KurdishMedia, UK
July 12 2006
The Kurds in the Era of Globalization
7/12/2006 KurdishMedia.com – By Dr Showan Khurshid
Dr Showan Khurshid
A Factor of Globalization
The traditional leftists, usually inspired by Marxism or neo-Marxism,
depict globalization disapprovingly as such that happens because of
the convergence of market places driven by forces of capitalism. The
evolutionary political theory (EPT) also predicts globalization or
rather integration, although it differs in regard to the driving
force of globalization. Of course, the emergence of multinational
business conglomerates is undeniable. However, EPT assumes that the
precondition of globalization is the transition to liberal democracy,
which brings down the barriers between nations and decentralizes
power.
EPT, therefore, predicts that the greater the abandonment of
ideological barrier and the greater the commitment to liberal
principles are, the greater will be the degree of integration in
world political system. Accordingly, EPT suggests that a global
political system is inevitable, if liberal democracy survives and
prevails. Capitalism itself cannot explain why Iran and Saudi Arabia
– both undoubtedly mercilessly capitalistic when it comes to the
exploitation of workers particularly the guest workers – do not have
greater involvement in globalization.
China is joining the global market because at certain point in its
recent history the communist realized that its economy needs foreign
investment and private enterprise, and because it succeeded in
deemphasizing the communist ideology. Without these two necessary
steps foreign capital would not have entered China. The lack of these
two steps explains why North Korea is still outside globalization.
Venture capital can enter a country only when there is a priori
preparation and the first condition for such preparation to happen is
to overlook the ideological differences. Trade and economic prospect
can sometimes transcend the ideological barriers, but they are
neither the sufficient nor the necessary conditions for
globalization. Arab countries refuse to trade or integrate with
Israel not because they are not capitalists or do not anticipate
economic gains, but because of their ideological doctrines.
The argument outlining the liberal democratic pattern of integration
or globalization is fully laid out in my book (Knowledge Processing,
Creativity and Politics, KPCP). The aim of this brief introduction is
to lay out the global context for meaningful Kurdish strategy.
The Sign of Our Times
According to the evolutionary political theory (EPT), we have
inherited a world that has been shaped substantially by ideologies.
To this world, Liberal democracy (LD) was introduced and a new
pattern of evolution and development of politics and political
entities started to emerge with it. The transformation started with
Britain and gradually involved wider circles of countries. The
liberal democratic (LDic) transformation is not complete yet. The
incompletion is not only in relation to the fact that not all
countries have not joined in the process, but also that the full
extent of potential liberal democratic transformation, predicted by
this EPT, has not been materialized yet, even in the well advanced
LDs. However, considering that the complete transition has not
occurred, I will therefore use the term the West, sometimes
interchangeably – although I will still use liberal democratic
countries to distinguish them from the non-liberal democratic
countries.
EPT assumes that the current LDs are still replete with relics from
past ideological eras (see KPCP). Some of the old perceptions and
mentalities concerning politics and economics linger on within LDs.
However, undeniable, be it limited, changes have taken place and
among them are the partial integration of liberal democracies, the
partial dissolution of national borders, and gradual withering away
of the ideological relics – like the reduction of centralized
political power, according greater rights to minorities and women,
who traditionally were oppressed and treated as inferior, and the
disintegration of the formerly dominant ideological institutions,
namely, Christianity. So, perhaps, in the future, if liberal
democracy prevails, commentators looking back, might think that the
most distinguishing feature of our current era is the liberal
democratic transformation that will have extended horizontally to
involve greater number of countries and evolved qualitatively to
eliminate more of the relics of the ideological past (see KPCP).
One should also remember that even the foreign policies of LDs are
more humane and observant of some moral rules than they used to be.
For instance, at the turning of last century when universal
franchising was not enacted, when concentration of power was still
the norm, when state apparatuses could enjoy greater secrecy and when
the state could muzzle the media more easily, there were strong
dispositions for colonialism in almost all currently liberal
democratic countries. There are no colonies held currently by liberal
democratic countries. Only local nation states, driven by ideologies
of different types and to various degrees, are engaged in active
colonization. North, East and West Kurdistan are controlled by force
by Turkey, Iran and Syria respectively. The same thing cannot be said
of any country or region ruled by liberal democracies.
EPT also anticipates inherent antagonism in the attitudes of any
entity based on ideology against all other political entities,
regardless of whether they are based on the same or other ideologies,
or LD. The fact that entities based even on the same ideologies are
hostile against each other was or is borne out in the antagonism that
characterized the relationship between Chinese and former ruling
Soviet communists and Syrian and Iraqi Baathists. Intense hostility
has also been characterizing the relationships between the Shiite and
the Sunni Muslims along their entire histories.
