KCK Executive Council member Mustafa Karasu spoke to Medya Haber TV about the Peace and Democratic Society Process, as well as current developments in Kurdistan, Turkey, and the Middle East.

The first part of the interview can be read here.

Attaccks by the Turkish army are a provocation

There was a call by Devlet Bahçeli. Leader Apo (Abdullah Öcalan) responded positively to it. In reaction to this, because it was a call to halt the armed struggle, the Movement first declared a ceasefire before the congress. They were carrying out no actions, making no plans for action whatsoever.

The congress was held; a decision was made to dissolve (the organization), and to end the armed struggle. Despite this, the continuation of these attacks is clearly a provocation. Who is accepting this? Which government official or state authority acknowledges this as acceptable? Which politician does? How could such a thing be possible? Of course, the people there will defend themselves. You are going there to kill, you are using chemicals, using prohibited weapons. This is truly a very serious situation.

We evaluate it as follows: a faction within the state wants to disrupt this process. That is what this means. Why are you attacking these people? There is no action, no attempt, no effort, no planning for any action. This is a serious matter. Naturally, things like this create anxiety in society, in everyone. Yes, we say that a part of the state wants to sabotage the process. Then the state itself and the government managing the process must intervene. They must not merely watch.

Not enough to approach with concern, we must actively struggle

From society’s point of view, and our friends’ point of view, there are many factors to be concerned about. From this perspective, we cannot say: “Why are they worried?” Sick prisoners are not being released. They are being left to die. Arrests are still happening. The opposition is being targeted, journalists are being imprisoned. Even though we have taken important steps… Ending the armed struggle is a very significant development. Dissolving the PKK is a very important step. Yet, despite this, no steps are being taken by the state or the government, and this naturally creates concern—among our friends, among the public. In this sense, we understand this too. But merely approaching it with anxiety is insufficient. Yes, our friends, our people may be worried, they may think this way, but what matters is to own this process, to fight to bring it to success. This is what must be done. Acting out of anxiety only blocks the struggle, hampers efforts, prevents enthusiastic participation. We must join this process with enthusiasm. That is, with excitement, we must organize, wage an active struggle. We must create social pressure on the state and the government. This is the task. Yes, let’s criticize—we do criticize—but saying, “Why are they not acting? Why are they not stepping in?” and developing only such discourse is wrong and inadequate.

We will struggle. We will develop democratic struggle and organization. We will make the Peace and Democratic Society process belong to all of society. We will turn it into a social force, spread it widely. By doing so, we will fulfill our duty. Because this is not something that only the government can do. If society does not embrace it, if democratic political actors and socialists do not embrace it, if there is no such social force behind it, the state and the government can simply archive the matter and move on. This happened in the past. Therefore, merely expressing concern is truly inadequate.

The language of democracy is action

All segments of society—women, youth, Alevis, workers, laborers, socialists, ecologists—all the different social groups must organize around the Call for Peace and Democratic Society, embrace this process, and exert pressure on the government and the state. This is how democracy develops. Democracy is the result of tension. It arises when society’s struggle and demands are organized and transformed into action.

Leader Apo said: The language of democracy is action. When I say action, I don’t mean armed action—I mean democratic action. There are a thousand and one forms of democratic action. If it is like this, then we can truly say we are waging a struggle for democracy, that we are owning this process. Anything else is not a correct approach. Anything else is not a democratic approach. Democrats do not wait. Democrats organize, take action, demand, and strive to change things—to change laws. In this respect, we call on everyone to organize around this Call for Democratic Society and to develop the struggle in this direction.

No freedom in Turkey without a solution to Kurdish question

The government’s pressure operations, initiated in Istanbul together with the CHP, are continuing relentlessly. In fact, now the issue of appointing a trustee (kayyum) to the CHP has even become a matter of open debate.

The Kurdish question is a question of democratization. And democratization is a matter of struggle. As I said, it is not a problem that will be solved merely by waiting for the state or the government.

Undoubtedly, it is truly difficult to make sense of these efforts by the government—in the context of the Call for Democratic Society. Because everywhere in the world, in conflict resolution processes, governments and those involved try to increase societal and political support. They try to solve the issue this way. This is a general rule. Everyone wants this. The AKP and MHP, and even the CHP, should be working to ensure that all opposition groups support this process. Now, with these arrests, they are sabotaging that support. This creates a situation that prevents the support from being given. It actually has the opposite effect. This contrary attitude also has a contrary impact among the opposition. In this sense, when the opposition says, “There are so many attacks on democracy, so many anti-democratic practices, how will this be solved?” can you really say they are wrong?

Therefore, this is truly not the right attitude or approach. Thus, it becomes an approach that also calls into question the sincerity of the process.

It was said: “If there is fascism in Turkey, there cannot be democracy in Kurdistan.” This is true. If there will be democracy, it will be both in Kurdistan and in Turkey. If there is fascism somewhere, it is everywhere. This is absolutely certain. But here, some discourses are truly incomprehensible. It’s as if the Kurdish question has been solved, democracy has come to Kurdistan, everything is rosy in Kurdistan, but nothing positive exists in Turkey! Is there really such a situation in Kurdistan? There are still tens of thousands of detainees.

