Peace, as women imagine it – and democracy, as women build it
Necîbe Qeredaxî
The societies of the Middle East and Kurdistan, due to the region’s geopolitical location, sit at the intersection of three continents and have historically served as a commercial corridor. This region has long been the cradle of both the first major institutionalised religions and natural belief systems, as well as the birthplace of many of history’s earliest innovations—both constructive and destructive. On the positive side, it gave rise to the first women’s revolution, the revolutions of settled life, language, culture, and agriculture. On the negative side, it was also the birthplace of the first hierarchies, the emergence of authority, and the establishment of the state—each built on patriarchal foundations. This region has, therefore, always been marked by conflict.
As a result, mountainous and nature-bound communities have consistently been targets of invasion. Throughout the region’s history, Kurdish society and its ethnic roots have faced systematic occupation on numerous occasions. Yet, their deep-rooted culture of resistance and self-preservation, their relative immunity to authoritarian and hierarchical mindsets, and their strong connection to land and cultural values have ensured that every occupation attempt has ultimately failed—particularly in the past century. From physical genocide to psychological and economic warfare, Kurds have been subjected to all forms of attack. Often left merely with the means for physical survival, Kurdish society has been pushed into a condition where not only its identity and existence are denied, but where the very idea of being Kurdish has been portrayed as a curse and a burden, triggering processes of self-denial and cultural dissolution.
In such circumstances, uprising and rebellion against occupation become the most natural expressions of dignity. Historical resistance, in this context, has not been a choice but an existential necessity. When an occupying force does not even recognise a people as human, and subjects them to total dehumanisation, there remains no alternative but uprising—an initial step that carries the potential to evolve into revolutionary transformation. This has been more or less the case in all parts of Kurdistan, particularly following its partition through the cursed Treaty of Lausanne. For a society in such a condition, what was called “peace” often meant silence and submission, especially for Kurdish communities. For the occupying states, peace was frequently a means to silence, assimilate, and carry out cultural genocide against diverse identities and peoples.
In each part of Kurdistan, the state’s concept of stability and peace has meant the suppression of diversity, offering only assimilation into the ideological and political structure of the state. This patriarchal, occupying mindset has permeated the entire society. By maintaining economic and social underdevelopment, women in particular have been doubly subjected to occupation—once by the state, and once by male dominance.
The struggle to achieve identity, existence, and freedom in the past has often relied on frameworks formed at the negotiating table. For this reason, there is a widespread understanding that what Kurds gained through armed struggle was often lost in negotiations. Within the history of armed resistance, the political and military fields have frequently been separated—an approach often referred to in southern and eastern Kurdistan as the “mountain phase” and “city phase” of the struggle. From this perspective, peace negotiations have generally taken on a masculine character. These habits and conceptual frameworks must be critically examined and transcended—an issue I will return to in the discussion of the Kurdistan Freedom Movement’s model of thought, mentality and organisation.
Women’s entire lives are sacrificed in the hell of blood atonement
Clearly, the pursuit of peace and democratic coexistence is one of the simplest and most fundamental needs of both human beings and society. Even in the presence of disagreement and conflict, the goal should be to advance a better model—one that is not rooted in denial or destruction. The need for peace has always been embedded within the fabric of natural society and has even been reflected in the role of women during tribal conflicts. In many internal disputes and wars, when women cast down their white headscarves, it signalled an end to the fighting. However, in other situations, women were seen merely as instruments to halt bloodshed; in the name of reconciliation, they were handed over instead of blood, and their entire lives were sacrificed in the hell of blood atonement.
Steps towards the thought and model of a democratic society
The emergence of the Kurdistan Freedom Movement 52 years ago, as a response to a history marked by occupation, erasure of identity, and a war for survival—particularly the historical subjugation of women—represented a profoundly revolutionary stance. Under those conditions, the founding of a revolutionary party was the only viable path. Launching an armed struggle in the face of denial and systemic genocidal occupation was not a choice but a necessity for the Kurdish people, especially given that the occupation of the largest part of Kurdistan had repercussions across the whole of Kurdistan.
