Leader Ocalan: Current phase compels all forces to rebirth, reformation

 Recognized for his philosophical and political thought, as well as his unique struggle, leader Abdullah Ocalan is regarded as a symbol of the fight for freedom—primarily by the Kurdish people, but also by the broader Middle Eastern and global community. He categorizes his life and struggle, which has become a beacon for liberty and equality, into three distinct phases.

 On the 46th anniversary of the founding of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), we revisit the three stages of "birth" outlined by the leader in his work From the Sumerian Priestly State to Democratic Civilization, emphasizing their relevance to the current political moment.

 According to the leader, the Imrali phase represents the third stage of birth. The first was his birth into a rural agricultural society, deeply at odds with the realities of the 20th century. This period, spanning his early years, marked a break from 15,000 years of ingrained societal structures. The inability to analyze these deep-seated dynamics led to conflicts within his family and village life, manifesting as a rebellious rural spirit—a defiance that persisted until he entered formal society.

 The second phase began with his formal education, continuing through his rebellion against the oligarchic republic. This stage, which leader Ocalan likens to Don Quixote’s battle against windmills, confronted not only the contradictions of Neolithic and feudal society but also those of capitalism. The absence of a revolutionary framework led to chaos and disorganization; the rebellion he engaged in lacked the means to critically assess its own internal contradictions. This 20-year-long phase of struggle ultimately had profound regional and global repercussions, culminating in the İmralı phase—a response to the impasses faced by the movement.

 The conditions of İmralı, the leader argues, do not signify a personal rebirth, but rather a rebirth of the republic and the people. The second phase of birth was characterized by struggle and purification through war, embodying the dialectical unity of opposites—within the mountains, society, and every phenomenon. This struggle against the oligarchic republic was meant to pave the way for a democratic transformation, culminating in the establishment of a secular and democratic republic.

 Just as development is impossible without contradictions, constant struggle against meaningless contradictions does not foster progress; rather, it leads to destruction, crisis, and collapse. Turkey, having spent excessive time grappling with its contradictions without resolving them, has inevitably slid into a state of crisis from which it struggles to escape.

 The current phase compels all forces to undergo a rebirth and reformation—from the state to the economy, from politics to rights, and from ethics to the arts. As all sectors face upheaval and crisis, they are actively searching for solutions amidst escalating tensions. The Imrali phase, which directly concerns me, has acted as a trigger in this reality. Just as the previous phase found its meaning in the expression "Me and War," this phase finds its meaning in "Me and Peace." The Kurdish will and consciousness for liberation constitute an essential part of my foundational stance. This same will and consciousness, which were tested through war, are now transitioning into a phase of peace.

 While the war phase manifested as resistance against feudalism and the oligarchic republic, the peace phase requires a fundamental and structural renewal to establish a "secular and democratic republic." There is no desire for violence or secession. However, if there is an attempt to completely exclude the Kurds from the system, it is important to remember that Kurds and Turks have historically worked together in building the state and national identity. Therefore, the Kurds should not be marginalized through violence and denial. Peace necessitates a political and legal framework that allows Kurds to exist freely, preserving their culture and integrating with the republic. A republic that denies the free will of the Kurds is inherently oligarchic and will inevitably lead to violence and separation. Conversely, a republic that embraces democratic reconciliation and voluntary unity opens the door to a future of peace and coexistence. The failure to achieve this so far is due to the ongoing struggle between the oligarchic republic and the democratic republic. In this sense, the Imrali phase symbolizes a historical turning point—either peace will emerge from this process, or, if the oligarchic republic persists in policies of denial and annihilation, violence will escalate, leading to deeper divisions.

 This is the fundamental reality behind the crisis that Turkey is experiencing at such a profound level in its history. If the government and parliament—both responsible for resolving the issue—fail to address it in a timely and realistic manner, and if they neglect their responsibilities, they will only be covering up the problem, allowing it to fester and grow more complex. As the media suggests, politics itself is the root cause of the crisis.

 Politics, in its current form, wields the death sentence over my head like the Sword of Damocles, believing that this will yield results. In doing so, it is making a grave mistake—one that leaves Turkey subject to an internally and externally imposed system rooted in corruption, brokerage networks, and illicit profiteering. As a result, the country remains trapped in an ongoing crisis, losing billions of dollars each month and year, while the people endure increasing suffering, repression, and suffocation. Given that a 15-year-long war has already cost 40,000 lives and inflicted material losses exceeding hundreds of billions of dollars, the only viable path forward is to analyze this phenomenon within its international, social, and historical context, define it correctly, and work toward a lasting solution. Failure to do so will only escalate the crisis to even greater proportions, making further conflict inevitable.

 This phase, for me as an individual and a leadership institution, requires assessing the issue within this context, this cannot be achieved with a mindset of exploitation and use, the positions of extremism based on denial, annihilation, and slander—whether coming from official state circles or from complicity within Kurdish circles—will lead to the imposition of a war that deepens the impasse. To avoid sliding into this trap, we must act with utmost sensitivity and wisdom. Any escalation based on physical and moral annihilation directed at me means an attempt to annihilate the forces of free will, both Kurdish and Turkish. In order for a liberation war to yield results for both our peoples, all strategic and tactical preparations for a legitimate defensive war must be conducted as though it is starting tomorrow. This is the fundamental condition for the success of this phase, and this is the historical meaning of the Imrali phase in terms of the state, society, our people, the PKK, and for me.

a.k

ANHA