On Democratic Confederalism

The struggle waged by the Kurdish people has been the object of renewed interest in France over recent years, sparked by the killing of Fidan, Sakine and Leyla, three members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), in Paris on 9 January 2013, boosted by the setting up of the autonomous Kurdish cantons in Rojava [1] during the Civil War in Syria [2]. The siege of Kobanî by the Islamic State (DAESH) during the winter of 2014, played a key role in creating a movement in support of the Syrian Kurds and its leading organisation, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), the PKK structure in Syria.
This movement of support brought together the emotion generated by the brutal acts carried out by DAESH and revulsion in the face of the passivity of the imperialist powers and the way the Turkish State colluded with the jihadists, together with a heightened interest of a large part of the Libertarian movement in “Democratic Confederalism”, the new line espoused by the PKK and which it claims to be applying in Rojava today. We feel it necessary to address this question given that Democratic Confederalism is currently being proposed by some as a model for French society.

The OCML-Voie Prolétarienne has joined the movement in support of the Kurdish people on the understanding that it should be centred on the fight against imperialism. In fact, the ensuing chaos in Iraq and Syria and the existence of fascist groups such as DAESH and Al-Qaeda are the direct or indirect consequence of foreign interference in the region for more than a century, which is why our support for the Kurds in Syria is inseparable from a rejection of armed imperialist interventions. We understand why the Kurds may rally to a cry such as “Western powers must supply Rojava with weapons”, although such a demand is only ever acceptable within the context of a front as and when it is accompanied at the same time by a clear condemnation of imperialist duplicity and the role they play, etc. In other words, by avoiding raising false hopes about the role played by imperialism and, even while claiming to call upon it for support, blame it for it responsability in the situation. Furthermore, such a demand is only acceptable if all other forms of imperialist intervention are also expressly precluded, as one cannot go without the other.
That being said, we support the democratic and antiimperialist struggle of the Kurdish people regardless of the organisation leading it and any disagreements we may have with it. We recognise Rojava as the most advanced progressive experience in the region today, especially regarding its policy of promoting women, national minorities and fundamental individual and collective rights. Today, the Kurds and the Syrians are at the forefront of the fight against the DAESH fascists. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to describe the political movement underway in Rojava as a “social revolution”. Firstly, because a final verdict regrading a political and social situation can only be reached after rigorous examination. And secondly, because the PKK’s track-record calls into question the revolutionary nature of this party.

What is the PKK ? What is Democratic Confederalism ?

