A Shining Star in the Midst of War: Kurdish Democratic Confederalism

An issue on the idea of the “No-State Solution” could hardly exist without a contribution on Kurdish democratic confederalism. Havin Guneser races the Kurdish Freedom Movement’s shift from state-seeking nationalism to this political horizon of democratic confederalism. Drawing on Abdullah Öcalan’s critiques of patriarchy, capitalism, and the nation-State, it proposes decentralized, feminist, ecological, and communal self-governance.

The Kurdistan Freedom Movement has been known as a national liberation movement for a long time. In recent years, it has surprised many by completely rejecting the idea of a Kurdish State and condemning nation-State solutions altogether. Instead, it proposes “democratic confederalism” as a non-State model for Kurdistan, the Middle East, and indeed the whole world. The starting point was a rather unusual situation: to be colonized by four different nation-States. Kurds are autochthonous in the region, and being located close to the center of a multitude of empires throughout the millennia, Kurdistan was colonized again and again in different manners and by different forces—starting from the Sumerian city States around 5,000 years ago up to the Arabic-Islamic expansion in the 7th century, the Mongols, the Iranian Safavid empire, and the Ottoman Empire.

In the aftermath of World War I, the already existing Kurdish partition was further deepened, exacerbating the atmosphere of violence. Britain and France redrew the boundaries in the Middle East, and Kurdistan came to be ruled under the Turkish republic, the Iranian throne, the Iraqi monarchy, and the French colonial regime in Syria. Under the impression of losing a large part of its former territories, Turkey moved to a strict policy of assimilation in order to enforce the unity of the remaining parts of the former empire, interpreting the building of a nation-State in the worst possible manner. It proceeded to exterminate the existence of cultures other than Turkish, and went as far as banning the use of Kurdish language. Kurd and Kurdistan were non-words, non-existent as a people and a country, and not allowed to exist according to the official ideology. The use of these words equaled an act of terrorism and was punished accordingly.

Iran and the so-called Arab republics Iraq and Syria—two nation-States created by colonial forces in the 20th century—proceeded in a very similar way. Kurds were denied any form of self-determination, of their identity and cultural practices, and their emancipation efforts bloodily suppressed by Britain, France, as well as the Soviet Union with the help of their Arab and Persian proxies. The old-school Left at large, shaped by the Cold War perspective of a world divided between real-socialist and capitalist States, regarded any demand by the Kurds as either nationalist (and therefore not socialist) or as articulated by pawns in the hands of the imperialist powers who wanted to colonize the Middle East.

A complicated situation indeed. How was a people to overcome both regional and international power strongholds and not lose hope? In the 1970s, the answer appeared to be to wage an anti-colonial struggle to achieve self-determination in the form of a Kurdish State.

Rethinking the Struggle against Colonialism ///
Abdullah Öcalan and the recently disbanded Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) have been a constant in the lives and freedom struggle of the Kurdish people for the last 52 years. During this time, their adversaries tried everything to suppress the movement: from special warfare to military campaigns and torture, from violence against the society and more specifically women, to widespread disappearances along with ecological destruction as a means of war strategy.

Tens of thousands of Kurdish people have lost their lives, and millions of others experienced tremendous amounts of pain and suffering. What is important is not only what we have experienced, but how we analyze this experience in order to unite theory and practice.

In 1978, Öcalan and his friends founded the PKK as a Marxist-Leninist organization with an aim to establish a united, independent Kurdistan and ultimately achieve socialism. Although the movement’s departure point was the colonial situation of Kurdistan, from the onset it became crucial to engage with class struggle and later even more so with women’s freedom. Over the years, the PKK underwent several transformations and finally disbanded itself in May 2025. As its main strategist, Öcalan was often the driving force that never stopped asking questions and suggesting ever-evolving solutions. I would like to give some examples of questions that the movement discussed until the end of the 1990s, which were taken up again in Öcalan’s numerous prison writings since 1999—the year of his abduction, imprisonment, and death sentence—resulting in a complete rethinking of Statehood, among other things.

