Home News Radical Democracy and Self-Governance in Kurdistan

Radical Democracy and Self-Governance in Kurdistan

19
0

Though Kurdish politics in Turkey is dominated by a nationwide liberation motion, the motion makes no express attraction to nationalism and adopts a radically essential stand in the direction of the nation-state (Miley 2020; Sunca 2020). The motion envisages the co-existence of plural political communities at native, municipal, provincial, regional, nationwide, and transnational ranges (Akkaya and Jongerden 2013; De Jong 2015; Jongerden 2017). It has developed a mannequin of presidency referred to as Democratic Confederalism, which aspires to determine a multi-layered system of political communities based mostly on residency and cosmopolitan membership (Akkaya 2020; Baris 2020; Colasanti et al. 2018; Hunt 2019). The mannequin promotes a system of plural political communities during which sovereignty is not ‘understood to be the unique prerogative of the central authorities of the state, however, relatively, a set of capabilities that may finest be exercised at completely different ranges of society, relying on the character of selections that have to be made and the style of their most applicable implementation (Worldwide Convention of Consultants Report 1998: 17, cited in Bayir 2013: 9).

Crucial side of the challenge is that it positions itself in opposition to territorial sovereignty of the nation-state (the shape), political participation by means of consultant democracy (the political system), and unique citizenship based mostly on affinity (membership). Within the Kurdish mannequin, the shape is a coexistence of scattered autonomous political entities equivalent to communes, villages, neighbourhoods, districts, cities, federations, and confederations; whereas confederations ideally stretch throughout the borders of nation-states.

Based on the mannequin, native assemblies delegate political energy by way of delegates despatched to metropolis councils and regional assemblies (Akkaya and Jongerden 2015; Jongerden 2019; Rojava Data Middle 2019; Tax 2016). In different phrases, residents train political energy instantly and delegate representatives solely when the matter just isn’t completely within the jurisdiction of the native political neighborhood. Thus, political energy runs counter to the best way it runs in parliamentary democracy: it flows from under to the highest, not the opposite manner round. On this political system, there isn’t any central nationwide parliament with the privilege of exercising sovereignty. The political system on this mannequin combines establishments of direct and semi-direct democracy with political events, thematic councils equivalent to girls, ecological and youth councils, and with civil society organisations. Lastly, membership is predicated on residency, not on cultural or nationwide id. What we witness right here is the delivery of a political neighborhood aside from the nation-state, delivered by a nationwide liberation motion.

Political Communities in North and West Kurdistan

‘“Our purpose”, the chair of the council defined, “is to face the issues in our lives, in our neighbourhood, and resolve them by ourselves with out being depending on or needing the state”. Others add that “the state is a hump on the again of the individuals,” and “we attempt to reside with out the state”’ (Councilmen from town of Diyarbakir in North Kurdistan, quoted in Akkaya and Jongerden 2013:196)

The quote above expresses, in a nutshell, the prevailing view of politics within the Kurdish motion. The type of political neighborhood rising from this quote is knowledgeable by Aristotelian face-to-face political neighborhood: the autonomous commune, a nose to nose neighborhood that includes 100 to 300 households (relying on the dimensions of the autonomous settlement) is on the basis of the Kurdish mannequin (Biehl 2014; Rojava Data Middle 2019; Tax 2016). Moreover, the Kurdish mannequin envisages and experiments with direct democracy by means of assemblies and councils at each degree of decision-making, which embody communes, neighbourhoods, cities, districts and cities. Direct democratic political participation is related to Athenian democracy (though that isn’t correct in keeping with John Keane (2009)). Accordingly, there’s loads of reference to historic Athenian democracy within the paperwork of the motion (Rojava Administration 2014) in addition to within the literature on the Kurdish mannequin and within the writings of the architect of the mannequin Abdullah Ocalan  (Akkaya and Jongerden 2013, 2015; De Jong 2015; Leezenberg 2016; Sary 2016; TATORT Kurdistan 2011, 2014; Yegen 2016).

