“Thought without time and place is a metaphysical method.”
In the manifesto, the question “under what conditions is self-defense necessary?” is expressed clearly. It says: “If existence is denied, if there is no freedom of thought and organization, rebellion emerges and self-defense is carried out.” Apart from those conditions, if there is no problem of existence, and if there is freedom of thought and organization, and if there is a democratic structure that contains these, then the rest is to reveal the power of thought, to organize, to guide society, to become effective in society through the power of thought, and to achieve political influence. But if you say, “No, I do not want thought; I want to establish influence through war,” that will not work.
Some leftist circles have an understanding that the more violence you use, the more revolutionary you are. They criticized our decision to abandon and end the strategy of armed struggle in that way as well, treating it as abandoning revolutionary commitment. This has absolutely nothing to do with it. No method of struggle is, by itself, either revolutionary or reformist; it depends on whether it is used in the right place and at the right time. If a method of struggle is used in the right place and leads to revolutionary development, then it is a revolutionary method. It may be war or peace, politics, law, propaganda, art, or anything else. But if a form of struggle does not lead to the right development in the right place and at the right time, one cannot say, “Look, we are using violence, we are being revolutionary.” That does not make it revolutionary, and it does not play such a role.
Whether a method of struggle is revolutionary or not is not measured by the degree of violence it contains. It is measured by its ideological role. Today, understandings and lines that do not have much ideological difference from the system, that share the same main ideological tendencies with it, bring violence onto the agenda when they cannot wage an ideological struggle in order to present themselves as revolutionary. The more violence you use, the more revolutionary you are! Yet all powers do the same thing to one another, because the statist/power-oriented logic is like that; that is the line and mentality. This too is wrong. It makes no ideological change, but because it uses violence, it considers itself revolutionary.
When understanding self-defense, and when understanding violence, let us understand them in this way, so that there is no wrong understanding of violence. It must be the defense of society. We said there can be no existence without defense. If the Kurdish question is to be resolved, if Kurdish society is to have rights, if it is to have a free life, then it must also have its defense. But how will that be? We cannot say anything definite from now about how it will take shape. War may come onto the agenda again on the basis of self-defense; we cannot say that there will be an immediate solution. However, if legal and constitutional solutions emerge, if a system that provides for the freedom of the Kurds is established, then they will also have their self-governments; those self-governments will have defense forces, public security, police, and similar institutions. Self-defense can be resolved in this way.
If democratization has taken place, if freedom of thought and organization has been achieved, if partial freedom has been secured, if the rights of the Kurds have been granted, and if a democratic system has emerged, then such a system must certainly have a solution for self-defense, because it cannot be without self-defense. Then there will be no need for such clandestine organizations. Because it will not be clandestine; it will be a legal organization. It may have legality directly in relation to the state, and also within democratic self-government. The Leadership says: “Let municipalities and governorships be united and come through elections.” For example, in many countries the systems are like that. Let us call this local administration. If it is so, then, for instance, all the police force in that province, even the gendarmerie force, would be under the administration of the local authority, and at the same time they would be the defense forces of that region. This depends on how the solution develops. What is important here is that there can be no solution without self-defense, and that there can be no existence or freedom without self-defense.
When thinking about this, one should not say that there is only the guerrilla and that everything must resemble it, or that if there is no guerrilla or regular army, there can be no defense at all. Rojava has a public security force of thirty thousand people. It took part in and played a role in all planned operations and actions against ISIS; at the same time, it is also a force of action.
Place and time are important. The Leadership said: “We too think dialectically.” There are also those who oppose dialectics, but provided that we do not absolutize everything, we will take place and time as our basis. Nothing exists outside time and place. A thought cannot be valid in the same way at all times and in all places. It may be valid in one place and not in another. It may be valid in this place and at this time, and suitable to these conditions, but tomorrow the conditions may change and it may become invalid; then it must be changed. Thought without time and place is a metaphysical method. It is absolutely necessary to stay away from it.
If we do not do this, we cannot find a solution to any problem. With a narrow, flat, one-sided style of thinking, we cannot find a solution to any problem. We say at the beginning what should be said at the end; while trying to solve the problem, we turn the solutions themselves into problems. Therefore, yes, the thought of solution is thought with time and place. We also need to approach self-defense in this way. The Leadership has defined it and also put it forward as a basic tactic. We say that our democratic political struggle is based on our basic strategy, on self-defense, and on holistic/integrated law. We can express it in this way as well.
Our aim is to conduct legal democratic politics on the basis of democratization. If the possibilities for this emerge, and if the necessary legal infrastructure is created, then we will take legal organization and struggle as our basis. In that case, we will not say, “We will organize illegally.”
The following can be said: Revolutionism is not measured by being legal or illegal. There is no rule that says: if you are illegal, you are revolutionary; if you are legal, you are not revolutionary. If you become illegal in a place where you should be legal, you bury yourself in the ground like an ostrich. But if you become legal in a place where illegality is required, you will be hunted like a bird, and you will have no possibility whatsoever of protecting or defending yourself. In this respect, there should be no misunderstanding on this issue either.
One should not say that illegality means revolutionism, and legality means reformism or moving away from revolutionism, and therefore, in order to be revolutionary, we must necessarily have illegality. Illegality and legality come onto the agenda according to the existing political conditions. In an environment where democratic politics functions, of course you organize legally, conduct your work, work, and struggle. But if democratic politics does not function, if there are harsh pressures on the freedom of organization and expression, if these are obstructed, then in order to exist, to live, and to struggle, you may also establish semi-legal or illegal organizations.
If there is denial, if there is a total obstacle before freedom of expression and organization, then you work completely illegally, you carry out self-defense, you wage war, and you resist. This means that all of these are dependent on political conditions.
Where is the thing we aim for with Leader Apo’s call and the manifesto heading? We want to become a legal, lawful movement. We want to legalize the values that emerged through fifty years of struggle carried out on an illegal basis. We want to change Turkey’s democracy accordingly. We want to institutionalize Kurdish existence and administration on the basis of these values so that they become permanent. Then it will grow more, become lasting, and be lived. If we cannot do this, all the accumulations produced by the great struggle we have waged by paying such a heavy price will be wasted and lost.
In order to make them permanent, it is necessary to find ways of living together, in some form, with nation-state systems, and ways of becoming legal. Political struggle is such a hard struggle. In this respect, it is necessary to understand well the meaning of change and transformation. Our goal is to become legal, to become lawful. All values will become permanent; otherwise they will erase us too from the face of the earth and destroy us.
Our main direction is toward developing the organizations and struggles that will conduct democratic politics. We will develop the organization of legal democratic politics; that is where we are lacking, and that is where we need to become strong. Our direction is toward there. We want to organize in that way. The state will not give this to us; we will organize ourselves.