The Challenges of Ideologies
Fortunately for the world, the last century witnessed the defeat of
fascism and the collapse of the major communist regimes. Few
centuries earlier, most religions, including Christianity and
Hinduism, were defeated one way or the other, coincidently with the
emergence of nation states. So only Islam remains as a major
ideology, which, owing to its nature as an ideology, expresses
intense hostility towards all other entities whether these are
liberal democratic or not.
In ‘Islam on the Couch’, I have discussed the reasons that Islam has
not been defeated, despite its reprehensible moral implications and
its inferior status epistemologically, economically, technologically
and militarily. One of the major reasons is the failure of
traditional liberal democracy to understand religions in general and
Islam particularly. One hundred years ago the political landscape of
the world was very different. The Islamic world was dilapidated and
backward, mainly because the centuries of traditional Islamic rule
left it bankrupt in every sense. Then a small contingent of British
army could transverse most Islamic lands. Then with less moral
sensibility, characteristic of systems that are ideological or have
recently started the liberal democratic transformation, Western
colonialists occupied most of the Islamic world. Despite that,
colonialist administrators oversaw the reshaping or even
establishment of governments, economies, administrations, armies,
education and healthcare of the Islamic world, in accordance with the
Western models of these institutions. Moreover, they incorporated the
economies of these countries into the Western one and consequently
some of these countries acquired immense wealth. With the improvement
of the economy, health care, education and modern administration the
capacity and population of the Islamic world grew unprecedentedly.
Moreover, owing to high moral concern of liberal democracies many
Islamic individuals and groups settled in the Western countries.
These developments enabled many Muslim countries and groups to be
dangerous not only to the non-Muslims but also to each others as
there is no measures in Islam that protect the weak individual or
group from the strong. Consequently, countries like Iraq, Iran and
Sudan could embark, at will, on campaign of annihilation against the
weaker minorities, like Kurds or Darfurians.
Unfortunately, though, freedom loving people of the world have not
yet appreciated the full menace of Islam. The West in fact is still
interested in a deluded policy based on unfounded assumption that it
can isolate terrorism from Islamic population. ‘Islam on the Couch’
makes it clear that the true and good Muslims are the likes of bin
Laden and Zarqawi, otherwise they would not have become the idols of
millions of other Muslims. Muslims, who are prepared to cooperate
with the West, do so not because of the belief in the moral worth of
the Westerns but out of pragmatism, and their cooperation will last
only so far as they deem the policy rewarding. However, despite all
the good will through which the Western world was prepared to deal
with Islam, Muslims effectively traumatized the world. The present or
the future of humanity are and will only be fraught with more danger.
Perhaps, some might argue that the fact that Algiers’s government
could subdue Islamists and that Egypt seems to be stable underline
the possibility that the West can do the same. We should remember the
methods used in the authorities in Algiers. Effectively, they used
the same methods and tactics that Islamists were using, including
massive counter-mass-slaughter of Islamists and their social support.
Egypt is well known for restriction on democracy and abuse of power
against Islamists suspects. So the West has only two directions to
move through. One is to take lead from Algiers’s and Egypt’s example.
The other is to start an intellectual campaign against the principle
of Islam. The second option is more honourable and befitting the
tradition of liberal democracy. This option is also incomparably
humane considering that the majority of Muslims suffer and deserve to
be liberated from a primitive and violent ideology, that is to say
Islam.
The EPT expects that individuals or groups acting in moral ways will
also be able to form alliances and political power. Islam is a bid
for power but, as an ideology, it uses violence to suppress
ideational challenges and thus it is forced to broaden its use of
violence, which is immoral from the perspective of EPT. Accordingly,
it can be expected that a worldwide alliance will be formed in the
face of Islam and Islamic terrorism. Consequently, the West, as the
major and declared target of the hatred of Islam – though by no means
the only target, consider the campaign against the Christians in
almost all Islamic countries as well as the Hindus in Bangladesh and
Kashmir – will be bound to look for friends and allies. In the face
of a greater front and with its feeble epistemological basis and all
unsavoury moral implications, Islam will collapse if the human world
does not come to an abrupt end, which can happen as a result of an
Islamic nuclear outrage. Even a major reform that may bring Islam
closer to the model of current Christianity will not save it. As
there are no guarantees that Christianity itself will survive.
The moral lesson should be clear. The greatest advance in science and
technology that humans are currently enjoying are the fruits of
liberal democracy. KPCP argues that whenever violence is curbed,
competition is channelled into other activities and fields, like
science, arts, sports, technology and economy. It is no wonder that
the ancient Greek and modern Britain have disproportionately and
incomparably made the greatest contribution in these fields. In
general, it could be said that creativity bears fruit when violence
is curbed. It is, therefore, both necessary and fair to expect that
political system which survives on creativity should prevent its
innovations be used by political systems that depend on violence. The
usage of instruments brought about through creativity should be
conditioned by accepting the same principle that allows creativity to
flourish. Otherwise, the creative instruments will undermine
humanity.
