It is true that the Kurdish movement have suffered a defeat. It is also true
that this defeat has pushed the Kurdish capitalist and nationalist circles into
the most backward position, and that this situation has pulled the Kurdish
people morally and politically backward, so much that the present political
situation and relations in Kurdistan are being shaped mainly by these two facts.
However, this defeat has also uncovered the fact that
Kurdish capital circles that talk on behalf of the Kurdish people are incapable
of representing national liberation. It would be wrong to think that the Kurdish
question no longer exists, or that this question can disappear as a result of a
“defeat” as such. Unless the Kurdish people have the right to determine its
future freely and take its part in the course of history as a free nation, no
“defeat” can stop it being a fundamental question.
So long as nations are divided into the oppressing and the
oppressed, national question remains not only as an “existing” question, but
it also becomes a component of the struggle for democracy and liberation from
imperialism. Therefore, no matter what is said about it, the Kurdish question
remains to exist with all its reasons, implications and consequences despite the
“defeat”. Moreover, it is an undeniable fact that the Kurdish people, with
all their experience, want to become a free nation more than ever.
Furthermore, facts also indicate that there are greater
possibilities, dynamics and conditions for the Kurdish question to get out of
the hands of the forces of capital and get into the hands of the workers and
labourers who will resolve it in the struggle against imperialism, capital and
reactionary forces. In fact, what will determine the future are not the
speculations about the “defeat”, but these dynamics.
The development of capitalism in Kurdistan, the growth of
the working class and its struggle, and its increasing prospects to attach the
Kurdish national demands to itself; the fact that Kurdish workers and labourers
have already adopted a more advanced and mature position than Kurdish bourgeois
and petit bourgeois organisations, etc. all these facts, different from other
circles, give aspiration to our party, which has always been internationalist,
and which has reaffirmed its line and position once again when “democratic
republic” came onto the agenda.
Kurdish question is of vital importance for the building
of our party as the party of the working class of Turkish and Kurdish people, as
well as for the self-determination of the Kurdish nation. This question, which
will be one of the fundamental questions of the forthcoming period as well, does
not bring new burdens onto our party, but, on the contrary, it opens new
possibilities and arenas to renew its dynamics and work. The process of
rebuilding the party as the party of the working class of the Turkish and
Kurdish nations (and, of course, of other ethnic minorities) is directly and
tightly linked to the future course of the Kurdish question and to which class
it will be led by.
One of the things that have
been revealed by the developments in Kurdistan is the fact that a real and
popular solution to national question can only be possible through the
leadership of the working class. The Kurdish bourgeoisie have benefited greatly
from the defeat that the working class and socialism has suffered
internationally, as well as from the weakness of the working class in Kurdistan.
However, one can now see the signs that there is a change of direction in terms
of international developments, that the conditions are ripening for the growth
of the working class and its struggle in Kurdistan, giving them the chance to
embrace the national question. Facts prove that the present process is
developing in favour of the working class movement, and that national question
can only be resolved if it is linked to the struggle of the workers and
labourers against the reactionary forces.
In the last 15 years
Kurdistan has been compelled to social change and disintegration. Without taking
into consideration the social and economic facts that aggravate this
disintegration and change, one cannot comment on the future course of events in
terms of national and class relations, the development of national question or
the direction of the movement.
First of all, even though the wave of migration, which was
caused by the depopulation of the villages and the terror in the countryside,
was initially useful for the government, soon it has turned opposite and become
one of the main reasons for the acceleration of the population shift and class
change in the region. Leaving aside its consequences in western cities,
“forced” migration has created a population concentration in the major
Kurdish cities, a population with increasing discontent and with no intention to
go back to their evacuated villages. This mass of discontented have-nots, most
of whom are unemployed (but still part of the working class), are faced with
living conditions, problems and demands that they were unfamiliar with in their
villages, thus are forced to comply with modern social relations and class
stance. There are many indications that these masses of “impermanent” people
who are currently being used as “cheap labour” are becoming part of the
working class of Kurdistan who will sooner or later show their desire for a
different approach to national question, and for different solutions and
alliances.
Secondly, following the defeat of the PKK, some factors
have emerged accelerating the flow of capital into the region, i.e. the
increasing interest of big monopolies and some countries in Kurdistan in the
form of “economic investments”, and the government’s “development
plans” for the region (as the problems in the region are considered to be
stemming from “economic backwardness”). Moreover, the launch of the
Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) [a big complex of redevelopment project, T.N.],
the increasing importance of the region because of the new energy routes, and
the concentration of cheap labour as a result of migration, all this makes it
inevitable to see the increase of this flow of capital to the extent of a
plunder and a leap in terms of the capitalist relations in the region. This also
means that the working class of Kurdistan who, up until recently, were
concentrated in certain regions and who consisted of workers mainly in disused
public enterprises, “service” sector and agriculture will grow, acquiring
the characteristics of a modern class and strengthening itself in the struggle.