1. The specific colonial situation outlined above created huge difficulties for PKK to organize; especially because the Kurdish people had already reached a point of self-assimilation. With which methods did the system of capitalist nation-States achieve its cultural hegemony? How did it colonize the minds of people?
2. Due to Kurdistan being an international colony, discussions on what independence and dependence actually meant were on the table early on. All regional and world powers wanted to control Kurdish movements and use them against one another to further their own policies. Thus, what did the policies of the Soviet Union and other nominally socialist States actually mean for the peoples? How should the right to self-determination be interpreted? Is Statehood the only form of liberation? Why repeat what so many have struggled for in the world, and demand a separate State?
3. During the 50 years of struggle, Öcalan and the PKK were not only able to evaluate the practices of State socialism, feminism, national liberation, and other movements; they also constantly evaluated their own praxis and tried to understand what was wrong.
4. In the 1990s, Öcalan tried a set of reforms within the PKK to overcome the real-socialist influences in order to break power-centered, bureaucratic, and centralist approaches. In the face of the collapse of real socialism, he famously claimed that to insist on socialism is to insist on humanity. And from 1993, he tried to find a political solution to the Kurdish question with Turkey. The European States completely ignored Öcalan’s attempt to resolve the Kurdish question when he came to Europe in 1998. This attempt ended in the tragedy of his abduction from Kenya as the result of a NATO operation.

Why did the entire system of States reject any possibility of a political solution for Kurdistan? All these questions, the answers and practices (including their own) to which were often unclear or insufficient, signaled to Öcalan that something was profoundly wrong in the approach of revolutionary movements. He did not see the problem in the sincerity of the revolutionaries, but looked for problems in their analyses, strategies and tactics, including his own. Going back very far in history, he was especially interested in the seminal moments of the system (the class and city-based civilization) in the longue durée: the establishment of patriarchy against a women-centered society, the founding of the first States and empires, and the emergence of capitalist modernity.

Some of his conclusions were:

1. Ideological weapons, more than physical weapons, play an effective role. Since the present understanding of science is based on written records only, women’s and people’s history are either not well documented or buried. Thus, the system established its monopoly by controlling what and how we know. The contributions of peoples and women do not exist, as far as historical science goes. The specific methodological problem here is mainly the empirical and quantitative method.
2. The knowledge structures of mythology, religion, philosophy, and positive science are tightly intertwined with the history of capital and power accumulation. A new epistemology and new knowledge structures are necessary.
3. The positivist and functionalist theory of society, especially the approach of a linear development of society from primitive communist over slave-owning to feudalism, then capitalist and eventually socialist, must be severely criticized. In connection with this, Öcalan broke away from equating society with a particular class and thus from equating the society with that of a State/rulers.
4. In analyzing the practices of alternative movements, he came to the conclusion that a free life can not be established by using the State, which is the same tool used to enslave women, nature and ultimately the whole society. Therefore, power and State structures must be replaced by another form of governance without power and State structures, one that is rooted in the local people’s assemblies and councils.
5. Capitalism is neither unique nor a complete novelty, but a continuation of the 5,000 year old patriarchal society; something that was latent throughout history, albeit kept in check, and only had the chance to become the dominant system in the last 400 years.

In understanding that no nation-State offered a positive solution, a profound study of the history of the Middle East made Öcalan radically rethink the character of (State) civilization. He argued that the earliest State was developed by the Sumerians of Lower Mesopotamia as a conglomerate of several intertwined power relations: the rule of one class over the other, cities over villages, and the State as a monopoly of military, economical and political power. Öcalan also identified patriarchy as the very basis of all power relations, arguing that the “strong man” emerged to subvert a women-led, non-hierarchical social order as early as during the Neolithic period.