The Western Misconception of Islam and the Consequences
If the initial problem of the West with Islam was their failure to
understand religions and particularly Islam, the problem resulted in
allowing millions of Muslims to settle in without taking the
necessary step to ensure their integration into the host cultures,
and indeed without any willingness on the part of millions of Muslim
to integrate. Of course, we should assume that most people do not
know what the real function and nature of religions are. Muslims, and
also in fact most non-Muslims have not made the connection between
the miseries they suffer from and the ideologies they adhere to.
However, as Muslims, due to the fact that they are bearers of an
ideology that has not submitted to liberal democracy, move into the
West they will carry with them the cause of the problem into the new
countries . This EPT assumes that integration is necessary for peace
(see KPCP). In ‘Islam on the Couch’, I suggested that Islam suits the
selfish male who wants to out-reproduce others, because as Islam
undervalue the non-Islam it facilitate taking advantage of them and
this presents a greater incentive to adhere tenaciously to Islam.
Consequently, many a European country is at risk of being overwhelmed
by its Islamic population.
The Kurdish Position
Nonetheless, it is starting to dawn on increasingly greater numbers
of Westerns that they have a problem on the hands. For Kurds the
sense of crises is not there (perhaps Nechirvan, admiringly, is an
exception who in an interview with an Assyrian gentleman intimated
that he prefers Kurds turning to Christianity rather than becoming
militant Muslims). If the image of Islam has been tarnished by
terrorism in the eyes of common people of the West, in the minds of
the Kurdish majority there is still no doubt that Islam is the
paragon and source of moral goodness. Consequently, the definition of
morality in the mind of the majority of the Kurdish populace has two
prominent characteristics, firstly, the adherence to Islam, and
secondly, the degree to which women’s sexuality is controlled – this
is also a consequence of Islam as an ideology as explained in ‘Islam
on the Couch’ and KPCP.
The Kurdish leaderships, as opposed to Kurdish people, may be
slightly different. The KDP, which is usually thought of as having
stronger bias towards Islam owing to its tribal-religious roots, is
showing some remarkable independence reflected in assigning
Christians some important jobs and also standing against the Iraqi or
Arab religious authorities (read Masud Barzani’s recent reply to his
critics regarding his comments about the relationship with Israel).
Now, if I am right in my assumption, then I can only speculate in
regard to the reasons that allow the KDP this independence. First of
all, one has to remember that Barzanis represent a sophist order who
differ in their interpretation of Islam from the mainstream Sunni.
The loyalties within KDP are to the family and this spares them
flirtation with Islam and Islamists. More importantly, the experience
of Anfal which hit the Barzanis hard and the Islamic failure in even
condemning it added to the contemptible behaviour and practice of
some Islamic groups within Hawler, seem to have resulted in
undermining in the eyes of Barzanis. One, however, should also
consider that Masud Barzani has shown capacity for independent
thinking and courage in speaking his mind. Most recently he admitted
the mistakes that the parties had made during the fratricidal civil
war at the Swearing in of Kosrat Rasul Ali as the vice president of
Kurdistan region.
Unfortunately, though PUK has shown some regression in its attitude,
it is obvious that PUK has irreligious, namely Marxist, background.
There is also no doubt about their relax attitude in regard to
relationship between sexes in Sulaimani. As such, it should be clear
that the PUK’s flirtation and their show of jealousy over the status
of Islam, shown during the Danish cartoon and Mariwan Halabjayi
affairs, may all be sham aimed at being able to fit within the new
setting of Kurdistan and Iraq. This setting, it seems, is perceived
as characterized by Islamic religious revivalism and transformation.
Perhaps, PUK leadership, lacking the KDP’s background, feel
particularly vulnerable as they perceive that increasing number of
youths, particularly the students, are migrating towards religious
organization. This impotency is not due to lack of manpower or
weapon, although, if the tide is not reverse, PUK may find itself
overwhelmed by Islamists. The impotency is intellectual. Basically,
PUK – and almost all Marxists or ex-Marxists – has never put forwards
counterarguments against Islam. Depressingly, many a PUK cadre has in
the past assumed the title of Mullah so as to endear himself with
populace. Now, with their mistakes and corruption exposed, they are
not able to claim moral superiority vis-a-vis Islamists. That is why
the best strategy, they might assume, is to feign religiosity and win
over some of these youths.
This strategy might seem as cunning to some of the PUK members – and
in the unofficial discourses of PUK, scheming and semblance are
generally regarded as wisdom, that is why Jalal Talabani may be
regarded as the ultimate exemplar of wisdom which he crowned by
becoming Haji Jalal Talabani. Nevertheless, this strategy is a
substantial concession to and acknowledgement of the supremacy of the
religions and the religious forces. This only can encourage a greater
growth of the number of people who would join the religious forces.