In other words, the period before us in Kurdistan will
see, especially because of the two reasons given above, the advance and
expansion of capitalist relations and the working class. Anyone in politics can
predict what this development will lead to in terms of class relations in
general and the national question.
Firstly, following the growth of its number, we will also
see a continuous and many-sided expansion of the struggle of the working class
in Kurdistan on the basis of betterment of their living conditions. Secondly, we
will witness the augmentation of national awakening, its renewal on the basis of
a more populist content (the first tendency of the accelerating development of
capitalism); the linking of the Turkish and Kurdish workers and labourers with
the rising struggle for democracy and independence (another tendency of
capitalism to surpass national boundaries and unite peoples); and finally, a
general recognition of the main facts and possibilities for the workers from
both nations to go beyond national boundaries and limitations in this struggle
and unite fully. One does not need to be a fortune-teller to understand the fact
that the forthcoming period in Kurdistan will be characterised by all these
interconnected facts and developments.
The acceleration of capitalist development leads to the
growth of the working class masses in Kurdistan, to the expansion of the class
struggle of the workers in every front, and to a direct unification of its
struggle with that of the workers in the west of the country. All this in turn
implies, first of all, a further restriction of the national
“representation” skills of the Kurdish bourgeoisie, the Kurdish workers (and
labourers) in struggle practically representing the Kurdish nation, the Kurdish
question getting out of the hands of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and going into the
hands of the Kurdish workers, and the working class and peoples of both nations
becoming once again one of the dynamics of the struggle against imperialism and
reactionary forces, for independence and democracy.
In fact, having mentioned all these developments, we are
trying to emphasise the fact that we are coming to the end of a fifteen-year
period of the Kurdish national question having been shaped by the manipulations
of the capital and reactionary forces, by conciliatory Kurdish bourgeoisie and
imperialism. There is enough evidence that the future process in Kurdistan will
be stamped by the class struggle of the workers, as this struggle is being
consolidated by the capitalist development in the region, and there are initial
signs of better living conditions as a result.
The acceleration of capitalist development will inevitably
change inter-class relations; and the class struggle rising on this basis will
create new possibilities and will open a new direction for the solution of the
Kurdish question (in a coherent, democratic and popular way).
Undoubtedly, one cannot expect to see a sudden and full
emergence of the facts and developments mentioned here in Kurdistan. It must be
considered natural that many national and international developments, like the
crisis that the country is going through, will have many-sided effects on
Kurdistan, and determine the economic, social and political developments and
changes in the region.
However, what is required from us is to understand the
direction of the course of events and organise the struggle, not to make empty
predictions. In this case, the present situation in Kurdistan (in relation with
Turkey), and the situation of the people in terms of inter-class relations and
their positions in the eyes of the state, is of particular importance. In
addition to initial signs of the process of social development that we have
mentioned in relation with the working class and its struggle, it becomes
obvious that the present situation in Kurdistan and the developments among the
people are not in favour of the reactionary forces, and that contrary to the
general idea, there is no reason to be pessimistic.
First of all, despite the defeat that was suffered and the
pressure of the PKK and their adverse effects, the Kurdish people have not
“taken a step back” from their demand for national democracy and equality.
There are many daily events and facts such as the interest shown in meetings
organised for various reasons, participation and slogans put forward proving
that the Kurdish people have more advanced demands than the PKK, despite the
fact that they are under its influence.
Secondly, the fact that the trade union/economic demands
and the trade union organisation and struggle are becoming more prominent
implies the development and expansion of mass struggle in open forms. We see the
initial signs of this struggle which provides the most significant possibility
for the development of this open mass struggle towards a political struggle and
for the national question to find a new direction.
Thirdly, for the last few years Kurdish workers and
labourers have been directing their attention more towards the workers’
movement developing in big cities. Under the conditions where the Kurdish
question is referred to the USA and to the EU, it is one of the greatest changes
and developments of the past few years that the Kurdish working class and people
turn their attention to the workers’ and popular movement in the big cities,
and tend to unify their action with that in the “metropolis”, despite the
fact that they have not been getting any significant support from them. This can
only be explained by the fact that, despite their concentration mainly around
HADEP (People’s Democracy Party), Kurdish people are not in favour of a
nationalist confrontation, that on the contrary they have the tendency to act in
a united way.
