Philosophical Contradictions in the Kurdish Struggle: Between Autocracy and Democratic Transformation

Amid the sweeping geopolitical shifts reshaping the region, the Kurdish cause emerges as one of the most intricate and contentious issues of our time. It is not merely a military´-or-political conflict but a struggle imbued with deep philosophical, historical, and social dimensions. For the past forty years, ever since the emergence of the PKK, this issue has evolved into a bloody war that has claimed tens of thousands of lives, ravaged entire cities, and left an indelible scar on both Turkish and Kurdish societies. Today, as the organization announces its intention to dissolve, we seem to stand on the threshold of a new chapter—one that, however, is laden with contradictions and uncertainties.

The declaration of the organization’s end can undoubtedly be seen as a beacon of hope—especially when viewed through the lens of ending violence and halting the bloodshed. Yet this optimism soon fades when we revisit the roots of the matter and ponder how the PKK came into being in the first place. Born as a reaction to decades of repression and discrimination, it was a cry for democratic and cultural rights by a people long denied them. To simply dissolve the organization without addressing the fundamental causes of its birth is akin to dousing a flame while leaving the tinder to smolder.

A pivotal dilemma thus arises: how can an autocratic regime, such as that of President Erdoğ-;-an, be part of a solution to a problem that is, at its heart, about democracy and human rights? History teaches us that autocratic systems rarely, if ever, provide lasting solutions to challenges that demand political openness and respect for freedom. In fact, such regimes often exploit these very issues to fortify their power and extend their influence. This raises serious doubts about the true intentions behind any peace process´-or-political settlement proposed under their watch.

Then comes the central question: what will the Kurds gain in return for the dissolution of the organization? Will there be tangible improvements in their political and social conditions?´-or-will the benefits be confined merely to enhancing the living conditions of the organization’s leader, Abdullah Ö-;-calan, while leaving millions of Kurds—who still endure discrimination and oppression—unchanged? The answer to this question will ultimately determine the credibility of any proposed peace process.

On the military front, the PKK appears to have reached a critical juncture. With the backing of modern technology and advanced intelligence, Turkish forces have inflicted severe losses on the organization, significantly curtailing its influence. Moreover, regional shifts—such as the waning influence of Iran and its relative impotence in Iraq and Syria—have further isolated the group. Iran, once a provider of logistical and political support to the PKK, now finds itself constrained by international pressures and its own internal crises.

In Syria, the situation for Kurdish forces, particularly the People’s Protection Units (YPG), is equally complex. After years of shifting alliances with regional and international powers, Syrian Kurds now find themselves in a precarious position. The withdrawal of American support, the fragility of the Syrian regime, and Iran’s diminishing influence have all conspired to-limit- their options. Against this backdrop, Damascus has extended an offer that might not be entirely unpalatable: granting the Kurds cultural rights and political representation, though firmly rejecting the notions of autonomy´-or-secession. Yet, many Syrian Kurds remain hesitant to embrace this proposal—perhaps clinging to hope for continued American backing,´-or-fearing that any agreement with the Syrian regime would strip them of their hard-won military and political gains.

But the overarching question remains: what genuine alternatives exist for Syrian Kurds at this juncture? Can they rely on external support that might vanish in an instant?´-or-must they reassess their circumstances and seek realistic solutions that acknowledge the profound shifts in the regional balance of power?

In the final analysis, the future of the Kurdish cause hinges on the capacity of all involved parties to transcend their contradictions and craft authentic solutions that address the root causes of the conflict. Without a genuine embrace of democracy and respect for human rights, any political resolution will merely serve as a temporary bandage—insufficient to heal the deep wounds inflicted by decades of strife. And herein lies the paradox: while the dissolution of the PKK might be a step toward peace, it will remain inadequate unless accompanied by a radical transformation of the Turkish and regional political landscapes—a transformation grounded in democracy and justice.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1