More seriously it will make PUK itself vulnerable to penetration by
religious elements. The reason, as I see it, for this PUK dilemma is
its failure to control corruption which undermines the morale of even
the most faithful members. (PUK people, therefore, should try a
different strategy rather than sending their leaders to Haj. Haj will
not curb corruption. Otherwise, the Saudi King, who is living in Haj,
would not have so full of corruption).
Of course, we should not forget that rulers who want to enjoy greater
power will try to present their role as "holding balance between
otherwise irreconcilable forces of society". This, in the Middle
Eastern context, means that the rulers keep, on the one hand, a
constant lid on the seculars and the intellectuals, a policy which
secures their power against the liberals, as well as impresses the
populace that these rulers have deep religious convictions and
wisdom, which are commendable images in the benighted Middle East. On
the other hand, as this policy favours the growth of the religious
forces, the authorities therefore resort to suppressive and sometimes
violent actions to prevent losing power to religious forces. This is
usually a win-win policy for these selfish rulers because as they
suppress the religionists they present an image to the secular and
the West that they are bastions against Islamic militancy. A ruler
who has proven to be an excellent example of such a policy is Husni
Mubark of Egypt. However, the price of this policy is turning the
country into incubator and exporter of terrorism, indeed, some of
Egyptian terrorists played and are playing the most prominent roles
in the international Islamic terrorism.
Why Should It Be Wrong To Have A Ruler With Religious Convictions?
The objection that I am raising here is not against the rule of
individuals who happen to have some religious convictions, provided
that they came to power through liberal democratic means and allow
the opposition to oust them through the same means. So my objection
to KDP or PUK leadership does not arise from my perception that some
individuals among them may be religious, although it is clear that I
see Islam as unfit for human society and politics (in more than one
of my previous articles I argued that Islamic parties that do not
submit to liberal democracy should not be given a legal right to
operate). However, my objections are of two sorts. Firstly, the
dominant parties of Kurdistan have not organized a meaningful
election. That is why the institutions of their governments do not
reflect the will of the electorates, in the sense that the vote of
the people did not translate into ousting or endorsing any
politician. The Kurdish leaderships are able, regardless of the
election, to appoint the deputies and ministers no matter whether or
not their appointees were lacking competence or were known for gross
corruption. As such, it could be said that elections in Kurdistan
result in a kind of miracle because no one is voted in and no one is
voted out as a result of the votes.
It is true that people in Kurdistan voted party lists and that this
is not unique for Kurdistan, but in most countries with more
functional democracies grass root members can have some role to play
in choosing the party leadership and the candidates who will be on
the party lists for parliament. In Kurdistan this has not been
possible yet.
Is There Political Apathy In Kurdistan?
Of course, allowing members at the grass root level a greater say in
choosing the leadership will not resolve the whole problem. The
leadership can manipulate who would be a member or restrict
communication among those who are already admitted in. Moreover, the
would-be political activists may not join the party unless they are
satisfied with most of the party’s program and, thus, thousands of
dissatisfied individuals may not join just because no party may
appeal to them.
Currently, all traditional liberal democratic countries suffer from
the so-called political apathy, the fact that significant proportion
of electorates, sometime reaching even more than fifty per cent, do
not participate in elections and may be inactive politically. The
problem, to a significant degree, whether in Kurdistan or the West,
is due to the lack of clarity in the politics. More specifically, in
my opinion, it is due to the lack of a political theory that can
explain and guide political actions.
Perhaps, one of the striking features of current political culture is
that politicians feel that they do not have obligation to explain
themselves to the public or to tell what their beliefs and worldviews
are. Such reticence is, of course, an obstacle to the consolidation
of liberal democracy and breeds disaffection. It may be true that
some politicians lack the capacity of thinking and expressing
themselves clearly – in this case one should question how they
deserved their offices. But even those who enjoy the capacity for
forming and expressing opinions do not do so sufficiently. The irony
is that they are even not required. In many European countries,
politicians may decline to answer the questions put forward to them
by reporters, even by governmentally funded media, which is a clear
sign of undermining democracy.
Islam constitutes yet another reason for incommunicativeness.
Currently, it is presenting a dilemma for Europe and the USA.
Generally most if not all European and American politicians are
either silent or circumspect when it comes to Islam, though there
might be some who are outright misguiding. The reasons for
incommunicativeness in regard to Islam may be different and not all
of them are dignifying. For some Westerns, it is the economic or
electoral prospect. Many leftists think that they have found their
ally in Islam to fight off the only devil in their worldview, namely
capitalism, as they perceive this world through the Marxist lenses.