The State against the Commune ///
However, another civilization outside and against State civilization exists: democratic civilization. Öcalan argues that history is not shaped solely by class struggles, but primarily by the contradiction between the State and the commune, representing democratic civilization. The commune in its various forms predates and frames the emergence of classes. For this reason, there is a significant effort by Öcalan and the Kurdish Freedom Movement to decipher its ideological structures over 5,000 years, with recent archaeological findings tracing them back even 12,000 years. Communal structures like families, tribes, and village communities are older than the State and can be the basis for new, confederalist structures. These are seen as the stem cells of society. So we cannot view history in terms of inhumane and outdated structures, warfare or the sum of power and States alone; we should instead focus on these structures and understand in response to what they were formed. The family, tribal and aşiret systems, confederations, city democracies, monasteries, dervish lodges, communes, egalitarian parties, civil societies, denominations, religious and philosophical communities that have not been absorbed by the State—they can all be the basis of democratic civilization. Therefore, in Rojava and elsewhere in Kurdistan, there is an effort to detach these structures from the corruption and co-optation that they have suffered in the hands of patriarchal-statist civilization. Democratic confederalism is then the alternative political structure to States as power monopolies in general.

Öcalan outlines his constructive ideas in antithetical terms: State civilization—democratic civilization, capitalist modernity–democratic modernity, capitalist society—moral and political society, nation-State—democratic confederalism. The first term in each pair is the existing reality that appears to be without alternative. The second term, however, is this alternative that either exists already and has to be understood as such or needs to be built. I will try to briefly describe the following concepts that I feel are crucial for understanding the idea of democratic confederalism.

Democratic civilization:
For the lives and struggles of those outside or oppressed within the world-system, excluded from its benefits, or in opposition to it, he coined the term “democratic civilization.”

By basing his model on what he calls “a moral and political society,” Öcalan draws a relationship between freedom and morals, as well as freedom and politics. In order to develop structures that expand our understanding of freedom, morals are defined as the collective conscience of the society and politics is defined to be its common wisdom. The moral and political society is thus the natural State of society, uncorrupted by institutionalized hierarchies and power structures as States.

Therefore, Öcalan bases his concept of democratic civilization on:

1. Women’s freedom. Democratic civilization must be feminist in character, he says. With reference to Maria Mies he calls women the first oppressed class, nation, and colony. Öcalan considers a major flaw of various socialist States and currents their definition of labor as they do not analyze the unpaid labor of women and people as well as the total exploitation of nature. Since this is the only way capital can be accumulated, and since nobody shall willingly give their labor for free, structural and direct violence come into play. This is what characterizes all colonial relations. The male monopoly that has historically dominated women’s lives is akin to the capitalist monopolies exerted over society. More crucially, it is the most ancient and enduring form of dominance. Thus, the relationship between woman and man, too, is essentially colonial. This is why Öcalan calls women the oldest colonized people who have never become a nation. This fact has been disguised by declaring it to be a private sphere—an area of exploitation well-protected through the use of emotions and love games. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to expose this and to redefine this relationship. Non-State and non-hierarchical solutions cannot be achieved while each and every individual is regenerating patriarchal relations in their seemingly harmless ways of life.
2. Ecological industry. Democratic civilization must be ecological because it puts the basic needs of local populations above and against the “three apocalyptic horsemen” of capitalism, industrialism, and nation-State. This follows on from a similar logic and perhaps is an area that is most difficult to overcome due to object-subject dichotomy and the way we live.
3. Self-defense. The use of force has been monopolized by the State and power structures in order to leave the moral and political society defenseless. Any attempt for the society to defend itself faces accusations of terrorism and criminalization. On the other hand, almost all freedom struggles have fallen into the pitfall of interpreting the use of force the way States do. Instead, democratic civilization must develop its own understanding of self-defense as accountable to grassroots structures and refuse its professionalization.
4. Communal economy. Democratic civilization’s economy must be communal. Women’s economy and subsistence structures have been seized by States and capitalists, which all individuals are made dependent on to meet their basic needs. Reconnecting and grounding individuals in satisfying their own needs within the community and in a communal manner can empower the individual and the society to restrict the repetitions of capitalist mechanisms.
   Moral and political society:
   The concept of “moral and political society” draws attention to individuals and groups becoming subjects and self-governance. Morals can be viewed as the institutionalization of freedom, politics, and democracy by creating the collective’s own rules and living by them. Politics constitutes the ability to make decisions in a society that governs itself. Society has been stripped of this ability. Morals are replaced by laws, and politics (in the sense described here) is replaced by State administration.