What does this mean? Is there a Kurdish ethnicity? Yes. Is there also a Turkish ethnicity, a nation? Yes. So what rights do Kurds exercise? What rights do they have? Do they use their language? Their culture? Do they have self-government? Nothing. Yet, it’s as if Kurds have gained everything, and in Turkey mother-tongue education is restricted, national rights are restricted, and Turks are somehow oppressed. What rights have Kurds obtained? Which basic rights have been secured legally? To hear some people, you’d think that everything in Kurdistan is wonderful and now Turks are starting to be persecuted. They are almost going to say there is no mother-tongue education in Turkey, no culture, no self-government. They are practically saying that. They must understand this: without solving the Kurdish question, there will be no democracy and freedom in Turkey.

If there is something you complain about regarding freedom and democracy in Turkey, its cause is the existence of the Kurdish question, the existence of the Alevi question. Without solving these two fundamental issues, how will democracy and freedom come to Turkey? In this respect, if they are sincere, if they are truly democrats, if they are truly in favor of freedom, they need to understand this dialectic. This is an equation. Whatever difficulties and problems you have, their source is the lack of resolution of the Kurdish question.

Therefore, such simplistic propaganda statements are also statements that provoke Turkish society. This is, in a sense, anti-Kurdish sentiment. This must be avoided.

The philosophical perspective of our Leader

Leader Apo’s intellectual focus is extremely important. In prison—and by reflecting on prisons themselves—he has developed this. Historically, it has been like this: those who remained in prison have turned prisons into places of intellectual deepening, ideological and theoretical development, and personal transformation. The greatest example of this in history is Leader Apo. There are other historical examples, but the most striking is Leader Apo. In the last 10 years, he has gone through a process in which he has conveyed his intensive reflections. His conditions are inadequate—under those inadequate conditions, he is trying to convey 10 years of concentrated thought to the Kurdish people, the peoples of Turkey, and the peoples of the world. Especially his most recent evaluations, and subsequent additions, were also guided by him.

Essentially, there is a philosophical perspective. The Leader evaluates the world, phenomena, socialism, democracy, and the struggle with a new philosophical approach. A philosophical outlook. This is important. When we first waged the struggle for socialism, we read “The Principles of the Philosophy of the Beginning,” then “The Basic Principles of Philosophy,” and “Historical Materialism.” There was Engels’ book, “Dialectics of Nature.”

In this way, a philosophical outlook emerged. Of course, in the shortcomings of real socialism, there were also deficiencies in this philosophical view. The Leader also evaluates that. He philosophically assesses the shortcomings and inadequacies of historical materialism. The shortcomings of real socialism stem from there. The Leader has a significant philosophical concentration to correct the philosophical foundations of these deficiencies. He has important evaluations on this matter. Leader Apo says: there are laws of nature, but the laws of the social sphere are not like the laws of nature. There are tendencies. This is an important philosophical approach.

Therefore, the Leader’s assessments should of course be read by everyone, discussed, and, if necessary, criticized. If there are deficiencies, they should be pointed out. There is no problem with that. As long as it is done sincerely and in good faith, people may see deficiencies, may criticize, may not fully understand. One must approach it correctly.

I have raised this issue many times in past programs. Repeating exactly what Marx said 150 years later is not loyalty to Marx or Engels. What was the level of physical science 150 years ago, and what is it now? What was the level of social sciences then, and what is it now? There is also important accumulated experience. Taking all this into account, Leader Apo criticizes the evaluations of Marx and Lenin. This must be understood. Leader Apo does this out of respect for their labor. He does it to create a socialism that is true and effective.

Criticizing deficiencies

I can say this: today in the world, the most profound, comprehensive, and correct anti-capitalist is truly Leader Apo. He is the most profound, comprehensive communitarian—socialist—in history. That is how we see it. Yes, it can be read and criticized, but there must not be cheap approaches. No propaganda-based approaches. It must be debated, evaluated. In one sense, the Leader has reflected on behalf of everyone. The intense thought processes others should have carried out, Leader Apo has undertaken. We must understand this. His approaches to the new understanding of socialism and the understanding of struggle are like this.

Yes, in the past there were inadequacies, deficiencies. The accumulation was not as developed. Archaeological discoveries are new. In our time, there was Engels’ book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. There were the things Morgan wrote about primitive society. Now so much archaeological work has been done—the most recent is Göbeklitepe, and there are others. These inevitably change and will change the way we look at and interpret history. This must be understood in this way.

Otherwise, it is not like this: in Leader Apo’s philosophy, approach, there is no intention to lessen the struggle against capitalism, the state, the dictatorships, or to accept them. On the contrary, he exposes their true nature and opens the way for a more effective struggle. He lays their reality bare. In this respect, the Leader’s criticisms are justified. Marx opposed capitalism but did not sufficiently evaluate the capitalist system.

In this sense, we must give Leader Apo his due. Leader Apo, let me emphasize again, gives everything its due. He does no injustice to anything. Neither to Lenin, nor to Marx, nor to Engels—to no one. Neither to Jesus, nor to Muhammad, nor to Moses—he wrongs no one. As the saying goes: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” In leadership, there is such an ethic, such a conscience. But there is also a critical thinking. There is a philosophy of criticizing deficiencies and creating what is right. This is very strong in the Leadership.

Leadership has standards of acceptance and rejection. He does not accept everything. He does not call what is untrue true—he rejects it. For this reason, I especially call on leftist and socialist circles to understand the Leadership more correctly, to give him his due, and to make criticisms not in a propagandistic or emotional way, but constructively. Yes, they can criticize and debate aspects they do not see or understand. We have no issue with that. We have no problem with those who debate. But there must not be approaches that are deliberate, malicious, or ill-intentioned.