For the traditional liberals who are represented in the British
Liberal Democratic Party, the reason might be their dogmatic
commitment to abstract rights, which include the freedom to believe
in religion, an attitude which reflects a poor understanding of the
role of liberal democracy and religion in politics. American and
British officials also have additional reasons for circumspection.
The success of their policies in Iraq and Afghanistan will depend on
maintaining a good relationship with local forces that happened to be
Islamic, and such a policy requires that these officials are either
circumspective or even flattering in regard to Islam. However, since
such policy does not deal with the causes of terrorism – which is the
religion of Islam itself (see ‘Islam on the Couch’), one should
expect that recruiting of would-be terrorists and all other
associated activities will go on. Consequently, acts of violence will
break out and the central governments will have no choice but to go
to war. If this policy, or perhaps un-policy, goes on as now, there
will be unending warfare wherever un-subdued or unreformed Muslim
individuals or communities exist.
When access to information and public discussion is free, lay people,
experts, philosophers and politicians can all join in and it will not
be long before the majority would lean in favour of certain ideas
which then can be translated into a law. Perhaps, most welfare and
women’s rights issues were settled in this way. Currently, only
people on the fringes express accurate ideas about Islam. It seems
the dominant and governmental media outlets are all instructed not to
give an opportunity for publication.
Now going back to the problem of apathy. A reason that involves
almost all politicians and commentators is unawareness of, or perhaps
the reason for some others may be unwillingness to consider, a
political theory like EPT. Despite the fact that the behaviour,
development and the likely historical courses of the political model
built on the bases of EPT match to a remarkable degree what has
happened or is happening in reality. Most importantly it explains
religions and the role of liberal democracy.
Currently, it has been being observed that, in the West, most
political parties say almost the same thing. There is almost no
policy that can be expected from one party but not from the other. In
general, what decide policies are many subjective matters, political
funding interest, lobbies, the power interest of ruling elite and
public opinion, which itself comes about as reaction to events or
manipulation by media, and in all these there is no clear theory
guiding policy making. EPT predicts that liberal democracies will
experience integration and devolution of power. The implication of
this idea is not only that the borders between the liberal
democracies will disappear, but also more responsibilities of the
central government will go to the region.
The state of politics is such that governments regardless of their
persuasion do not touch the sacred cow of welfare system, and it
seems it will only increase its share of budget. Perhaps, saying that
they are not willing will not be completely incorrect. Politicians
want greater power and welfare system in one way. However, from the
point of view of this EPT a case can be made to the effect that local
authorities on the council level should take over all
responsibilities that they can handle, even if that means an increase
in the number of cadre who would be needed to run them. Such local
authorities should also be able to have a partnership position in the
economic activities that happen to be in their region. Most current
governments are irresponsive to the local needs. When decision making
and resources are handed down to the council level, a job instead of
dole can be arranged for a welfare applicant. On the other hand,
integration should take place in the direction of adopting similar
laws and for the purpose of disallowing one council or community of
taking advantage of others. This process should not imply that a
United State of Europe will form. Nor should it imply that nation
states will survive. Yet, the questions that are put to the voters
usually are ‘Do you want independent Wales or Scotland?’ Voters do
not have clear answers which is better for them or for their economy.
Similarly, many European countries voted down or are likely to vote
down the proposal of European constitution just because of
uncertainty that it might result in having a super state.
The inference here is not only that democracy is undermined by
restriction of freedom of expression due to issues like Islam.
Democracy is also undermined because we do not have the theory that
highlights the issues to be decided and the direction of decisions.
Indeed, the reluctance in debating the problems associated with Islam
is mainly due to a lack of relatively peaceful solutions to the
problem.
In comparison to their Western counterparts, Kurdish commentators and
people in general are in exceedingly unenviable position as there are
far greater issues that may be off limit for discussion. This may
explain why the Kurdish democracy continues to be feeble.
The international community puts pressure on Kurdish leadership to be
a part of Iraq, but the majority of Kurdish people and even many in
the leaderships are not happy with that. Nevertheless, the pressure
and the consideration of the repercussion of a move in favour of
independence result in suppressing debating. Another issue that most
Kurdish commentators, connected directly or indirectly with the main
two parties, would avoid or even actively suppress talking about is
related to the embarrassing eras of their histories when they were
locked in fratricidal wars which palliated for them the cooperation
with successive Iraqi regimes.
There might also be some suppression of discussion in regard to the
issue related to Kurds in other parts of Kurdistan, particularly. The
strategy, that our resistance movement adopted, forced the leadership
to seek support from the regional powers, who were conducting their
own suppressive campaigns against the Kurdish population within their
political borders. Consequently, it is very likely that our
leaderships have ignored, colluded or actively participated in
campaigns that undermined the position or even the existence of the
Kurdish organizations and their leadership.
The most depressing point that presently undermines the prospect of a
real democracy in Kurdistan is Islam, because it is left out of
debate, by and large. The reasons for this reticence may be clear.
