Weak Justification, for a Strong Event
For every lively society, it's important that thinkers and politicians think of new thoughts and methods for progress and development of their society. But even much better is that intellectuals know that routine gossips and using some political and peppery terms which affect on the psychological and social component of people, has nothing to do with new political and social thought and method.
Contrary to the break up, dispersion and one another’s defaming that have been occurring alongside history in Kurdistan, most of occupied nations and countries of the world were able to move toward liberty and building a new stage in their society, just after the union and unification of their basic powers. What's meant by this is to say that when Kurdish intellectuals criticize the constant failure and the repeated defeat of Kurds in history, the first thing that is mentioned as a terrible evidence and characteristic of Kurds is partition, locality, and the splitting between areas, tribes and different components of Kurdish community and political splitting. This seems to be used over for defaming Kurdish history.
While oppositely, in recent days, some Kurdish intellectuals claim that livelihood of Kurds is in their splitting and political competition, or in making political directions ideological. They also call the political and social components of Kurdistan which through a calm and tranquil era far from splitting, call it as dead and a chunk of mud. They call it in a way or another as slave. Whilst the very same people consider these methods and interpretations the key factor of political stagnation and remaining Kurds taken over historically.
So if democracy was a basis of political splitting, there would probably be further political splitting to occur in Europe, America and Canada. Also America should have witnessed formation of new 200 states instead of 50. In Europe, Germany might have not unified and four Germanys might have established. And socialist, or say, more radical France might have been established. British might have had a lot of Londons (Conservatives and Labors... etc). But the logic seems to have shown the opposite. Democracy is the strength of union determination, public opinion and unifying national discourse, union of nation and the country. All the countries in which oppression and stagnation are dominant, thinking of splitting and not establishing a calm country, dividing the state and political power are dominant. So contrary to those who say splitting and disorder is democracy; tranquility and union of nation and country is the actual meaning of democracy, because the latter provides equal and free opportunity to all people and individuals to participate fairly and actively in social and political process freely. So in the democratic system, the determination of union and unity, providing stability is further, but in split era, tensions of political ties, escalation of disputes, wars and disorder, pressure, cutting and denial of each other increase. This is what leads the country to disaster and confront the people with indetermination and hopelessness.
That's why the path of Kurdistan’s prosperity is the unification of discourse and deed, not political division, nor justification for dispersion and denial of each other under democracy and livelihood name, because livelihood is in that we tolerate each other freely, not split and the division of political determination.