates intensely, though, to the forms of the state, how it handles social problems, its rules and regulations, how it selects and delineates political-moral values, the issue of representation and harmonious-peaceful transfer of power. The recognition of the rights and freedoms for those individuals and groups that lack them, and the incorporation of these actors into the system are also one of the essential political and moral requirements of democracy."
Tolhildan
Brez Nistiman, this is for you, I hope you can Turkish. Interview with Wallerstein about Kurdish question in, Günlük. If, heval Mizgin can translate to English, it will be good.
http://www.gunlukgazetesi.com/haber.asp?haberid=70843
Tolhildan
Gelek Spas, Tolhildane Heja :)
I have some preliminary thoughts after reading your comments, but I don't want to post anything until I have time to read the interview and the other sources you provided.
I wish Mizgin would have an alert at the homepage of Rasti when new comments are posted.
~nistiman
Nistiman, take your time. Can we say the discussion about Besikci have come to an end? Do you have anything new to deliver?
Newroza te piroz dikim!
Tolhildan
Newroza te ji piroz dikim, Tolhildan.
Sorry for the late response. I want to respond to the essence of what I believe is the fundamental flaw within the concept of the special confederalism that Apo has developed.
There’s much that I support and there’s much in his writings that I have internalized, such as the importance of the necessity of developing a democratic society. However, my appreciation for the democratic way of life developed through reading ancient political philosophers, Rousseau and Tocqueville and also living in a democratic society and observing how its institutions work and truly appreciating the balance between individual rights and the opportunity to develop oneself through civic virtue. We can’t forget there were many original thinkers before Apo who defended the superiority of democratic society. I also recommend that in order not to be shackled by dogmatism, we must read beyond the books that are written by one author, no matter how highly we hold him in esteem.
There’s simply not enough time and this is not the right place for me to adequately criticize “confederalism” but again, let me address what I believe is the fundamental conflict.
“Remember every step for democracy is return step from the central-state.”
That to me speaks volumes. The central state monopolizes all state power and with such concentration of power the risks of the abuse of that power run even higher.
However, simultaneously with this strain of thought, the “confederalism” paradigm also accepts as a proposition that Kurdish society can develop into a “confederal” state by coexisting within three or more central state models (which is what a unitarian state is). Apo's failure to challenge the unitarian state models of our oppressors is a major flaw within his paradigm. It is like the elephant in the middle of the room which no one would care to acknowledge.
To me that is an insoluble conflict. How can you at one hand encourage the development of democratic society at the grassroots level while not challenging the massive state power (unitarian state model) that will hinder this democratization? How can Apo recognize the Unitarian Turkish, Iranian or Iraqi state models? How can any sort of “confederalism” and accordingly, democratization, take place while there are massive concentrations of power, inequality and the inherent potential for abuse? These aren’t theoretic musings, these are real problems. How can Kurdish society become democratic in Iraq if there is a central state that wants to monopolize all power and use force, coercion to prevent the equality of peoples and equality of conditions. The people of Middle East must learn to share power and resources to co-exist peacefully and what better way to do that by stepping away from the central state model? That to me seems like a perfectly realistic transition to becoming a fully democratic society.
Since such a conflict within the ideology that Apo puts forward is so apparent and his adherents are just as adamant in not recognizing this conflict, so, it appears to me that the ideology itself is much contrived. The appeal for a Confederal democratic Kurdish society seems more like a smoke and mirrors device that pretends to give solutions to the Kurdish people while attempting to placate Turkish demands that the Kurdish problem be solved within the “unitary” state model.
In order for the paradigm to be consistent, it would need to acknowledge that a move away from the central state model would be a move towards fulfilling the demands of a democratic society. Kurds attaining autonomy or federalism is not a manifestation of "primitive nationalism" but a necessary move towards democratization. Therefore, a federal solution in Iraq, in Turkey, or limited forms of autonomy would ENCOURAGE rather than HINDER the grassroots democratization of society.
~nistiman
Nistiman, sorry for my late answer, I hope it is okay. Correct me if I am wrong, didn’t you write that you will reply after you reading my recommendation? Honestly you have not been reading anything. How can I see that? Same rhetoric basis when you analyze Öcalans paradigm. To understand Öcalan is very easy. If you want to know Öcalans state perspective you only need to read the two last meeting protocols.
1. Democratic People Republic-second meeting protocol
2. Turkish republic- Last meeting protocol
Öcalan says Turkish state only function should be;”The state should only have coordination and organization function. We would not have any problem then.”
Turkish: http://www.firatnews.com/index.php?rupel=nuce&nuceID=5566
Kurdish: http://www.roj.tv/news/123/ARTICLE/3158/2009-04-03.html
To make it easier for you to understand we can take Osman Baydemirs talk with some journalist. One of them said Osman Baydemir what can DTP offer? AKP, offers gold, quran, white goods etc. CHP offers nearly the same. So what can DTP offer to the Kurdish people? He said we can learn them to rule themselves. He talked about a metaphor in the bible when Jesus teaches the people to catch fish. If I gave the fish to the people they will die soon. But if I learn them to catch the fish they will survive. That’s what Confederation is all about.
I think even you and Besikci will understand my comment. :)
No problem, Tolhildan. It's been a busy time for me as well.
I couldn't find the second meeting protocol or the Last meeting protocol, maybe a link to the Turkish versions will help.
I read the last link you gave me in Firat News and it was pretty straightforward, which I liked, but it didn't address my criticism which is not based upon rhetoric but fact (unless you can prove otherwise). If the democratic republic or confederation thesis does not address the need to dismantle the central government (uniter devlet) and support the formation of a de-centralized state then in my mind it is a paradigm with a big hole in the middle (like a doughnut).
Now, to his credit, I haven't heard many references to the "uniter devlet" these days, so, we may be ready to move on from that deficient paradigm model. For example, in the excerpt you just provided Ocalan stated "Devlet küçük olacak, akıllı uzman kişilerden oluşacak. Devlet sadece koordinasyon ve organize rolünü üstlenecek. Eğer böyle olursa, biz sınırlara dokunmuyoruz."
How can "uniter" or centralized state be small? How can Kurds enjoy self-rule? Only by the de-centralization of state...
Personally, I don't believe there was any need for a confederal system thesis when there were plenty of well developed concepts within the democratic tradition that have actually been practiced successfully around the world (most notable example, the Canadian system) and which people can point to and say "That's what we want! It's possible and it works!"
In my mind, there's no need to go back to the Sumerians (a people whom even if we wanted to know more about there is such a dearth of knowledge) -- whom 99% of the world's population has no knowledge of nor its there great need to explicate in two book volumes a confederal system which I've yet to see ANYONE explain with their own words.
The PKK needs to gain more adherents by explicating an ideology (no, not even an "ideology") that is readily understandable, credible and accessible to the modern and average person. It must make intuitive sense.
The PKK'ers will be with Ocalan and with the PKK no matter what. That is to their credit. However, the depressing reality is that about 60 - 65% of Kurds in Turkey (and I'm being generous) have little empathy with Ocalan, the PKK, the DTP or anything related to the Kurdish identity. A vague paradigm that is difficult to understand is not the best way to gain adherents for the sake of democracy.
For my own understanding, I will gladly read more about the confederal system if it seems that I have misunderstood it and if you feel it is truly a concept that will provide the Kurds with the necessary foundation to base their struggle upon.
silaven germ u rez
~nistiman
Post a Comment