Although they do not characterise the present situation in
Kurdistan, these are some of the important and evident political facts. Under
the present conditions when capital and reactionary forces claim loudly their
“victory”, it is not difficult to understand the importance of positive
changes that emerge among the people. Apart from pointing to the direction of
development of mass struggle, these changes also emphasise the possibilities for
the national question getting out of the hands of the capital, being tied to the
workers’ programme for democracy, and becoming the subject of the struggle of
the Kurdish workers and labourers for democracy and anti-imperialism. However,
it is necessary to stress once again that these facts and developing tendencies
related with the previously mentioned changes in Kurdistan have not yet reached
their final conclusions, nor can they yet be regarded as attained gains, but
they represent possibilities. These are directly linked to questions such as the
extent that our party fulfils its responsibilities firstly in the west and then
in Kurdistan, how the workers in the west approach the question and if the
workers in the east understand their role, etc. Although voluntarism is not a
determining factor, one cannot deny the importance of what our party does and
does not do in both Turkey and Kurdistan.
Our party is going through a period of reconstruction.
What kind of consequences could the facts mentioned here and the near and
mid-term (foreseeable) future hold for our party, for the “reconstruction”
of our organisation in general and the Kurdistan organisation?
The new period in Kurdistan implies a completely new
situation for our party, our organisation and especially for our Kurdistan
organisation, all of which are in a process of reconstruction. This is because
the workers in Kurdistan have been forced to act like a “classless, blended
mass” on a basis determined by the Kurdish bourgeoisie, which has blunted
their class intuitions and senses. Turkish workers, on the other hand, have
first been pushed into a position of “indifference” which was later followed
by a more backward position with the excuse of “terror”. This
“distancing” between the workers (especially in terms of the Turkish ones)
has made the party activities in both regions very difficult, and has caused
inefficiency in activities and narrowness in organising.
Yet, the developments in Kurdistan that we have previously
mentioned and the newly emerged conditions in Turkey have led to some positive
changes in the relations of workers and labourers from different nationalities,
and have created greater possibilities for faster changes and developments.
Moreover, there are better grounds for the workers’ and
labourers’ movement in Kurdistan to become an independently acting class and
for the Turkish workers and labourers to do a more logical evaluation, reaching
a level of maturity to consider the Kurdish question as their own problem and to
put forward demands accordingly.
The progress of the movement of the workers and other
labouring strata and the emergence of favourable conditions for united action of
the workers from both nationalities present a vital opportunity in terms of the
activities of the workers’ parties and organisations and for their
“reconstruction” process. Apart from being used to repeal the attacks of
capital, only in such periods is it possible to educate the workers, to move
forward their internationalist sentiments and class-consciousness in general,
and to develop their broad organisation as a party. Shortly, we can say that the
events in Kurdistan, the emerging conditions and the increasing attention in
Turkey on the Kurdish question are all vitally important developments for our
party and for the work and “reconstruction” process of our organisations,
mainly of the Kurdistan organisation.
Our
party’s task in this first stage of the development of revolution is to assist
the awakening, struggle and organisation of the workers who are in struggle; and
to organise those leading sections of the workers as an independent,
revolutionary and mass party in such a way that they can embrace and mobilise
the main bulk that represent the working class. The national question in our
country, which is mainly the Kurdish question, is naturally of great
significance as an item of the democracy programme presented to the society by
the workers’ party. However, this is not only a question of the programme for
democracy; it also embraces class and organisational fields such as the progress
of class struggle, the development of class consciousness of the workers from
both nations and of the unity between the class and the party, etc. In other
words, tasks relating to national question are not only political, but they are
also related with the organic-structural formation of the party and the process
of “reconstruction”.
Undoubtedly,
the Kurdish question is imposed by the capital and imperialism and will be
resolved through the struggle of the working classes and peoples of both nations
against capital and imperialism. However, it will not be wrong to suggest that
this question is mainly that of the Turkish workers, in fact, in terms of
communism, this is how this question must be dealt with.
National question renders special tasks on the workers of the oppressing nation. These tasks not being fulfilled causes inevitable harm to the class character and internationalist nature of the party. If the workers who belong to the oppressing nation “neglect” or do not fulfil their (political-national) tasks towards the nation oppressed by their bourgeoisie and (class-organisational) tasks towards the workers and labourers of that nation, it is then impossible for that party to gain the trust of the oppressed nation and to become a genuine working class party of the workers of both Turkish and Kurdish origins.