The PKK is the organisation currently leading the struggle of the Kurdish people, at least in Turkey and Syria. When it was originally founded in the 1970, it formally ascribed to Marxism-Leninism [3]. It presented Turkey as a State dominated by (mainly US) imperialism, whilst at the same time behaving like a colonialist power in Kurdistan. It rightly stated that the main contradiction in the Middle East was that opposing the people and the imperialist powers, whose domination was underpinned by the reactionary Arab, Turkish and Iranian regimes, together with Israel as a key element of imperialist domination. It signalled both colonialism and Kurdish feudalism working in it service as the two main obstacles in the way of the liberation of the Kurdish masses. It therefore drew a line within Kurdish society between the classes which should lead the revolution (the workers and peasants) or being rally to it on the one hand and the sworn enemies of the Revolution on the other, namely feudal elements of all kinds (landowners, aghas, sheikhs and religious leaders), Kurdish comprador bourgeoisie [4] and agents of the Turkish State. The PKK also defended the reunification of an independent Kurdistan, split up into several different colonial States, rejecting outright any possibility of a solution to the Kurdish question within the current borders.
In the early 1990s, the OCML-VP assessed the PKK in a brochure on the subject [5]. Based on the criticisms levelled by the Communist organisations in Turkey, we underlined several points of contention :
 The PKK upheld the USSR as a truly socialist country until the very end, rejecting the Maoist critics of revisionism as sectarianism.
 At the time when the leadership of the PKK had taken refuge in Syria and Lebanon in the 1980s and 90s, the PKK viewed El-Assad’s fascist dictatorship as “an anti-imperialist ally” [6].
 At the time, the PKK held a very ambiguous position regarding the Islamist movements. Even while at war with the Turkish Hezbollah [7], they stated that : “The religious movements cannot be seen as enemies inasmuch as their stated aim is to overturn the pro-Western regimes and have a radical line” [8].
 And finally, and perhaps most importantly, as an organisation, the PKK has never functioned in a democratic way. Internal debate is not free and major political contradictions are systematically quashed by expelling or even assassinating members accused of being agents of the Turkish State.
Having increased in strength throughout the 80s and into the early 90s, the PKK launched a wide-scale military campaign against the Turkish State with a view to liberation large areas of the Kurdish regions, ending in a military defeat for the PKK which gradually shifted towards negotiating with the Turkish State.
Abdullah Öcalan, the historical leader of the PKK, recently called upon his Party to lay down their arms indefinitely in a search of an agreement with the Turkish State [9]. This is not something new, having already defended that position publically since the early 1990s [10], in the belief that there can only ever be a peaceful solution to the Kurdish question. It was at that time that the leadership of the PKK decided to withdraw most of its guerrilla forces from Turkish Kurdistan to the Qandil Mountains region of Iraqi Kurdistan as a “goodwill” gesture.
In 1999, Öcalan was abducted by the Turkish secret service in Kenya where he had taken refuge following the 1980 military coup, having previously spent several years in Syria which was where the leadership of the PKK was based at the time. Öcalan was sentenced to life imprisonment and it was in jail that he came up with a new strategic line for the PKK in a series of publications (War or Peace in Kurdistan [11] and Democratic Confederalism [12]), with Democratic Confederalism officially took the place of Marxism-Leninism by the early 2000s.
What exactly is Democratic Confederalism ? Öcalan drew his inspiration directly from the American Murray Bookchin, whose ideology known as “Libertarian Municipalism” is a mixed bag of Anarchism, Ecologist thinking and radical feminism. Öcalan himself defines it as : “[…] kind of rule that can be called a non-state political administration, or democracy without a state” [13]. What actually is proposes is to replace the State with a federations of councils based on direct democracy, each with wide-ranging autonomy and free to associate with each other or not, with self-administration at all levels of society. The higher political structures above the grassroots councils should be kept to the strict minimum because any drift towards centralisation is seen as inherently bad, entailing bureaucracy and authoritarianism. The co-ordination between the different councils are seen as fluid, evolving according to the will of each, above and beyond national boundaries. In the words of Öcalan : “there is no room for any kind of hegemony striving” [14]. All forms of State apparatus must be immediately abolished and all of the functions attributed to it must be placed directly in the hands of the members of society, namely the armed force.
As Communists, we agree with the ultimate aim of humanity to abolish the State and build a new society based on the democratic association of individuals once classes have been abolished. However, as we shall go on to explain, we profoundly disagree with the way Öcalan and Democratic Confederalism present this process.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is necessary