Firstly, Kurdish leadership is allied to Shiite in the government.
Secondly, the majority of Kurds are Muslim and they are not being
coached to be otherwise.
The first condition for successful argument against a religion, among
a population that believes that morality stems from religion, is to
insist that morality is independent of religion and to set an example
for high moral standards without religion. Of course, this is not
very likely to happen when it has become a part of the culture of the
political elite to assume that self-enrichment is a privilege to be
enjoyed when taking up an official position. Corrupt people would not
challenge the status quo.
Perhaps, only Kurdish nationalists, particularly in the diasporas,
find it straight forwardly easy to talk about independence. However,
they too leave out many other arguments of different kinds. They
hardly make a stand regarding religion, which can be interpreted as
reflecting a drive to win popularity as quickly and cheaply as
possible. They rarely outline how the Kurds should deal with the
repercussion of declaring independence. How to confront an invasion
or incursions by neighbouring country, or an Islamic insurgency that
can be organized and backed by the neighbouring countries. How they
deal with situation if they were abandoned by the West. We have to
remember that the policies of the West are still driven to some
degree by the consideration of real politics and the complete liberal
democratic transformation has not taken place yet. Indeed, so far
these nationalists’ discourses have not produced a clear cerebral
content and it can be reduced to urges for independence along with
emotional intimidation aimed at deterring others from putting
forwards alternative arguments.
As consequence, discussing most things has become highly emotional
for Kurds, which is not conducive to democracy. Nationalists have to
outline their world views, the means to achieve their goals, their
views about religion and other ethnic minorities and women issues.
Perhaps, in the past, most politicians and leaders could get away
with remaining silent most of the time. However, not saying things
clearly is a ground for misunderstanding and conflict which usually
ends up in destruction and bloodshed.
In my opinion, when we disapprove of the nationalism of other
ethnicities, we should also disapprove of our own nationalism. From
the perspective of EPT, the least what matters is nationalism, and
nationalism is dangerous most of the time. Particularly, when the
nationalist is only prepared to demand independence without outlining
the rights of the citizen in general, specially, the ethnic
minorities. EPT emphasizes the necessity of self-rule and hand in
hand with this the integration within the liberal democratic system.
In this regard, it does not matter whether big or small, all ethnic
groups should be given the choice of self-rule, provided it is
practically possible. This should include Assyrians, Yazidis and
Turkman, and perhaps the Kakaeis if they wish to exercise that
privilege provided that they submit to liberal democratic rules.
The fact that Kakaies and Yazidis are Kurds does not weigh a lot, if
they think they are discriminated against because of the Islamic
identity of the majority of Muslims. Such self rule is necessary so
that the majorities can learn how to respect the minorities and also
to give these minorities an opportunity to prosper. Moreover, such a
policy would undermine a pretext from the hand of selfish politicians
who by stirring and perpetuating ethnic or minority tensions
concentrate greater power in their own hand. Although the integration
means that we should allow ourselves and others to participate in the
decision making of our neighbours.
Kurdish intellectuals should learn to live with the fact that in
cooperation with Turks, mainly because of Islam, Kurdish tribes and
armed forces transgressed against Yazidis, Armenians and Assyrians
and that we should be prepared to indemnify even if that meant
handing them back the villages or towns from which they were driven
by persecution. Perhaps, we should consider transforming our
constitution so that it reflects shared identity of the country.
Alternative Horizons
According to EPT there is an option for integration with the West
into a global liberal democracy. The USA and the UK want Southern
Kurds to play a role in Iraq. Obviously, this is to ensure that Iraq
will not descend into civil war, or, as ominously, fall completely
into the hands of religious forces. This role, in my opinion, does
not harm the Kurdish interests, specially when the alternative –
which is to demand immediate secession – can lead us into troubles
that we cannot manage currently. Moreover, it is in the mutual
interests of Iraqis and Kurds that Iraq is developed into liberal
democracy or at least prevented from falling completely into the hand
of religionists.
However, we should demand a permanent and open partnership with the
USA or the UK. It is obvious that this partnership exist, which is
needed and necessary according to EPT. This partnership is in fact
more important than what it has been accredited. First and foremost
it is unlikely that Kurds would have still existed in South Kurdistan
without the support from the West. Secondly, it is also unlikely that
the Kurdish-Kurdish partnership would have come to exist without the
Western intervention. Thirdly, without this partnership – Kurds,
Arabs and perhaps other ethnicities, with each using its resources
and also borrowing some – the "good" neighbours would more likely
have been at each other’s throat than sitting together to plan for a
future. All these mean that almost all our peaceful relationships in
the region and even within Kurdistan are possible because of this
partnership or the integration with the liberal democracies.