One of the weaknesses inherited especially from the last
15-20 years is the massive growth of the historically existing distrust in the
mutual relations between the peoples and workers and labourers of the Turkish
and Kurdish nations. It is also for this reason that the newly emerging
conditions both in Kurdistan and in the west are of particular significance. The
advancing struggle in both parts of the country on the basis of class, national
and democratic demands, though at different levels, also implies increasing
possibilities of rebuilding the mutual feelings and relations between the
peoples and workers and labourers of both nations. In fact, this is nothing but
the workers’ party utilising these possibilities and, as a party of the
workers of both nations, undertaking the task of rebuilding the relations
between them. If the party does not link itself to this task, it becomes
unthinkable to unite the Kurdish and Turkish workers in a single party, in a
single revolutionary organisation that has the ability to carry out daily work.
Daily struggle of the workers and labourers progressing in
Kurdistan and in the west must be the centre of attention when one talks about
the Kurdish question too. This struggle constitutes the primary arena and
condition not only for the repulsion of the attacks but also for the
“reconstruction” of our party and organisation in Turkey and in Kurdistan as
the party and united revolutionary organisation of the workers of the Turkish,
Kurdish and other ethnic minorities. It is clear that our party’s line and
position has to be shaped on the basis of the daily class struggle of the
workers, with the aim of advancing this struggle, and without falling into the
trap of narrow short-termism.
On
the other hand, it is an important fact that our party’s approach to the
workers’ and the intellectual’s movement in the country is one that deals
with it both separately as Turkish and Kurdish and as a single revolutionary
movement without denying national specifications. However, it is also a fact
that our organisations’ work and understanding suffer from some
“spontaneous” weaknesses that need to be overcome, weaknesses that harm the
Kurdish nation, Kurdish intellectual’s and workers’ movement, and
subsequently the workers’ and the socialist movement in general.
Kurdish
Marxist (intellectual) movement is based on the universal heritage of
Marxism-Leninism, on the political-cultural-historical accumulation of the
national democratic and class struggle, and on the historical gains of our party
whose qualities such as representing the common history of the Kurdish and
Turkish workers and intellectuals and being the party of the working class of
both nations are becoming more and more evident. The advance of this movement,
its formation of a revolutionary centre and its unification with the workers
movement in Kurdistan whose struggle is making a headway, and this development
constituting the basis for the mass reconstruction of the Kurdistan organisation
of our party… The basis for the
reconstruction of our organisations in Turkey, on the other hand, being the
unification of the intellectual’s movement in Turkey, naturally being on a
more advanced position than that of in Kurdistan and making a certain progress,
with the workers’ movement in the west, which is also progressing with its ups
and downs, on the basis of the increasing support work for the process in
Kurdistan… The line of the party directing these developments; the period that
we are going through being shaped as a process of reconstruction of our party
and organisations in Turkey and Kurdistan as a common party and organisation of
the working class of both the Turkish and Kurdish nations… If our party is to
become the party of the working classes of both nations (and other ethnic
minorities) and if these working classes are to acquire the ability to organise
and lead the nations and peoples of the country, then it becomes essential that
the “reconstruction” of our party is in line with the understanding and
targets of this plan.
On
the responsibilities towards the Kurdish nation and the question of the unity of
peoples
There
is no doubt about our party’s stance for the unity between the workers from
Kurdish and Turkish nations and for their organisation in a single party. It
advocates not only the common struggle of the Turkish and Kurdish peoples but
also their unity. However, this does not mean the exclusion of the right of the
Kurdish nation to self-determination. On the contrary, the equality of the two
nations is characterised by the recognition of the fact that it is the Kurdish
nation who should decide on the unity with or separation from the Turkish
people, and by the struggle for their unconditional use of this right.
In
other words, the unconditional defence of the right of the Kurdish people to
self-determination (up to and including separation) constitutes the basis of our
party’s central position as well as of its organisations in Turkey. An
unconditional defence of the Kurdish nation’s right to freedom and equality
and a sincere opposition to repressions on this nation, irrespective of the
stance or leadership they adopt, constitutes an essential part of our party’s
position on national question. The main direction of its work and action with
regard to national question is based on the task of the Turkish workers and
labourers’ recognition and defence of the Kurdish national rights, and the
adoption of an internationalist stance by their broadest sections.
As to
the task of the unity between the Turkish and Kurdish peoples, under the present
circumstances where the Kurdish nation is forced to an unequal “unity”, the
best thing to do for the unity of the two peoples is to shape our party’s
central calls and activities and the work of the organisations in Turkey in
accordance with the line mentioned here. Of course, this does not mean to give
no importance to the unity of the two peoples. On the contrary, for the common
struggle and unity of the two peoples it is essential that the Turkish workers
and labourers make (especially through our organisation) the Kurdish national
demands part of the subject of their daily class struggle, and that the Kurdish
workers and labourers, while claiming their national rights, expand the class
struggle related to the conditions of living. Moreover, this is the most
significant prospect present for the building of the common future of the
peoples.