Murray Bookchin, the political theorist thought-about to be the supply of inspiration for the Kurdish mannequin, is thought for his imaginative and prescient of political neighborhood modelled on Athenian democracy (Bookchin 2015). The mannequin is predicated on the total political autonomy of communities of residence equivalent to villages, neighbourhoods, cities, and cities.[1] These communities are assumed to own, by nature, the appropriate to self-rule and self-defence. This makes them political communities in and of themselves. The mannequin additionally explicitly dismisses establishing a Kurdish nation-state (Öcalan 2011).

Why ought to a nationwide liberation motion dismiss nation-state altogether and envisage a political neighborhood aside from the nation? What historic dynamics and which theoretical rules encourage Kurdish Liberation Motion to develop a mannequin of political neighborhood based mostly on residential citizenship, direct/semi-direct train of political energy, and a fragmented sovereignty of plural, horizontal political entities?

The Kurdish mannequin steers away from statehood as a result of its architect Abdullah Ocalan has made his life’s work to develop a substitute for the statist Turkish nationalism (Baris 2020). Kurdish nationwide liberation actions in North and West (Turkish and Syrian) Kurdistan, thus, impressed by the architect and his mannequin, have been striving to ‘liberate’ Kurdistan and Kurds with an ideology that dismisses statehood and nationalism (Akkaya 2020; Matin 2019; Öcalan 2020).

The Kurdish mannequin has atomic communities on the centre of its ethical and political philosophy and envisages a social order with out cultural hierarchies within the type nations, ethnicities, nationalities and many others. The statist Turkish nationalism, however, places the State on the centre of ethical and political philosophy and imposes a hierarchical order on cultural classes based mostly on this statist outlook. Statist Turkish nationalism means that the nation has the prerogative to dominate different teams as a result of it ‘has a state of its personal’ (Mohammadpour and Soleimani 2019; Özdoğan 2010; Yesiltas 2014). Adherents of this logic deduce, from this assumption, that different teams aren’t equal, in dignity and rights, with nations, as a result of they ‘lack’ a State of their very own (Bacik 2016; Baris 2020; Gökay and Aybak 2016). The truth that there isn’t any Kurdish state, for example, is taken because the proof that they don’t deserve one. In the event that they did, the argument goes, they might have discovered one sooner or later in historical past. Certainly, this isn’t traditionally correct, as a result of there are states and state-like entities based by Kurds all through historical past (Özoğlu 2004), however that isn’t the purpose. The purpose is that the Turkish political elite appears to have satisfied themselves that that is the case, with a purpose to keep and legitimise the establishment that’s based on the dominance and superiority of the Turkish id and denies the Kurds the cultural rights and territorial autonomy they’ve been demanding because the institution of the Turkish republic (Gökay and Aybak 2016; Xypolia 2016).

As an illustration, Birgül Ayman Güler,  an MP of the primary opposition Individuals’s Republican Occasion (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi-CHP), additionally a professor of political science at probably the most prestigious universities in Turkey, the Ankara College, acknowledged that ‘You can not persuade me that the Turkish nation (Türk Ulusu) and the Kurdish nationality (Kürt milliyeti) are equal’[2]. The assertion implied that ‘Kurdish nationality’, as a political class, is secondary to the superior one; i.e. the Turkish nation. This interpretation depends closely on the formal/authorized narrative (additionally the mainstream one), which means that the ‘Turkish nation’ is the one and sole political neighborhood in Turkey and that it’s all-encompassing. Furthermore, membership on this single political neighborhood, in keeping with Article 66 of the present structure, is predicated on Turkishness: ‘Everybody sure to the Turkish State by means of the bond of citizenship is a Turk’. Consequently, there isn’t any room for an additional group to grow to be the idea of political rights and prerogatives or to say political company.

The precondition of being a nation, in keeping with this mainstream view amongst Turkish politicians, is having a state of their very own. It follows that the Kurds don’t have any state of their very own and that they can’t be thought-about equal in ranks with the Turkish nation. Contrasting with this narrative, the prevalent opinion among the many Kurdish political elite and intelligentsia means that two separate nations, Turkish and Kurdish, exist in Turkey and that they based the state in alliance and partnership. Thus, they’re equal in rank and ought to be equal in political and authorized standing. They demand that the Kurdish nation ought to be constitutionally recognised because the equal, constituent companion in Turkey.  