For Abdullah Öcalan, the main contradiction in modern-day society lies between the State on the one hand and society on the other. Öcalan harps back to the classical Anarchist tenet the idea that the State is the main problem. For him, the State is not a tool wielded by a dominant class, as argued by Marxism [15], but an independent entity which Öcalan presents as oppressing society as a whole. While Öcalan does recognise the existence of a bourgeoisie, an exploiting class, its role is seen as secondary, with the State primarily dominating society and exploiting the workforce. Accordingly, Capitalism functions by relying exclusively on the State. As described in the works by Öcalan, Capitalism is not described in terms of a relations of production (i.e. the way in which the exploitation of the work of the proletariats by the bourgeoisie is organised), but over-simplistically as a mere assumption of society’s wealth by the State as the actual exploiter. For Öcalan, the State can only ever play a negative role, and can only ever serve as an instrument of oppression of the mases, regardless of the form it takes. He rejects the need to adopt a transitory form of State during the revolutionary process, namely the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and claims that history shows that any attempt to set up a workers’ State is doomed to fail.
It is true that no State exists based on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat anywhere around the world today : they have all either been defeated or have given birth to a new bourgeoisie which restored Capitalism. But Öcalan glosses over all of that very summarily, without ever clarifying his position or explaining the means by which it came about. It is worth noticing that Öcalan and the PKK have shifted from a position where they refused to criticise “Real Socialism”, i.e. the States which, while claiming to be Socialist, actually involved nothing more than State capitalism, and the USSR, to a position which rejects out of hand all of the previous experiences of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat without so much as a serious analysis or in-depth study.
The State encompasses society as a whole and has a certain autonomy with regards to the later and its leadership upholds its own interests to a certain extent. But all of that is of only secondary importance. In our view, the main contradiction within society opposes the exploiting class to the exploited class, i.e. the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. The way society is organised is simply the result of the capitalist mode of production, whereby the State is effectively a tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie, although contradictions may also arise on occasion, for instance, between the government and the big capitalists. The bourgeoisie has moulded the State for it to work to its advantage.
We believe, however, that the proletariat and the peoples must not only smash the apparatus of the bourgeois State, but for a certain time must also set up their own State. That is unavoidable inasmuch as the very definition of the State is to ensure the dictatorship of one particular class, and for as long as classes have not disappeared, which is a long and complex process, the revolutionary classes will require an organisation of their own in order to ensure their power-hold over society as a whole, concentrating their power and applying their policy in all areas. What that means, amongst other things, is that in order to repress the bourgeoisie and more generally the sectors of society hostile to the revolution, which will continue to exist as self-aware classes seeking to snatch back what has been taken from them. That State will in turn disappear as soon as the class contradictions disappear, when there is no longer be any need for a special structure englobing the whole of society to ensure that power remains in the hands of the dominant class in every area. Öcalan criticises the State as being an inevitably repressive structure : we believe that counter-revolutions should indeed be repressed. Later we shall go on to see how, on the contrary, Öcalan believes that the transformation of society can and must come about peacefully...
Backsliding and the return of the old bourgeoisie to power or the reconstitution of a new bourgeoisie through the apparatus of State effectively constitutes a large risk which is why our Maoism states that once political power has been seized from the bourgeoisie the revolution has only just begun because the complete transformation of society is a protracted process, a constant struggle between the old and the new. On the contrary, Democratic Confederalism would argue that once the state has been destroyed, the main work has already been done, and the rest will come about through social consensus.

The peaceful overthrow of the bourgeoisie and its State are impossible

Öcalan has made it quite clear in his writings that he is opposed to revolution, opposed to the overthrow of the dominant classes by force : “Nor can a revolution create a new society” [16]. According to his thinking, the State cannot be overthrown, but must be gradually weakened until it finally disappears without putting up a fight. The two-fold strategy presented by Öcalan involves forcing the democratisation of the State in order to weaken its repressive power on the one hand, and establishing and developing the institutions of Democratic Confederalism, i.e. setting up local self-government completely independent of the State, going on to spread gradually throughout the whole territory until the State is gradually eaten away from within through its democratisation and the spread of a counter power. This new model of society would progres completely peacefully by convincing the country and the population as a whole that it “offers an alternative to the system that is unable to resolve problems” [17]. Revolutionary violence is rejected as something bad and Democratic Confederalism would only use violence to defend itself in the face of direct attacks by the State. Öcalan adds that : “democratic confederalism is open to compromises concerning state or governmental traditions” [18] and that “It allows for equal coexistence” [19] with the State. Öcalan expects the dominant classes to let themselves be defeated without reacting.
This is a completely reformist stance. We are evidently not against the fight for reforms, but nor do we believe that the bourgeoisie will be defeated by a succession of partial and progressive reforms. The struggles led by the proletariat and the people are aimed not only at satisfying their essential needs, but also at continually strengthening their awareness and organisation in order to prepare them to seize power. It is an delusion to believe that the dominant classes will be swept from power by the combination of a succession of struggles ending in partial victories and the creation of autonomous, self-administered spaces. All of the experiences of that kind have ended in failure.
The followers of Democratic Confederalism and Öcalan himself present the autonomous Zapatista territories in Chiapas [20] in Mexico as both an example and the proof of the viability of the idea that it is in fact possible to change society by setting up autonomous territories and that self-administered areas can co-exist sustainably within modern-day States. But what is the truth behind Zapatism ? The Mexican State only tolerates these autonomous territories because for the moment they pose no threat to the established order. Through people’s self-organisation, on the grounds that is impossible to carry out the revolution on anyone else’s behalf (which is true in absolute terms), the Zapatistas turn their backs on building a revolutionary movement throughout the whole of Mexico, despite the terrible period currently endured by the people there. The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) remains in the hills, with its armed forces now reduced to nothing more than a self-defence structure to withstand attacks by the Mexica police and army. The Zapatistas do not seek to overthrow the Mexican State, which is why they leave them alone. “Peaceful coexistence” with the dominant classes is indeed possible, but only if you renounce seeking to overthrow them.

Antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions

So much for the transition to Democratic Confederalism. The next question is how it is supposed to function internally. It does not involve the class struggle, the proletariat and the people seizing power. Öcalan states that all of the social groups should have the right to speak on an equal footing with no further precisions. The councils are open to “the whole population” [21], and decisions must be taken by consensus based on the idea that there are no interests in society that cannot be reconciled and that all disagreements can be resolved through debate and assent. He goes on to say that differing opinions must be respected, without drawing a distinction between them… even those expressed by our class enemies ? It would appear, therefore, that the issue of what is to become of our old oppressors is not even raised. Öcalan does not specifically address this issue. Does he believe that once the bourgeoisie have been stripped of their properties and the generals have been disarmed, they should be seen as men and women just like anyone else with the same rights ? Should we endeavour to arrive at a consensus with them too ? In fact, given that for Öcalan the main problem of modern-day societies seems to reside in difference between the State and society, it is logical that it would suffice to do away with the State in order to sweep aside all antagonistic contradictions, allowing for the harmonious integration of all of the groups in society within Democratic Confederalism.
Democratic Confederalism also gives priority to decentralisation, both horizontal and vertical : “All areas of the society need to be given to self-administration, all levels of it need to be free to participate” [22]. Every self-administered town, region and company must be free to associate or not, to follow the decisions of the majority or not. Priority must be given to the local interest over the general interest. But is consensus always feasible ? At certain times, in order to move forwards, it is necessary to come down on one side rather than the other when it proves impossible to reach an agreement. We see true democracy not as extreme autonomy, where everyone does as they see fit wherever they happen to be : for us true democracy is when everyone is entitled to express themselves on every issue, with the majority view holding sway over that of the minority, whilst at the same time respecting the latter. That is in fact the only way to ensure the homogeneous evolution of society. We seek to eliminate social differences, eliminate regional inequities, eliminate the material divisions between the different sectors of the proletariat, all of which derive from the way Capitalism organises society. None of that is possible by granting autonomy to each town or each company.
As Maoists, we draw a distinction between non-antagonistic contradictions (within the people) and antagonistic contradictions (between the people and its enemies) [23]. Non-antagonistic contradictions should be resolved primarily through dialogue and criticism and self-criticism with a view to resolving the contradiction while maintaining unity. This is for example, how the contradictions between men and women, French workers and migrant workers should be resolved.
On the other hand, antagonistic contradictions cannot be resolved through dialogue and consensus, as for instance, in the case of the contradiction between the bourgeois exploiter and the exploited worker. In cases such as these, the aim is not to seek unity, because it is impossible to achieve unity between the opposing sides : the only way to resolve the problem is by getting rid of the exploiters. Democratic Confederalism fails to acknowledge this vital distinction between the two kinds of contradictions, as if only non- antagonistic contradictions exist within society.
Just like Marxists, Libertarians also claim to go back to the Paris Commune [24]. One part of this experience shows that when the proletariat is determined to overthrow the bourgeoisie, that bourgeoisie can accept no compromise. One of the things that brought down the Commune was the refusal to march on Versailles when that was a possibility, waiting instead impassively and in vain for the revolution to take hold of the whole country. History has shown us in modern times and in our own country that it is pointless to hope for “peaceful coexistence” between the power of the people and that of the bourgeoisie. The experience of the Paris Commune also shows us that once in power, the worker class cannot allow itself to be too open-handed with the bourgeoisie. The people seize arms from the hands of the bourgeoisie and, going on the offensive, turn them against it. The Commune fell in part because it faltered in the face of its enemy by leaving the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie in Paris to prepare for the troops to enter Versailles and by failing to seize the gold held in the Banque de France due to an excess of democratic scruples. It wavered in the face of the array of different powers and the lack of centralised political decision-making. Discipline and unity of action are vital in the face of impending danger, which does not mean that debate and democracy no longer matter ! [25]
If the Rojava cantons continue to hold, it is effectively because they have a strong and undisputed political leadership behind them in the shape of the PKK which centralises decisions and coordinates action. Despite what the anarchists may say, Rojava is not the practical application of Democratic Confederalism or federalist libertarian theories.