In short, slogans on the
question of the “unity of peoples” and “common struggle” do not always
or under any condition serve the purpose, most of the times they even sound like
“preconditions” to the national demands of the Kurdish people and their
right to self-determination (separation). These slogans must not be considered
as schemes that are correct under every condition, they must be considered in
accordance with the existing political conditions and relations, evaluating what
they serve and what use they are. Our organisations must rid themselves of the
“propaganda” on these questions based on “general habits” and ensure
that they follow the appropriate forms of action and struggle in line with the
concrete central line. What is emphasised here is this point, and not that the
question of unity is an “unimportant” matter.
We are going through a
period where we see the Kurdish working people both in Kurdistan and in Turkey
being influenced by the propaganda that wrongly describes our party as a
“Turkish party”, an assumption partly based on the Kurdish people’s deep
feeling of oppression, and the fact that Turkish intellectuals and workers have
not yet reached the maturity of supporting the Kurdish nation more or less.
Therefore it is of greater importance today than ever that our party’s central
position must be one that ensures that the daily activities of each one of our
organisations (Turkish and Kurdish) with regard to the Kurdish question are
shaped on the basis of the context expressed previously, that assesses carefully
the appropriateness of slogans such as “the unity of peoples” under
different conditions, that bases its calls, agitation and initiatives on
concrete analysis and on the defence of the rights of the Kurdish people. When
we have the correct understanding and reflexes in these subjects, it is sure
that many problems will be resolved and we will have greater efficiency in our
work.
The rise of the oppressed-nation
nationalism within “Kurdish socialism” (PKK-PSK, etc.); the spread of
Turkish nationalism (leaving aside the corruption of character and the exposed
nationalism of the terrorist currents) amongst the currents of “Turkish
socialism” (revisionist) which are based on the defeat and collapse, acquiring
an impervious character especially in the Freedom and Solidarity Party (ÖDP) and the Workers’ Party (İP): what the currents of Turkish and Kurdish
“socialism” outside of our party had learnt and the knowledge they acquired
from the devastation of the September 1980 coup and international
disintegration, the Kurdish national struggle of fifteen years and the working
class movement which has opened a new era in the mass movement of the country,
and the role they played in the course of the mass movement of the country and
their influence on it; all these have essentially been shaped with this form and
content. It is self-evident that what characterises these currents ideologically
and organisationally is their distance from the class, their alienation from the
people, their reformism, and a rising nationalism as a result of all this.
While the developments within the Turkish “left” in
the last fifteen years have been characterised in this direction; our party did
not have any diversions from the path it entered during the mid-1970s. Just like
refreshing the entirety of its decisions after 1987 to unite with the class, it
has also renewed its line and stance concerning the Kurdish question on the
basis of a broader internationalism. The proclamation of the tactical Kurdish
platform; the formation of the Kurdistan Committee; the launch of the Kurdistan
publication; the persistence on giving the Kurdistan organisation a Kurdish
character as well as a working class one, and on the issue of the consciousness
of struggle on the part of the organisations in Turkey concerning the Kurdish
question, etc… Our party’s line and stance concerning all these questions
have constituted its fundamental differences from other organisations. Despite
its weaknesses and shortcomings underlined in this article, the renewal and
further maturing (at every turning point) in the last five-six years
of the line and position of our party, which lays claim to all the gains
acquired throughout the history in ideological, political and organisational
fields concerning the Kurdish question, have been developments that took place
before the eyes of everyone.
But our party’s experience of the recent period in this way does not of course imply that the work in Turkey and Kurdistan will spontaneously proceed smoothly. Leaving aside other political and organisational negative occurrences, it is still the already completely degenerated conceptions and traditions of the nationalist Turkish and Kurdish “socialism” that condition the awakening Kurdish labourers and Turkish workers and intellectuals in terms of their responsibilities concerning the Kurdish question. In any case, the mainstream conception and tradition created by these currents constitutes a fundamental factor that distorts not only the consciousness of the advanced workers but also the work and activities of our organisation.
The tradition
created by the currents of Turkish “socialism”, whether they “defend”
the Kurdish nation genuinely or disingenuously (including those who deny the
nation as a whole), is, as is widely known, based on the understanding of “a
united struggle and organisation”. Leaving aside its reformism, its denial and
inconsistency in terms of the Kurdish national rights, etc., in fact as an
expression of all these, this tradition is based on the “Turkification” of
the Kurdish worker and youth in the bud of their revolutionisation process, and
on their distancing and alienation from the people of which they are part,
losing the ability to understand them and of being understood by them. And the
Kurdish “socialism”s conception of revolution, the conception and tradition
of work and organisation that it has formed in Kurdistan is nothing more than a
mode of upper class revolutionarism in terms of practise and a tradition of
militancy alienated from the people in terms of organising, just like the
conception and tradition created previously by Turkish “socialism” in
Kurdistan and in the whole country. It needs emphasising that all this
constitutes one of the most significant factors that have caused certain
destruction in the formation of the character of the revolutionary organisations
and individuals from both nations, and in the understanding and energy of both
peoples.