In one other occasion, the previous deputy prime minister Bulent Arinc acknowledged that Kurdish is ‘not the language of a civilization’ (Derince 2013), and therefore, it couldn’t be thought-about equal to the Turkish language. Subsequently, no level of demanding the identical safety and/or promotion accessible to the Turkish language for the Kurdish language as effectively. Kurdish can be seen as a language that has not produced sufficient literature to be valued equally in comparison with Turkish. When actually, the first purpose for that has been the restrictions imposed by the political institution on training, publication and broadcasting in Kurdish in Turkey for the final 9 a long time (Cemiloglu 2009; Coşkun, Derince, and Uçarlar 2011; Derince 2013; Zeydanlıoğlu 2012).

Departing from the statements above, it’s a matter in fact for Turkish politicians, lecturers and statespersons to conclude that the Kurds, as a neighborhood, shouldn’t be thought-about as a nation and therefore aren’t mature sufficient to rule themselves. {That a} typical nineteenth- century colonial mindset is at work right here wouldn’t be far-fetched a deduction. This mindset is pervasive in Turkey due to a selected nationalism there: statist nationalism. 

This type of nationalism holds the sanctity of the Turkish state above all the things else and deems pure doing no matter it takes to protect the ‘integrity of the state with its nation’. Constitutional provisions equivalent to ‘nationwide and territorial unity’, ‘the indivisibility of the state with its nation’, ‘the supreme chief Ataturk[3] and his nationalism’, and the broadly shared, often uttered motto one language, one flag, one nation, one state are primarily directed at preserving the state as it’s.

Statist nationalism in Turkey, thus, is purpose d’état par excellence. Federalism, confederalism, territorial autonomy for minorities, devolution of energy to native administrations, recognition of a second official language, training in mom tongue and many others., the type of political preparations that each society wants to keep up a various society and a peaceful social order, are subsequently not mentioned in mainstream politics in Turkey. The precedence is, in Benhabib’s phrases, ‘to strengthen the state by way of makes an attempt to collect all of the markers of sovereignty within the public authority with the consequence of elevated militarisation, disregard for worldwide regulation and human rights, regressive and hostile relations with neighbours’ (2007:28).

The Kurdish political motion has developed their mannequin of political neighborhood  as a substitute for the nation-state on the whole (Öcalan 2011). However their mannequin can be in a stark distinction with the statist Turkish nationalism particularly.

Democratic Confederalism

Confronted with this uniformist, monistic imposition of nationwide id and this strictly statist nationalism, the dominant Kurdish political motion in Turkey proposes a politics that focuses on constructing autonomous and partially sovereign political communities impressed by Athenian democracy in political decision-making.[4] This interprets into establishing pluralist and inclusive political communities in cities and cities of Kurdistan by way of transferring the authority of creating binding-decisions from nationwide political establishments to citizen assemblies. This can be a radical different to the present parliamentary and consultant, procedural political decision-making that concentrates political energy within the parliament on the capital of the nation. As many have identified, consultant establishments can hardly be thought-about democratic sufficient (Benhabib 2007; Hardt and Negri 2004; Näsström 2015).

Consultant political establishments are a lot much less democratic in Turkey than in a typical liberal democracy, as a result of bureaucrats maintain rather more political energy than elected workplace holders. Governors of cities and cities in Turkey are able to nullifying or overruling each determination made by municipalities and mayoral assemblies. After a yr and half handed because the final native elections, solely six of sixty-five elected Kurdish mayors stay in workplace: the remaining are imprisoned or eliminated (Duvar 2020). Thus, the challenge developed by the Kurdish political motion displays their frustration with the draconian central authorities that feeds on consultant nationwide political procedures and establishments.

The Kurdish mannequin, however, grounds itself on a self-rule that’s based mostly on residential sovereignty and autonomy, a formulation akin to Waldron’s precept of proximity (2011:8). The important thing part right here is autonomy, i.e. ‘the acknowledgement that there are a number of and completely different wants, values, and considerations, that these wants, values, and considerations can solely be correctly acknowledged when localisation guides the main focus of social relations, and that they will solely be adequately supported and cultivated by means of place-based mechanisms of self-governance’ (Küçük and Özselçuk 2016:190).