Öcalan’s position on the Middle East and the Kurdish Question

When analysing the situation in the Middle East, Öcalan identifies nationalism and the development of nationalist feeling by the peoples as the main sources of wars, massacres and repressive dictatorships, apparently acknowledging no positive aspect to the peoples’ national liberation movements. This stands in stark contrast to his own political background, because if had the Kurdish national sentiment not developed, there would have been no PKK, no Rojava and no Democratic Confederalism. Öcalan goes still further by stating that Nations are nothing more than figments of our imagination with not objective existence as such. Imperialism is all but completely absent from his reading of the situation as nothing more than a marginal phenomenon of all but secondary importance. This is yet another dogmatic anarchist stance. For Öcalan imperialism is not the main problem affecting the peoples in the region.
When discussing different conflicts, he therefore tends to tar everyone with the same brush, conflating the nationalism of the oppressed nation with that of the oppressor, giving rise to a series of spurious analyses. According to him the development of national sentiment is responsible for weakening and dividing the Arab people, while the rise of Armenian nationalism in turn spurred the rise of Turkish national finally leading to the Armenian genocide [26]. Even if the Kurdish movement is clearly positioned in favour of the democratic rights of the Armenian people, such a statement by Öcalan strangely resembles the negationist position held by the Turkey and the Turkish far-right.
Whilst rejecting nationalism, Öcalan’s adopts a purely ethnic vision of regional contradictions, seeing the different peoples as homogeneous groups, each characterised by an immutable national mind-set, sometimes verging on racism, with the Arabas described in terms of “servile obedience” whose case “seems hopeless”, while for the Turks “Obedience is regarded as the greatest virtue” [27]. There is no mention of an analysis of the internal social and political contradictions which exist within these peoples. In the light of all of the revolts which have shook the countries in the region over recent years, such remarks are an affront.
Öcalan even goes so far as to express a certain degree of sympathy for Israel and Zionism [28], whilst at the same time as putting all nationalisms in the same bag, apparently perceiving a certain similarity between the Zionist myth of the kibbutz and the communalism of Democratic Confederalism. He applauds the internal “democracy” of Israeli society. The struggle waged by the Palestinian people serves only to illustrate the “failure of the national solution on both sides”, whereby the Arabs held equally responsible for the conflict as the Zionists. When calling for the setting up of a broad democratic confederation englobing all of the peoples in the region, Öcalan calls upon Israel to become a “democratic and open nation”, ignoring the fact that that is quite impossible given its basic nature [29].