Briefly, our party has to expand
the historical, theoretical, political and organisational tasks of rebuilding
the Kurdistan organisation (and the entirety of the party and its organisation)
with regard to the Kurdish question into the political and organisational
questions underlined above, which are connected with the daily needs of the
class struggle of the workers. If we are to express it specifically, remaining
within the boundaries of Kurdistan, the following two requirements of our
Party’s reconstruction in Kurdistan are of particular importance and have the
priority: first, to base on the developing working class in Kurdistan and the
workers’ and labourers’ movement whose prospects are increasing; and second,
to fight against the conception of class and political struggle (upper class
revolutionarism) and the (out-of-class) traditions of work and organisation
“school” that stem from, on the one hand, the denial of the Kurdish people
and, on the other, the Kurdish nationalism provoked by this denial.
It should not be forgotten that
the developing working class and its movement with its increasing possibilities
constitutes the basis of the reconstruction of our Kurdistan organisation.
Nothing can be done without the daily struggle of the workers and the
possibilities this struggle create. However, both on the general scale in terms
of the needs of the class struggle, and also in terms of the reconstruction of
the organisation, it is evident that the achievements of the daily class
struggles will not suffice on their own. Without a large scale ideological and
organisational struggle that is connected to class struggle and many-sided tasks
that are related with the other aspects of national question and class struggle,
it will not be possible for our party’s line to have a real achievement in
Kurdistan.
The central link of
the reconstruction plan of our Kurdistan organisation lies in its renewal and
reconstruction as an organisation of struggle, war and revolution, also, as an
expression of this, as an original school with its traditions where the
conception of people’s revolution and the line of the party are dominant,
where a popular and original style of work (as a constituent of our party’s
style of work) begins to take shape through renewal with the Kurdish form and
style and with the experiences of the Kurdish labour movement, and where the
Kurdish workers and youths are educated and restructured (as a section of the
party militants and organ of professionals) with characteristics and
idiosyncrasies which bind them to the class and the people. There is no doubt
that this aim can be achieved through the struggle against the dominant
conception of struggle, traditions, relationships and conventions of style of
work and organising in Kurdistan, as well as with a position based on working
among the Kurdish working class and people and being part of their struggle.
Because of all this, although the central direction of the party is important, it is vital that the Kurdistan Committee and the professional nucleus has to take part in the planning and carrying out of the specific (theoretical, political, organisational) tasks of the reconstruction of the Kurdistan organisation (and of course of the organisation as a whole) and undertake responsibility at first hand. Otherwise, the characterisation of a renewed party line and its theoretical, political and organisational accumulation will inevitably be harmed in terms of its comprehension in Kurdistan. On the other hand, there is a need for the party line and its accumulation to be comprehensible by the Kurdish worker, and the work in Kurdistan needs to have a Kurdish character.
In terms of the
place of the Kurdish question in the construction of the organisations in
Turkey, the first thing that needs to be underlined is that the original
heritage and accumulation of our party concerning the construction of its
historical, theoretical, political, organisational foundations (relating to
Kurdistan) constitute the fundamental elements not only for our Kurdistan
organisation but also for the construction of our organisations in Turkey. The
theses of Marxism-Leninism on national question, and in particular on the tasks
of the workers of the oppressing nation; the national democratic accumulation of
the Kurdish nation, including national uprisings; the cultural heritage passed
onto the present day by the historical struggle of the Kurdish working class;
the gains that the working class and labourers from both nations have acquired
in the personality of our party; all these have to be the constituents of the
fundamental line and literature (undoubtedly together with other
class-ideological constituents of our line) of the revolutionary transformation
of the working class and the ideological and organisational formation of the
party organisations in the west. This is necessary not only for the unity of the
Kurdish workers with Turkish workers in the party, but also for them to
understand and feel the problems of the oppressed nation and its labourers.
It is a widely known fact that the Turkish intellectual tradition
has historical weaknesses concerning the national question due to the influence
of Kemalism and the distortion caused by revisionism. Leaving aside the
negativities it has caused historically both in the Turkish and Kurdish popular
movements, Turkish intellectual production and accumulation serves as a factor
of incompletion of the characterisation of the living generations of Turkish
workers and youths with regard to the national question. Moreover, it plays a
significant but upsetting role in the events caused by the reaction that this
situation has created within the Kurdish youth as well as in the incitement of
the Kurdish national struggle by what Kurdish people consider “Turkish
intellectuals” who cling to this struggle in the negative sense of the word.
There is no doubt that this situation puts responsibility on our central party
work, especially on our organisations in Turkey (the Turkish workers).
Our
party’s line concerning the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism, alongside its
other objectives, is a line that involves a multi-frontal settling of accounts
on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and the Turkish intellectual accumulation of
the modern era. As part of the other aspects of the general content and
objectives of this line, it is important to launch a fight for the advancement
and adoption of the Marxist theses on national question and of the party line
and literature relating to Kurdistan within the Turkish intellectual movement as
well as our organisations in Turkey. These organisations must consider this
struggle as an aspect of the fundamental task that will rebuild the historical,
theoretical, political, organisational and cultural basis in terms of the
education of the young generation of intellectuals and vanguard workers with an
internationalist spirit.
It
is a necessity of our party’s line of “reestablishment” that the
reconstruction of the party’s organisations in Turkey (west) is to be based on
the unity, around the party line, of the new generation of intellectuals, who
will distinguish themselves in the course of the struggle, with the new
generation of advanced workers who are shaped and organised in the course of the
mass movements in workplaces. In order for the process of reconstruction and
reestablishment to be a new and mass unity of socialist (intellectual) movement
with the workers’ movement on a more advanced basis, it needs to involve the
Kurdistan organisation as well as the organisations in Turkey.
Those
who have some knowledge of our party’s line of struggle and who are aware of
the weaknesses and shortcomings of our western organisations concerning the
Kurdish question will recognise the fact that propaganda and education on their
own do not have much meaning (otherwise these cannot be revolutionary propaganda
and education). If we are to express it in terms of the organisational
construction, an unconditional recognition and defence of Kurdish national
rights and their right to self-determination is the most important requirement
for our party and in particular its organisations of Turkey (Turkish workers) to
become a party which unites the Turkish and Kurdish workers and which organises
them together in a broader extent. Being the workers of the oppressing nation,
it is necessary for Turkish workers to realise that so long as they remain
amongst those who oppress others they will continue to be oppressed themselves
and remain as slaves. It also means that the Turkish workers are pushed into a
position of becoming partners of imperialism’s crime in oppressing other
nations. To put it simply, the prerequisite of the unity desired with Kurdish
workers is for the workers of Turkish nationality to defend unconditionally
Kurdish nation’s right to free self-determination.
Moreover,
the workers of Turkish nationality cannot be contented only with the recognition
of the Kurdish nation and its demands. Also, as a requirement of this, they must
transform these demands into the indispensable subjects of their daily struggle.
It is at this point that there lie the main responsibilities of Turkish workers
and our western organisations towards Kurdish workers and our Kurdistan
organisation. The propaganda and education work could only have a meaning if it
is incorporated into such a daily struggle and tied to the efforts made in this
direction.
Our
organisations having the right views politically concerning the Kurdish question
does not have any meaning at all unless they struggle persistently, utilising
every opportunity, to make the demands of the Kurdish people part of the demands
of their daily class struggle. Our criticisms do not mean that our organisations
have done nothing with regard to this question. Despite the recognised inertia,
attempts to do things in terms of this question are evident, but not to a degree
of utilising the necessary means, opportunities, conditions, forums, platforms
and of becoming a systematic feature. Among its reasons are a traditionally
distorted understanding of the Kurdish question and aspirations of Kurdish
nation, various instances of unawareness and lack of attention in our
organisations, as well as problems of treatment, conception and perception
relating to the questions of daily practise, involvement in the daily struggle,
proceeding with a tactical approach and showing the necessary reflexes.
It is true that national
question requires an advanced level of consciousness for its recognition by
broad masses. Moreover, the decades old propaganda by the capital and
reactionary forces has caused a considerable reactionary distortion amongst
Turkish people. However, what is demanded at this point is not an immediate
formation of a widespread mass movement (which does not depend on us either),
and one cannot overlook the fact that there is a developing tendency amongst the
Turks towards a more rational thinking and a more understanding approach towards
the Kurds. Under the present conditions when many aspects of the Kurdish
question are brought onto the agenda by the reactionary forces themselves,
especially in the case of language question, it is unacceptable to remain
inactive and not to think that these occurrences should increasingly bring about
a more advanced level of work and struggle and calls.
Our
organisations of Turkey must use the means more effectively and systematically
in varying forms, from scientific symposiums to panels, from press releases to
workplace and local meetings, from seminar compositions to festivals, brochures,
leaflets and visual materials of agitation; they must work more enthusiastically
and determinedly to spread the Kurdish question and the work and actions
concerning the daily demands of Kurdish nation to greater sections of Turkish
intellectuals and labourers; and they must turn these demands into a subject of
open mass struggle (of course, without falling into a position of divergence of
sectarianism, with an appropriate method and style). When the instabilities in
the Middle East are increasing systematically, with indications of the question
of Iraqi Kurdistan coming forward in the near future, when cries of war and of a
tougher approach are being uttered in Turkey, and when discussions about the
Constitution, democracy, etc. have gained momentum -even though on a level of
pretence; it is inevitable that the Kurdish demands will become more acceptable
from the point of view of Turkish labourers.
The
capital and reaction’s continuous identification of the Kurdish people with
terrorism for the past fifteen years has been one of the most significant
factors for the increasing prejudice on the part of the Turkish people,
consolidating the approach of “non-recognition” of the Kurds. For this
reason, it is also very important to carry out a style of work (utilising
various forms and means) that will reintroduce the Kurdish nation (Kurdish
history, their historical relationship with the Turks, without forgetting their
contribution to the history, culture, and arts of the country) with different
aspects of their daily lives. Such activities will play an important role in
breaking the prejudices and drawing the attention of the Turkish workers and
labourers to key points.
As
well as giving support to the Kurdish nation in Kurdistan and to the work of our
Kurdistan organisation, the activities of our organisations in the big cities of
the west to re-explore the Kurdish people and defend their national rights would
also present greater opportunities to establish links with the highly
concentrated and mainly worker Kurdish population in these areas, and to unite
and organise them with the Turkish workers. The work among the Turkish workers
concerning the Kurdish question is a part of the responsibilities towards the
Kurdish nation; but it is also a necessity and an opportunity in terms of the
unity (in open struggle) of the advanced workers (party) and the labouring
masses in large urban centres.
The
only opportunity for the renewal and reconstruction of the sentiments and
relationships between the Turkish and Kurdish people depends on the steps we
take to renew the necessary work for the Kurdish question and the demands of the
Kurdish people to become an issue of the daily class struggle in the west, and
to make visible the support of the Turkish labourers to Kurdish people in the
open struggle. It is also here that there lies one of the dynamics for the
renewal of the relationship between the Kurdistan organisation and the
organisations in the west and for their reunification as the party of Turkish
and Kurdish workers.
Conclusion
The
direction and characteristics of the process that Turkey is going through… The
trend of the dynamics for change and development that we have emphasised
previously… The problems related to the class and national character of the
movement in Kurdistan and Turkey… The tasks that the present developments
require from our party and the possibilities that they present for their
fulfilment… The trend of the inter-class relations in the country; the
problems of and the prospects for the workers’ movement; immediate tasks that
are required by the problems related to the class and democracy issues, as well
as the demands regarding the Kurdish question in terms of our organisations’
work and their reconstruction…
These
are the questions that we need to concentrate in terms of the Kurdish question,
and our party organisations in Kurdistan and Turkey should never divert their
attention from these areas. If our organisations, be it in Kurdistan or Turkey,
are distracted from the questions such as closely observing the power relations
between the fronts of capital and labour, the course of the workers’
(Turkish-Kurdish) and popular movement, its characteristics, demands, dynamics,
its possibilities and weaknesses, if they stop getting their inspirations and
content for daily work from these areas, it then becomes inevitable that
everything said on the Kurdish question, class questions, on the reconstruction
of the organisation on the basis of renewed foundations and forces, etc. will
all become no more than empty words.
For
this reason, whilst the party centrally safeguards the action of its
organisations in Kurdistan and Turkey in accordance with the understanding and
plans that have been explained here, we should base ourselves on the workers’
and popular movement and its dynamics, and we should not neglect our
responsibilities to make it a characteristic feature of ours to assist this
movement to meet its requirements and solve its problems.
A determined struggle in
order to make the right of the Kurdish people to self-determination and its
related demands the subject of the daily class struggle of the workers and
labourers of both nations, and to allow this play the necessary role in the
organisations of the working class and in the reconstruction of its party… To
safeguard the construction of the organisations both in Turkey and Kurdistan
against all kinds of nationalist and out-of-class prejudices; to reorganise and
unite our organisations, which is in the process of being rebuild in Turkey and
Kurdistan with new and young forces of workers and intellectuals, around the
party apparatus across the country that will be renewed through revolutionary
elements, and to consider this as a central and determining issue for the
process of “reconstruction” of the party… All these are the tasks that our
party centre must stick to tightly and determinedly.