Democratic Confederalism, in flip, refers back to the umbrella superstructure, the free and transnational confederation of these Aristotelian face-to-face communities, cities and cities, in a bid to transcend and remodel the present hegemonic superstructure, i.e. the nation-state into extra democratic political regimes the place plural nations and political communities can coexist. The challenge is impressed primarily by Communalism in itsapproach to the political neighborhood. A notion developed by Bookchin (2015), communalism promotes small-scale, face-to-face neighborhood based mostly socio-political organisation of society after the Historic Greek mannequin. Accordingly, the motion has established tons of of communes in Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan within the final decade, with out demanding assist or permission from and largely in defiance to centralised establishments (Küçük and Özselçuk 2016).

The last word purpose of the challenge is constructing self-sufficient socio-political spatial items (Bezwan 2018; TATORT Kurdistan 2011, 2014). These spatial items are supposed to train a type of political autonomy that isn’t essentially granted by central states. It proposes a much less inflexible regime of border management to permit free motion of peoples and items; it builds political establishments and arranges decision-making processes that make sure the extra direct train of political will (Akkaya and Jongerden 2012; Hassaniyan 2019). The purpose is founding an egalitarian society with gender equality, environmental safety and ecology pleasant financial exercise that prioritizes the wants and choices of communes and communities on the grassroots degree (Knapp, Flach, and Ayboğa 2016; Knapp and Jongerden 2014). In that sense, neither non secular nor ethnic or nationwide id might be the idea of such a challenge. Participation of girls in all decision-making and govt our bodies, girls councils and separate girls armed forces are supposed to eradicate male domination; whereas recognition of autonomy and self-defence for cultural minorities inside Kurdistan is supposed to forestall cultural hierarchies and nationalist domination. Ecology councils and communes are based to develop another financial and environmental tradition and activism, an egalitarian coverage in financial manufacturing and (re)distribution of wealth.  

Politically, whereas the Turkish political institution subscribes to the ideology of nationalism and the notion of nationwide self-determination, as a result of worldwide regulation solely permits sovereign states or colonized peoples to make a declare to the precept of self-determination. The Kurdish political motion invokes a framework that may be summarised, in Benhabib’s phrases, as ‘republican federalism’, which quantities to:

[T]he constitutionally structured reaggregation of the markers of sovereignty, in a set of interlocking establishments every accountable and accountable to the opposite. There may be, as there have to be in any structuring of sovereignty, a second of finality, within the sense of decisional closure, however not a second of ultimacy, within the sense of being past questioning, problem and accountability (2007:30–31). 

Nevertheless, the Kurdish political motion engages this framework with a slight twist to the superstructure, formulating it as Confederalism, however not federalism. Thus, the Kurdish political motion embeds its challenge of democratic confederalism firmly throughout the present normative accounts of cosmopolitan citizenship and direct democratic decision-making.

Conclusion

To reiterate, the important thing elements of democratic confederalism are as follows:

First, it means that members/residents shouldn’t be represented by a political class by means of nationwide establishments, however they need to be individuals in political decision-making processes by way of native councils and assemblies. That is meant to interchange obligation with solidarity;because the bond that holds the neighborhood collectively just isn’t vertical loyalty to a distant central authority, however a horizontal dedication to fellow residents (actually, residents of a metropolis).

Second, it’s all residents, not solely those that belong to a particular ethnic, nationwide or non secular class that is known as upon to control themselves. Within the phrases of a citizen of town of Kobanê who greeted guests by saying ‘Welcome! This city is yours! It belongs to humanity’ (Taussig 2015:2): town belongs to everybody.

Third, the authority that’s being claimed is restricted to self-governing of town, the city, the village and the management of their pure assets. Sovereignty is thus fragmented and dispersed by means of a myriad of autonomous political communities.