A hazardous strategy for the Kurdish people

Öcalan sometimes adopts a radical anarchist tone. However, he reveals a clearly liquidationist political stance regarding the Kurdish question, his issue of prime concern. In line with his condemnation of nationalism and all forms of State, the PKK has relinquished its demand for an independent Kurdish State and has renounced abolishing the unfair borders marked out by French and British imperialism which split the Kurdish people across four different States. In accordance with the idea that it is unfeasible to overthrow the State by force, as far as Turkey is concerned, Öcalan goes on to state that : “We are not opposed to the unitary state and republic” [30], in exchange for the recognition of a modicum of rights for the Kurds. The armed struggle must be abandoned : “it is the task of the PKK to convince the states of the region of a peaceful resolution of the Kurdish question. ” [31]
Öcalan identifies several concrete historical examples which indicate the path to follow : according to him, Northern Ireland and South Africa have “solve[d] similar problems” [32]. All that would be needed for the armed wing of the PKK to lay down its weapons for good is the setting up of some kind of “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” based on the South African model. Northern Ireland and South Africa are examples of the liquidation of a national liberation struggle in exchange for formal equality for all citizens involving a power-share between the racist leadership and the national liberation movements who sold out. It is the worst of all political proposals for the Kurdish people, involving nothing less than the wholesale liquidation of its national and social liberation movement.
We are not a dogmatic organisation. We stand for debate amongst sincere revolutionaries in order to achieve our goal, regardless of the current one may belong to. That is why throughout this article we have sought to alert those of our fellow companions in struggle who give credit to unwarranted merits on the part of the PKK.
Our political positions and our stance on how to carry out the revolution are not hollow, haughty phrases, but the fruit of experience, criticism and self-criticism and a scientific approach. Being Marxist, Leninist and Maoist has a very clear meaning for us, entailing a world view, a strategy and coherent tactics in order to move forwards towards a Communist society with no classes and no State. It is far from perfect and much still remains to be discusses, clarified and completed. But if there is one thing of which we are sure, it is that the experience of the working class and popular movement has already largely disqualified the ideas touted by Abdullah Öcalan, regardless of where and when they come from or the names they go by.
[1] During the civil war in Syria, the Kurdish regions to the north declared themselves autonomous and self-administrating. The PKK is the dominant force acting under the initials PYD (Democratic Union Party).
[2] The Civil War rages between the Ba’athist regime of Bashar al-Assad (see the article entitled Quelle est la situation au Moyen-Orient ? [‘What is the Situation in the Middle East ?’] in this issue), several mainly pro-Western and Islamist rebel groups, the Kurds in Rojava and the Islamic State (DAESH).
[3] The term Marxist-Leninist is used to describes Communists who follow Marx and Lenin, englobing both truly revolutionary groups and groups which are actually revisionist (i.e. reformist in practice despite referring to themselves as revolutionaries).
[4] ‘Agha’ and ‘sheikh’ are titles used by members of the dominant feudal classes in Kurdish and several other Middle Eastern societies. The ‘comprador bourgeoisie’ relies on its role as an intermediary when trading with imperialism.
[5] Kurdistan, Turquie : vers la révolution ! [‘Kurdistan and Turkey. Towards Revolution’], published by OCML-VP (May 1992).
[6] Partisan (old series) Nº 70, published by OCML-VP (April 1992).
[7] A violent Sunnite Islamic movement active in Turkey in the 80s and 90s which enjoyed the backing of the Turkish secret services in their fight against the PKK. It is unrelated to the Lebanese Shiite organisation Hezbollah.
[8] See Footnote 7.
[9] Le Monde, 21/03/2014.
[10] See the documentary Öcalan et la question kurde [‘Öcalan and the Kurdish Question’] by Luis Miranda (2014).
[11] Öcalan, Abdullah (2008) War and Peace in Kurdistan, London : International Initiative Edition. http://www.freeocalan.org/books/downloads/war-and-peace-in-kurdistan.pdf (Hereafter ‘WP’).
[12] Öcalan, Abdullah (2011) Democratic Confederalism, London : International Initiative. http://www.freeocalan.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Ocalan-Democratic-Confederalism.pdf (Hereafter ‘DC’).
[13] DC, p. 21.
[14] DC, p. 30.
[15] See The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848).
[16] DC, p. 24.
[17] DC, p. 43.
[18] DC, p. 22.
[19] Ibid.
[20] In 1994, the armed left-wing group known as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) launched an uprising in the mountainous region of Chiapas in southern Mexico populated by indigenous peoples. Since then, it has maintained its control over certain areas and a ceasefire has been agreed with the Mexican army.
[21] WP, p. 33.
[22] DC, p. 27.
[23] See On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People by Mao Zedong (1957).
[24] According to Karl Marx, the Paris Commune (18 March - 28 May 1871) was the very first example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was crushed by the bourgeois army of the Versailles Government.
[25] Au nom du peuple la Commune est proclamée ! [‘The Commune is Proclaimed in the Name of the People !), published by OCML-VP (1996).
[26] DC, p. 40.
[27] DC, p. 37.
[28] DC, pp. 41-42.
[29] See the article entitled Libération de la Palestine : quels alliés pour quelle perspective ? [‘The Liberation of Palestine : Which allies for which prospects ?’] in this issue.
[30] WP, p. 39.
[31] WP, p. 32.
[32] WP, p. 38.