What Öcalan described as the “birth” of society was the emergence of a movement that would reshape the course of history—intellectually, ideologically, and philosophically—bringing about a revival across all areas of life. From a condition of self-awakening towards self-organisation, it aimed to reject occupation in all its forms—occupation of land, of the body, and of existence—and to redefine the self. Crucially, this redefinition linked the liberation of land and the liberation of women as inseparable. At the heart of this philosophy lies the principle that women’s liberation is the foundation for all other freedoms, and therefore a prerequisite for the liberation of society as a whole. To this end, the autonomous organisation of women is seen as a vital force for transformation in spaces where occupation and patriarchy are continually reproduced.
Achieving this requires a struggle by women against the mentality of occupation and patriarchy, linking together the national, class, and gender struggles. Without the success of this struggle and without advancing towards a democratic society and mindset—towards democratic men and women—any discourse on peace risks falling into the same hollow promises made to women in the wake of past socialist revolutions and national liberation movements. Through legal channels, partial reforms, and individual gains, efforts have often been made to paper over the real meaning of peace. But neither the Kurdish question nor the deep-rooted social issues—issues that most profoundly affect women—can be resolved through such partial reforms.
Undoubtedly, 52 years of uninterrupted struggle have given rise to a revival of society and of women—a revolution in the social, intellectual, and democratic sense. As such, the struggle has naturally renewed its tools and turned towards deepening democratic politics, embracing peace, and progressing towards a democratic model of society. Within a society and movement that has elevated its philosophy of life and thought to the level of a paradigm—the paradigm of democratic modernity, based on direct democracy, ecology, and women’s freedom—peace is now articulated from a position of strength. Yet this is by no means an easy phase.
‘The process of peace and democratic society’ is not a process that leaves us waiting
In a world rife with violence and the ongoing development of ever more destructive weapons, one may ask: how can Abdullah Öcalan continue to speak of peace? Many direct this question towards the Kurdistan Freedom Movement and Kurdish women, asking where this process is heading. Yet the call for a “peace and democratic society” is not a process that leaves us waiting for something to be delivered ready-made. Rather, it is a process that will be actively shaped and realised by the Kurdistan Freedom Movement and all its structures, the Kurdish Women’s Freedom Movement and its organs, Kurdish society as a whole, and the friends of the Kurdish people—indeed, all those who believe in democratic modernity. This message and the current phase itself reveal the helplessness of the state in the face of Öcalan’s 26-year-long isolation and imprisonment. Breaking this isolation is the product of an unparalleled resistance, not only by the Kurdish people and the movement but also by Öcalan himself and by those in solidarity with the Kurdish cause.
Öcalan is the creator of a new political culture and a new culture of struggle
To understand this message, one must understand the movement itself—the reasons for the emergence of armed struggle at various stages, the movement’s organisational model, its ideology and thought, and its ability to adapt to the necessities of changing times. Those familiar with the path of struggle within the Freedom Movement—particularly with how it defines the problem, approaches solutions, confronts the occupying states of Kurdistan, and positions itself within global conditions—will not find this process difficult to grasp.
Every martyrdom has caused us great pain, but…
As the architect of a new political culture and a new mode of struggle, Öcalan has consistently created opportunities out of impossibility, opening up new horizons and charting fresh paths for the Kurdish people, for other peoples in the region, and even globally. In both war and peace, and in the broader struggle for a democratic society, two principles have always been essential for Öcalan. First, bloodshed must never reach a point that renders peace impossible, because those engaged in conflict ultimately live side by side and must one day speak together about peace. Second, major losses must be prevented, because the struggle of more than forty years has exacted an immense and precious cost in the name of freedom. The true art of leadership lies in transforming every martyrdom—each one deeply painful—into a greater force for resistance, in turning that loss into a philosophy of new life, taking up the legacy of the fallen, and working to realise their vision of a free life and a democratic society.