Fourth, girls participate in each official publish on equal foundation with males, and gender quota is established for committees, councils and assemblies and many others. with a purpose to guarantee gender equality. There are combined and women-only armed forces; women-only TV and radio stations and periodicals; and a whole scientific self-discipline, Jineolojî (English: Ladies Science; derived from the phrase jin, which implies girls in Kurdish, and –lojî, the equal of the suffix -logy), as a area of examine for girls, in Kurdistan.

Fifth, cultural minorities take part in each determination made about their communities; have the appropriate to self-defence, training of their languages and cultural preservation – if conventional practices aren’t dangerous to particular person human rights.

Contemplating the dominance of theocratic, nationalist, monarchic and imperial visions and fashions of political neighborhood which have condemned politics to an oscillation between authoritarian, semi-authoritarian and autocratic regimes, the Kurdish mannequin of political neighborhood is promising. This democratic grassroots mannequin of autonomy faces elimination as a result of threats posed by the Turkish and Syrian governments. Nevertheless, Kurdish, Armenian, Assyrian and Yezidi communities in North and West Kurdistan appear to be receptive to the mannequin of democratic confederalism (Allsopp and Wilgenburg 2019; Burç 2020; Holmes 2020; Matin 2019). They have to be supported by the worldwide neighborhood of their bid to determine and protect the type of self-government they want to. The Kurdish mannequin, though not with out flaws, guarantees a secular, democratic, pluralistic, egalitarian and environmentalist mannequin of self-rule for all. It’s a historic alternative that should not be missed if peace, concord and coexistence are to be established and preserved in Kurdistan. It’s time for the worldwide neighborhood to behave and intervene on behalf of the communities of North and West Kurdistan, to forestall the collapse of probably the most progressive and democratic political experiments in Syrian Kurdistan; and to finish their persecution within the palms of a spiritual extremist and ultranationalist regime in Turkey.

Notes

[1]This autonomy additionally takes a cultural flip when non secular communities equivalent to Armenians and Assyrians in Syrian Kurdistan, the place they type minorities inside cities and cities, are acknowledged as autonomous, too.

[2] Birgul Ayman Guler’s assertion is on Hurriyetdailynews, 25.01.2013.

[3] Mustafa Kemal, the founding father of the Republic of Turkey. He was given the surname Ataturk (Father of the Turks) in 1934 by the Grand Nationwide Meeting of Turkey.

[4] The primary draft of the Constitution of the Rojava Cantons, drafted by the ally of the Kurdish motion in Syria, had a direct reference to Athenian democracy, however it didn’t seem within the later textual content. This is because of the truth that the primary inspiration for the challenge of democratic confederalism has been Murray Bookchin, who based mostly his political philosophy on the Athenian mannequin of democracy relatively than the Roman mannequin of republicanism.

References

Akkaya, Ahmet Hamdi. 2020. “The PKK’s Ideological Odyssey.” Journal of Balkan and Close to Japanese Research.

Akkaya, Ahmet Hamdi and Joost Jongerden. 2012. “Reassembling the Political: The PKK and the Mission of Radical Democracy.” European Journal of Turkish Research 14(April):1–16.

Akkaya, Ahmet Hamdi and Joost Jongerden. 2013. “Confederalism and Autonomy in Turkey: The Kurdistan Staff’ Occasion and the Reinvention of Democracy.” Pp. 186–204 in The Kurdish Query in Turkey: New Views on Violence, Illustration and Reconciliation, edited by C. Gunes and W. Zeydanlioglu. London: Routledge.

Akkaya, Ahmet Hamdi and Joost Jongerden. 2015. “Reassembling the Political: The PKK and the Mission of Radical Democracy.” Pp. 158–91 in Stateless Democracy, edited by R. I. der Maur and J. Staal. Amsterdam: New World Summit.

Allsopp, Harriet and Wladimir van Wilgenburg. 2019. The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Variety and Conflicts. London: I.B. Tauris.

Bacik, Gokhan. 2016. “Türk ‘İlahiyatına’ Giriş: Devlet Dinimdir, Millet Mezhebimdir!” Maviyorum. Retrieved Could 29, 2016 (http://www.maviyorum.com/turk-ilahiyatina-giris-devlet-dinimdir-millet-mezhebimdir-gokhan-bacik/).