What is being taught here is really the history of how the moral and political society has been left dysfunctional and even eliminated to a certain degree. How else would it have been possible to accept the murderous actions of the capitalist modernity system against women, peoples, and nature. The reason why it was possible to divide the society into classes and even allow capitalism to become a world-system is due harsh and violent State suppression of the commune. Thus, this history is the accumulation and total monopolization of capital and power, manifesting in the nation-State.

In order to achieve a total dependence on the State, the capitalist system, together with the nation-State and industrialism, has invaded all areas of moral and political society. Totally crippling not only its function but also eliminating all diversities. Öcalan calls this “societycide.”

Driven by the maximization of profit, the world system intensifies exploitation, particularly targeting women, while simultaneously increasing attacks on what is left of the moral and political society. On the other hand, through industrialism, it has brought nature—the source of life and the very foundation upon which we all stand—to the brink of destruction. Therefore, the struggle for women’s freedom, ecology, and democratic communality has gained greater urgency and importance than ever before. This struggle is indispensable for humanity’s existence and its future.

Democratic confederalism:
The Kurdish Freedom Movement defines democratic civilization as the existence and development of social nature on the basis of moral and political society. And, democratic confederalism describes the political form of democratic civilization. Democratic and autonomous peoples’ organisations come together to form democratic confederalism, where power and decision-making rests at the local level, and mandated, recallable delegates are elected to regional levels for coordination. Democratic civilization is based on democratic confederalism as the political alternative to nation-State and rests on these three pillars:

1. Democratic nationhood (not defined by territory or a single ethnicity, but rather, by the active participation of all groups)
2. Democratic Politics (direct democracy practiced in assemblies on several levels)
3. Self-defense (organized by communities, not the State)

Democratic confederations are not limited to organizing themselves within a single particular territory. They will become cross-border confederations when the societies concerned so desire.

Here, each and every community, ethnicity, culture, religious community, intellectual movement, or economic unit can autonomously configure themselves as a political unit and express themselves. The most fundamental element of the local is its ability to have free discussion and its right to make decisions.

Democratic confederalism is open to different and multi-layered political formations—from local neighborhood committees to collective/cooperatives of associations or communes. Both horizontal and vertical political formations are needed due to the complex structure of the present day society. Democratic Confederalism keeps central, local, and regional political formations together in an equilibrium.

Against capitalist modernity’s dimensions, democratic modernity (the current and future expression of democratic civilization) responds with political and moral society, democratic confederalism, and ecological economy. The political model for democratic modernity is democratic confederalism. That is democratic confederalism is a political framework that emphasizes decentralized governance, where local communities have significant autonomy while remaining connected through confederal structures.

Democratic Confederalism is the Future of the Middle East///
These ideas, discussed in the Kurdish Freedom Movement for many years, have not remained utopian. They found their way into political reality in the middle of the war in Syria. From 2011 onwards, autonomous administrations have been formed in the North and East of Syria, where communes have done their best to build democratic confederalism. The achievements have been astounding on every level. Before the onslaught of the Islamic State—it is telling that this organization incorporated the idea of a State in its own name—no part of Syria had been less ravaged by fighting. The Islamic State in theory was against Western values and creations, however in practice, and by enforcing the most singular way of life, belief, governance as well as with its attitude to women, it showed that it is the most extreme form of capitalist modernity in Islamic disguise. In 2014, the multi-ethnic and multi-religious self-defense forces were the first to defeat the Islamic State that had crushed the armies of two States before. Politically, the women-led revolution in North-East Syria (often called Rojava) is a promising democratic example in a region usually ruled dictatorially by patriarchal dynasties.

Democratic confederalism offers a solution to combat the many ongoing wars, conflicts and tensions in the Middle East that stem from historical and social injustices, largely caused by capitalist modernity and nation-States. Democratic solutions that do not predicate themselves on nation-State principles and implementations must be put on the agenda. The solution for colonized—and all other—peoples does not lie in States but in democratic confederalist structures. Insistence on nation-statist approaches inevitably means a continuation of wars and genocides. Democratic confederalism is a rising star against a system that is collapsing. ■