Despite all internal and external assaults on the movement, Öcalan developed a resilient and enduring culture of resistance. He guided the movement in preserving its spiritual, organisational, and structural unity, while at the same time embedding it within the struggles of ideas, gender, and class—struggles that continue to drive it forward. If the expression fits, “the ghost is out of the bottle and will not return.” He forged an organisational structure capable of growth and evolution. Yet, this great body required a historic transformation—one that would liberate it from the grip of war, from party centralism, and from the statist, power-centred model of Soviet-era socialism. The goal was to create a structure directed not at the state, but at society; not at domination, but at democracy; where the party functions as a driving tool for progress, not as an instrument for controlling the people. This model of thought and practice focuses on self-defence and self-governance, and in order to achieve this, it required a full paradigm shift. These efforts began in the mid-1990s. From that period onwards, Öcalan made several attempts to shift from the battlefield to the field of democratic solutions, and to develop democratic politics. Yet the resolution of the Kurdish question—which is, by its nature, an international question—has continually been obstructed by both internal betrayal and external power politics.
This movement, which has evolved from the level of party and army to a confederal system—both general and specifically a women’s confederal system across all spheres—must now complete the phase it began at least twenty years ago. This phase was obstructed for the reasons previously mentioned, with war continuously imposed as the only option. Although the movement has never confined itself solely to armed struggle, embracing it only as a necessary means of self-defence, war nonetheless creates an atmosphere that affects every aspect of life and limits the potential of other avenues that could better serve society. Öcalan has clearly stated in his messages that the gains achieved through armed struggle have reached a point where they must now be transferred to the realm of democratic thought and politics—where the spirit of peace truly resides.
‘What can I do for peace and the advancement of a democratic society?’
Many people hold views on this process, but engaging with the movement also requires each of us to ask: what is my responsibility? If one offers critique or analysis, it must also come with a reflection on the role one can play in advancing the process. Otherwise, our conversations fall short of the ethical standards that such discussions demand. As part of the movement’s philosophy of life and struggle, Öcalan has often emphasised: “If there is a problem, first ask yourself, then your surroundings, and then your enemy.” This is a guiding principle for how we should approach peace and democratic transformation: by asking, what can I do for peace and the advancement of a democratic society?
Some people, whether deliberately or not, focus solely on disintegration or armed conflict, disregarding all attempts to transition from one field of struggle to another—particularly from forms shaped by the Cold War and real socialism to new models of resistance and political engagement.
Another reason behind Öcalan’s call for a democratic society lies in his long-standing attempt—dating back to 1993—to open the path to democratic politics, enabling all layers of society to participate meaningfully in political life. Despite several unilateral ceasefires declared in 1993, 1998, 2005, 2009, and 2013, these efforts were repeatedly met with political genocide operations and military aggression. From 2011 onwards, the movement began transforming its form and strategy—shifting from a defensive warfare stance to a democratic model grounded in the paradigm of democratic modernity, expanding its work through the creation of people’s councils, communes, academies, and cooperatives.
Yet every attempt to open democratic political space has encountered systematic obstruction. International and regional powers have often responded by branding the movement as “terrorist”, leading to arrests, the shutdown and seizure of municipalities, and—outside of Turkey—assaults, political attacks, and military pacts. As a result, the movement has had to develop a culture, mentality, and tools of self-defence that go beyond armed resistance.
The call for “Peace and Democratic Society” directly challenges and nullifies the false pretexts used to label the Kurdistan Freedom Movement as terrorist. This process offers both peoples and women the opportunity to build and develop their own democratic confederal system—organised from the bottom up, content-filled, and participatory across all fields. It also allows for the critical reflection and correction of shortcomings experienced over the last twenty years, and for renewed efforts to put the paradigm of democratic modernity into practice. This is the path towards a democratic society and a free life.
Crucially, it requires transcending the mentality that always expects solutions from the state, rather than seeing the people themselves as responsible for creating their own democratic models. It also demands confronting the mindset that fails to link occupation—of both land and society—to patriarchy, and which does not recognise that women’s freedom depends on transforming patriarchal mentalities.
The presence of the PKK in the mountains of Kurdistan has achieved its goal of preventing occupation
Öcalan’s message exerts pressure on both the movement and the Turkish state to move beyond the current state of balance, which has become both dangerous and repetitive for the Kurdish people and the movement. It also pushes the democratic struggle to extend its reach further.
The Kurdistan Freedom Movement still has significant steps to take in establishing a democratic society, but the internal conditions of the Kurdish people, along with regional and global circumstances, offer an opportunity during the system’s restructuring phase. This phase allows for both the recognition and avoidance of dangers, as well as the transformation of opportunities into forces for political and democratic struggle.
The PKK’s armed presence in the mountains of Kurdistan has achieved its objective of breaking the mentality of denial and dissolution. It has evolved into a struggle for self-defence, using different tools, mindsets, and organisational structures. Organising society around the principle of self-defence requires further steps. The movement has already laid the foundations for that understanding, culture, and practice within the community.
Today, the Kurdistan Women’s Freedom Movement is viewed as a serious and mature force on the global stage
Öcalan has frequently discussed the traps and games played against the peoples of the Middle East, as well as the intensification of conflicts—issues that have always been central to the agenda of the occupying state and global colonialist forces. These forces have used their wealth to exploit the multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian, and diverse potential of the region, turning different groups against one another. The “Peace and Democratic Society” process aims to end this situation, which has persisted for decades, with the best example of its success seen in Rojava. It sends a warning: if peoples do not develop democratic solutions based on peace and coexistence, they risk facing fifty Gazas.
Over the course of more than 52 years, the games, conspiracies, policies, and mentality of the Turkish state have been exposed. From its NATO membership and role as the enforcer of the international system’s interests, Turkey has used every available opportunity to undermine the Kurdistan Freedom Movement but has ultimately failed to destroy it. They admit to having spent several trillion dollars on the war, yet with no results. Instead, today, the Kurdistan Women’s Freedom Movement is seen as a serious and mature force globally, inspiring revolutionary, social and alternative movements.
In most liberation movements around the world, social issues have been sacrificed for the political process
The Kurdish women’s struggle, which forms the core of the movement, has been fighting against occupation and patriarchy for many years, developing its own understanding, model, ideology, and science. Based on the premise that the only solution for the Middle East is democratic confederalism and that solving the women’s issue is the issue of the century, it presents a new manifesto of struggle and a criterion for being socialist. What is clear is that the role of women in peace and democratic society is central. While in most liberation movements worldwide, social issues have been sacrificed for the political process, the Kurdistan Freedom Movement has not repeated this mistake. Instead, it has developed its system across all fields of struggle, recognising both the risks and opportunities, and accordingly evolving its activities, education system, and organisation.
Öcalan criticises the concentration of power in one place, seeing it as a danger to the democratic process. However, it is also important to understand what is needed to criticise, overcome, and eliminate this danger. This process is broader than the movement itself, and it is essential to consider with what mentality criticisms are made and how shortcomings are addressed. Direct, radical, and deep participation in this process opens up opportunities for a democratic system and coexistence. In the current situation, it is not about dreaming of freedom, but about actively practising it.
In the Middle East, despite intense wars and conflicts, society has developed its own systems of protection, which have created more space for democratic confederalism.
It is crucial to focus discussions on: what kind of peace do we want? Who benefits from peace? Who loses from peace? It is true that war itself carries a masculine and violent character, and it is difficult to achieve freedom, democracy, and equality in the context of war. However, society cannot exist without protection. But even more importantly, in the peace phase, how will the methods and tools for safeguarding the achievements of the armed struggle phase function? How can women develop their social model without becoming victims of the political power balance? What does it mean for a peace process to be led by women? How can ideological and gender struggles be developed? These are vital issues that should be central topics in the next phase. The experiences of women’s movements in post-conflict situations in places like Northern Ireland, the Basque Country, Catalonia, Africa, India, Colombia, Sri Lanka, and many other regions—against occupation—and the role of women in these social struggles offer valuable lessons about where we should avoid repeating mistakes and where their experiences can be beneficial to us. Most importantly, we must learn from our own experiences.