Baris, Hanifi. 2020. The Kurdish Mannequin of Political Neighborhood: A Imaginative and prescient of Nationwide Liberation Defiant of the Nation-State. London: Lexington Books.

Bayir, Derya. 2013. “Turkey, the Kurds, and the Authorized Contours of the Proper To Self-Willpower.” Kurdish Research 1(1):5–27.

Benhabib, Seyla. 2007. “Twilight of Sovereignty or the Emergence of Cosmopolitan Norms? Rethinking Citizenship in Risky Occasions.” Citizenship Research 11(1):19–36.

Bezwan, Naif. 2018. “Addressing the Kurdish Self-Willpower Battle: Democratic Autonomy and Authoritarianism in Turkey.” Pp. 59–82 in Democratic Illustration in Plurinational States. Cham: Springer Worldwide Publishing.

Biehl, Janet. 2014. “Impressions of Rojava: A Report from the Revolution.” ROAR Journal. Retrieved December 24, 2014 (https://roarmag.org/essays/janet-biehl-report-rojava/).

Bookchin, Murray. 2015. The Subsequent Revolution: Standard Assemblies and the Promise of Direct Democracy. London: Verso.

Burç, Rosa. 2020. “Non-Territorial Autonomy and Gender Equality: The Case of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria – Rojava.” Filozofija i Drustvo 31(3):319–39.

Cemiloglu, Dicle. 2009. “Language Coverage and Nationwide Unity : The Dilemma of the Kurdish Language in Turkey.” Faculty Undergraduate Analysis Digital Journal (College of Pennsylvania).

Colasanti, Nathalie, Rocco Frondizi, Joyce Liddle, and Marco Meneguzzo. 2018. “Grassroots Democracy and Native Authorities in Northern Syria: The Case of Democratic Confederalism.” Native Authorities Research 44(6):807–25.

Coşkun, Vahap, M. Şerif Derince, and Nesrin Uçarlar. 2011. Scar of Tongue: Penalties of the Ban on the Use of Mom Tongue in Training and Experiences of Kurdish College students in Turkey. Diyarbakir: DİSA (Analysis institute).

Derince, Mehmet Şerif. 2013. “A Break or Continuity? Turkey’s Politics of Kurdish Language within the New Millennium.” Dialectical Anthropology 37(1):145–52.

Duvar. 2020. “HDP Left with Six Municipalities out of 65 It Gained in March 2019 Elections.” Duvar English. Retrieved October 8, 2020 (https://www.duvarenglish.com/politics/2020/10/02/hdp-left-with-six-municipalities-out-of-65-it-won-in-march-2019-elections/).

Gökay, Bülent and Tunç Aybak. 2016. “Identification, Race and Nationalism in Turkey—Introduction to the Particular Difficulty.” Journal of Balkan and Close to Japanese Research 18(2):107–10.

Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2004. Multitude: Battle and Democracy within the Age of Empire. New York: The Penguin Press.

Hassaniyan, Allan. 2019. “Cross-Border Kurdish Solidarity: An Endangered Facet of Kurdishness.” Kurdish Research 7(2):135–60.

Holmes, Amy Austin. 2020. Syrian Yezidis Below 4 Regimes: Assad, Erdogan, ISIS and the YPG. Washington D.C.

Hunt, Stephen E. 2019. “Prospects for Kurdish Ecology Initiatives in Syria and Turkey: Democratic Confederalism and Social Ecology.” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 30(3):7–26.

De Jong, Alex. 2015. “Kurdish Autonomy between Dream and Actuality.” Roar Journal. Retrieved December 14, 2016 (https://roarmag.org/essays/kurdish-autonomy-jongerden-interview/).

Jongerden, Joost. 2017. “Wanting past the State: Transitional Justice and the Kurdish Difficulty in Turkey.” Ethnic and Racial Research 41(4):721–38.

Jongerden, Joost. 2019. “Governing Kurdistan: Self-Administration within the Kurdistan Regional Authorities in Iraq and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria.” Ethnopolitics 18(1):61–75.