We should give far less weight to the nonsensical talk about
sovereignty and independence, which is favoured by Turks, Arab and
Farsis and invoked usually to protest against any criticism of their
human rights or ethnic minority rights records. However, the idea
that there will be or should be a global liberal democracy, provided
that humanity survives past the current crises with Islam, is not a
familiar one yet. So we should highlight this reality and help it to
sink in the mind of decision makers, including voters in a fair
election.
An important message that needs to be sent to people in general and
political activists in Kurdistan is that democracy is not necessarily
liberal democracy. Democracy proved to be able to bring the Hitlers
and the Khomeinis of the world to power. As such democracy without
liberalism can bring misery. The subsequent message we need to give
is that liberal democracy is necessary for a peaceful and decent
social and political life. Thus we should corner our leaders so that
they quit ambiguity of democracy. This, of course, can be done
through good inquisitive journalism and public pressure.
I should make it clear that in my opposition to nationalism I am not
against independence, if that meant a good degree of integration and
if it meant that we should consider the rights of minorities without
suppressing debating that issue. Our inspiration for independence
should not be the establishment of states like Iraq, Turkey or Iran,
in which being nasty and insolent towards minorities is taken almost
as a right for the majority. We need to consider the political world
from this new outlook. The worldview of nationalists, in which nation
states stand supreme, is incorrect. Nation states are legacies of
ideologies and as the ideologies relent and weaken their mental and
physical relics will vanish eventually.
What the world needs is people who aim at harmony and creativity to
bring peace, beauty and prosperity. Being a human represents a unique
potential to discover the wonders of what we can know and what the
world can offer. Regardless of our ethnicities we are humans and
humanity can sustain itself and the world only through creativity.
What Else Should Be Said?
Now I return back to my objection to PUK’s flirtation with Islam –
this should also involve all other politicians who claim democratic
credentials. It is alright to have a ruler who has some religious
conviction, as it is said earlier, provided that he accepts the
principle of liberal democracy – without this condition we will end
up in a civil war like Sudan or desolation which all people of Islam
experienced until the modern contact with the West. However, the
problem with Islam is that it does not accept liberal democracy,
specifically when it comes to apostasy, criticizing or rejecting
Islam. Of course, there are leaders both in the West and in the
Islamic countries who profess that Islam is a peaceful religion. I
wish this was correct, but what would they say about the verses of
Quran that give diametrically different impression. If these leaders
are right then those sheikhs, religious authorities and books who or
which preach different message should be considered as tarnishing the
good image of Islam and, as such, they should be banned and
prosecuted. So the Muslims themselves should take the responsibility
of clearing the mess in their folds. They should be put in front of
two choices: if they think Islam is a religion of peace then they
should not allow some Muslims to harm the non-Muslims in the name of
Islam. If they are not able they should declare which side they are
taking. Are they going to commit themselves to peace or will they
remain silent allowing terrorists to grow in their midst?
Perhaps, the demands made here might seem quite impossible,
considering that many verses in Quran are explicit in encouraging and
ordering violence and disregarding the free deliberation and human
authorship of moral rules. However, this realization is what make it
imperative that Kurdish authorities should encourage and support
secular-minded Kurdish intellectual to bring about a new social
movement to guide Kurdish people out of Islam.
Give Up the Misguided Cause
The aim of this critique and the outlining of the context should be
clear by now. Polarization in the world politics is inevitable. There
will be Islam on one side and the rest of humanity on the other. The
only reason that the whole world is not acting together to control
Islam is the lack of correct understanding of Islam and also the
existence of mutual suspicion between different parts of the
non-Muslim world, which reflect the lack of a political theory that
explains politics adequately. However, there are no irreconcilable
differences that would keep the non-Islamic world away from
cooperation. In any case, such cooperation is emerging; consider the
common stand that the major powers of the world took against the
nuclear issue of Iran. Such common attitude will be even more
commonplace. There is no country or system that is safe from Islam.
This should be obvious. Islam does not recognize any country or
system apart from itself. No other system or country possesses
currently such an attitude. So the formation of world coalition in
the face of Islam is inevitable. Islam does not favour creativity.
This results in failure to bring about growth in science, technology
and economy. Islam, moreover, as an ideology does not even succeed in
ensuring cooperation among Muslims themselves. In the majority of
Islamic countries, there are some low key warfare going on, and at
least twice in the last 20 years such low key warfare was transformed
into full scale genocides, as it happened in Kurdistan and is still
happening in Darfur. Islam simply lacks the build-in measures to
protect the weak individuals and weak groups against the stronger
individuals and groups.
Islam cannot afford such measures because it is an ideology and an
ideology needs violence to survive. Muslims usually say that what
happens in the Muslim world is the result of Zionists and imperialist
conspiracies. But Muslims have no answer in regard to who was the
agent and pawns of Zionism and Imperialism in the wars in which
Mohammed’s companions warred each other. These wars claimed the lives
of khalifs or would-be khalifs like Ali, Othman bn Affan, Talha bn
Zubair and Zubair bn Awam in an era which Muslims call as the golden
age of Islam. Subsequent wars or persecutions claimed the lives of
successive males of Mohammed’s grandsons lineages.
Judging from the situation and history of Islam one can conclude that
Islam as a religion is doomed and those who put any effort to protect
or defend it will just waste lives and resources and jeopardize the
prospects of their people. In this light it is advisable that Kurdish
leadership and people should position themselves on the right side of
the divide. Doing so is not only expedient, but moral as well. We owe
it to the women, individual and groups who are degraded and killed or
displaced just because they find themselves in helpless situation or
because they do not resort to excessive violence. We owe to our
people to save them from another experience of a third Anfal or
continuous Anfals. We also owe to a better future for humanity.
Conclusion
* Apart from predicting bipolarization between the Islam vis-a-vis
non-Islam, this article underlines many other points. It states that
abandonment of ideological barrier is important for globalization and
that the greater commitment to liberal democracy facilitates greater
globalization.
* An essential point made here is that the liberal democratic
transformation is not complete. This should set the parameters for
what can and cannot be expected. However, a substantial part of the
problem of current liberal democracies is the lack of awareness of
the role of liberal democracy in politics. If this is true, then the
lack of the correct theory should render policy making a haphazardly
enterprise. Despite this, it would not be true to say that the only
economic consideration matters in the course of policy making.
Indeed, it has been mentioned that a good argument or even a good
music concert can make significance difference.
* It is predicted here that bipolarization will deepen and the
capacity of the West to cooperate will result in forming a worldwide
alliance against Islam and that Islam will eventually collapse. This
situation will present a challenge to Kurds to determine their
position and join the liberal democratic enterprise.
* The initial mistakes and the consequences have been outlined and
reference to ‘Islam on the Couch’ has been made in regard to the fact
that although Islam has proven to be disastrous for the Islamic
countries in every sense, it is nonetheless very useful for the
selfish male who does not commit himself to the good of the host
countries in the West and who is unaware of the fact that he is the
survival machine of his genes.
*Islam is not even able to assemble a coalition of Muslims and
suffers from a lack of measures to inhibit violence and that is why
Islamic political organization is characterized by internal and
external violence. This makes it wise to any group wishing to be
prosperous and civilized to abandon Islam. However, the West can be
criticized for neglecting that the innovation that they brought about
should not have been made available to groups or countries that do
not commit to peaceful means of political power struggle.
* The condition of Kurdistan and Iraq, the corruption, the equation
of morality with Islam in the mind of Kurdish people and
unavailability of counterarguments to Islam lock the Kurds in a rut
and turn them into victims at the hands of other Muslims. Worse still
these reasons can turn Kurds into perpetrators of violence against
the open-minded Kurds and non-Kurds in the region and not very
unlikely recruits in the international Islamic terrorism.
* It is not a disaster of course to have a ruler with religious
conviction provided that he comes to power through liberal democratic
means and is vulnerable to losing power through the same method. So
my objection to PUK flirtation with Islam is not because they may
have religious convictions. The problem is that it is more likely
that this display of belief is a sham, they stuck in this role
because of the inability to get rid of corruption. The problem is
also that the "democracy" they allow to people has not shown to be an
effective mean to oust unpopular and corrupt individuals from power.
*One of the political malaises of the West is political apathy. It is
suggested here that political apathy is due to a lack of clarity,
lack of theory and Islam, and that this problem is severer in
Kurdistan due to the histories and corruption of the ruling parties
and the complexity of the relation with Islam. The lack of theory
means that most our political actions will be arduous and reactive
rather than directional. It also means that a great deal of
disaffection and apathy will be generated.
* From the point of EPT self-rule and integration are advised. We
should transcend the issue of sovereignty to seek integration with
our neighbours as well as with the West or in accordance to the rules
of liberal democracy. Accordingly, one of the essential goals of
political activities should be concerned with pointing out the facts
and the implications of this integration. In a way, what I am
suggesting here is that we are in a new political era.
Of course, we all have this choice of doing politics according to the
old ideological fashions characterised by destruction and bloodshed
in which only the brutal will win. We have also the choice of
committing ourselves to creativity and we can trust that we can win
because creativity has been sustaining humanity and because the
creative people can also cooperate and thus religions and ideologies
lose to liberal democracies. Such an attitude to life and politics is
necessary to give meaning to forbearances and sacrifices required for
social life characterised by peace and order. Ideologies provide such
meaning but the traditional liberal democracy does not. Thus, where
ideologies are questioned and weakened, crimes and alienation
increase. EPT by contrast provides such meaning. However, while
ideologies are associated with violence EPT calls for a life of peace
and creativity.