Weak Jus­ti­fi­ca­tion, for a Strong Event

The Kurdish Globe - - NEWS - By Gazi Has­san

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.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Iraq

© PressReader. All rights reserved.