Keane, John C. 2009. The Life and Demise of Democracy. London: Simon & Schuster.

Knapp, Michael, Anja Flach, and Ercan Ayboğa. 2016. Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Ladies’s Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan. 1st ed. London: Pluto Press.

Knapp, Michael and Joost Jongerden. 2014. “Communal Democracy: The Social Contract and Confederalism in Rojava.” Comparative Islamic Research 10:87–109.

Küçük, Bülent and Ceren Özselçuk. 2016. “The Rojava Expertise: Potentialities and Challenges of Constructing a Democratic Life.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 115(1):183–96.

Leezenberg, Michiel. 2016. “The Ambiguities of Democratic Autonomy: The Kurdish Motion in Turkey and Rojava.” Southeast European and Black Sea Research 1–20.

Matin, Kamran. 2019. “Democratic Confederalism and Societal Multiplicity: A Sympathetic Critique of Abdullah Öcalan’s State Idea.” Geopolitics.

Miley, Thomas Jeffrey. 2020. “The Kurdish Freedom Motion, Rojava and the Left.” Center East Analysis and Data Mission  (295).

Mohammadpour, Ahmad and Kamal Soleimani. 2019. “Interrogating the Tribal: The Aporia of ‘Tribalism’ within the Sociological Research of the Center East.” British Journal of Sociology 70(5):1799–1824.

Näsström, Sofia. 2015. “Democratic Illustration past Election.” Constellations 22(1):1–12.

Öcalan, Abdullah. 2011. Democratic Confederalism. London: Transmedia Publishing Ltd.

Öcalan, Abdullah. 2020. “My Answer for Turkey, Syria, and the Kurds.” Jacobin, July 8.

Özdoğan, Günay Göksu. 2010. “Turkish Nationalism Reconsidered: The ‘Heaviness’ of Statist Patriotism in Nation-Constructing.” Pp. 1–20 in Nationalism within the Troubled Triangle: Cyprus, Greece amd Turkey, edited by A. Aktar, N. Kizilyurek, and U. Ozkirimli. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Özoğlu, Hakan. 2004. Kurdish Notables and the Ottoman State. Albany: State College of New York Press.

Rojava Administration. 2014. “Constitution of the Social Contract in Rojava (Syria).”

Rojava Data Middle. 2019. Past the Frontlines: The Constructing of the Democratic System in North and East Syria. Qamişlo.

Sary, Ghadi. 2016. Kurdish Self-Governance in Syria: Survival and Ambition. London.

Sunca, Yasin. 2020. “The Bifurcated Trajectory of Nation Formation in Kurdistan: Democratic Confederalism, Nationalism, and the Disaster of Capitalist Modernity.” Nations and Nationalism 1–15.

TATORT Kurdistan. 2011. Democratic Autonomy in North Kurdistan. Porsgrunn: New Compass.

TATORT Kurdistan. 2014. “Democratic Autonomy in Rojava.” New Compass. Retrieved January 1, 2014 (http://new-compass.internet/articles/revolution-rojava).

Taussig, Michael. 2015. “The Mastery of Non-Mastery.” Public Seminar. Retrieved August 9, 2015 (http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/08/the-mastery-of-non-mastery/#.V-xn5vArK01).

Tax, Meredith. 2016. “The Rojava Mannequin .” Overseas Affairs, October 14.

Waldron, Jeremy. 2011. “The Precept of Proximity.” New York College Public Regulation and Lega Idea Working Papers 1–26.

Xypolia, Ilia. 2016. “Racist Features of Trendy Turkish Nationalism.” Journal of Balkan and Close to Japanese Research 8953(February):1–14.

Yegen, Mesut. 2016. “Armed Wrestle to Peace Negotiations: Unbiased Kurdistan to Democratic Autonomy, or The PKK in Context.” Center East Critique 1–19.

Yesiltas, Ozum. 2014. “Rethinking the Nationwide Query : Anti-Statist Discourses throughout the Kurdish Nationwide Motion.”

Zeydanlıoğlu, Welat. 2012. “Turkey’s Kurdish Language Coverage.” Worldwide Journal of the Sociology of Language (217):99–125.

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations