This question probably occupies the minds of many who are interested in general political affairs, not just the supporters and adherents of this political system, not to mention its leaders as well as other international and regional powers—especially Turkey, particularly with what is called the “Turkey without terrorism” operation, according to its characterization, or the peace process according to the system’s characterization. At the start of the process, the system announced the possibility of dissolving the party, and not just ending military operations and disbanding its forces of Guerrilla and supporters; thus, the issue of ending the party is raised even by the system itself!
However, our question is specifically focused on the endings and outcomes of this process: Will it be a dissolution planned and managed by the system itself? In a more precise sense, will the dissolution of the party be announced, leaving the parties that were previously formed by the system itself in each Kurdish region to serve as the “offspring” or substitutes for the PKK, so that the struggle continues under the philosophy of the leader of the Apoist movement, similar to the case of the Barzani-line parties or what are known as the Democratic (Party, for short) parties in each part? Or will we witness a kind of political division, not only at the geographical level of each region, but a divergence in political vision, as happened within the Kurdistan Democratic Party during the setback of the Kurdish revolution following the 1975 Algiers Agreement, which led to the departure of the Political Bureau bloc led by the late Ibrahim Ahmad and Jalal Talabani, and the formation of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan?
Of course, the question arises after we have begun to observe some conflicting positions from within the system itself, even if they remain muted and are not circulated in the media. However, I believe anyone close to this system has come to realize the extent of differences in political positions regarding a number of issues, especially concerning Rojava and the ongoing process of “integration,” to the point where one of Öcalan’s recent envoys to Europe, during a party meeting, accused Abdi of “treason” and of becoming a “subordinate to the Barzanis,” as conveyed to me personally by one of their comrades. Furthermore, when the latter—meaning the General—raised the issue of forming a political party, it prompted us to ask: Is this a departure from under the “mantle and philosophy of Öcalan,” just as Talabani previously left the mantle and line of Barzani, especially since Abdi is proposing the formation and leadership of a party while the Öcalan-supporting Democratic Union Party already exists in Rojava Kurdistan?
Perhaps many will not like what I have presented in this article of mine and will find in it a kind of call for political and party division at a stage when we are all in dire need of unity of ranks, position, and voice, and do not need new parties—as brothers in the Yekiti party are unfortunately currently attempting. However, it is foolish for leaders and politicians not to pay attention to the danger that follows the stage of setbacks in revolutions, which naturally produce many differing opinions and positions regarding past stages and the reasons that led to this setback, consequently leading each faction to rally behind its bloc’s figures, resulting in a kind of internal conflict that mostly produces more than one party and bloc competing against the other and laying the blame for the setback on it to lighten its own political burdens… In any case, it is our right to ask, and it is the right of the system and its supporters to reveal the truth.
Note: This text is translated from the original Arabic version… Read the Arabic version:Click here
