Thursday, 12 January 2017
The Rojava Revolution: Either betrayal or freedom by Sinan Cudi
“Revolutions that take power and gain statehood immediately cannot just be considered as exhausted; they are also the betrayal of the ideals of equality, freedom and democracy. In this sense the history of revolutions is also the history of the tragedy of betrayal. The French, Russian and Islamic Revolutions are full of important lessons in this regard.”*
Of course, sovereign powers have always played a substantial role in making sure all revolutions suffer the same tragic fate.
The Rojava Revolution and its practises hold an important place in the history of revolutions in Kurdistan. Even though the practices of the Rojava revolution were first formed amongst the Kurdish nation, they have, in a short space of time and due to conjuncture and geography, become the leading practices of the Syrian revolution.
This influence is undoubtedly linked to the ability to build a new economic and social model. The fact that this model is a real alternative to capitalist production and distribution relations and bourgeois democracies means it is a serious risk to all the forces engaged in the struggle for control over the region. This is why these forces are trying to survive by either being for or against the Rojava Revolution.
Forces and parties that are relatively open to innovation and are convinced that the current system needs to change -but are not certain how it should be- are standing (or pretending to stand) with the revolution, whilst forces that see their interests in the continuation of the current status-quo are trying to strengthen their positions by standing against the revolution.
However both sides are also continuing to seek and engage in ways to undermine the revolution and divert it from its fundamental political line. They are employing at every opportunity all means available to pressure, limit and dissuade the revolutionary vanguard from the revolutionary line predicated on independence and self-sufficiency.
The Rojava Revolution, as has happened with all revolutions in history, is attacked on two fundamental fronts.
The first is the use of violence and military force. The revolution is under constant attack by the invading Turkish state and groups under its control; these attacks are coordinated with the Syrian regime.
The second is the constant insinuation that it will be accused of terrorism; which is done to damage and prevent alliances with other revolutionary forces, isolate the revolution in the economic, political and diplomatic sphere and eventually weaken the revolution’s political line and impose a liberalisation resulting in surrender.
In the ideological sense, the nation-state mindset –the cause of the current crisis– is being imposed on the revolution’s cadre and support base; they are being forced into accepting the current system and it statist relations. This is also the reason why the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) in South Kurdistan is so favoured as an alternative.
The aim is to convince people that the Rojava Revolution, which has proven that a governance model “beyond the state and borders” is possible and that neighbouring nations can live together democratically and in peace without recourse to war, is not viable. What is viable and should be chosen according to them is the nation-statist KDP model.
However, as mentioned in the quotation at the beginning of this article, this can only be achieved if the revolution betrays itself. That is the essence of the matter.
Will the revolution betray its own values and become a satellite for external forces thus losing its identity, or will it continue proving to the Middle East and world that the impossible can be achieved and gift them a true spring of freedom?
* Civilisational Crisis and the Democratic Civilisation Solution in the Middle East - Abdullah Ocalan
Posted by nickglais at 09:30