The first commune in Kobane: construction and challenges

Kobane, Syria, 7 February 2015. Picture by: Sebastian Backhaus/DPA/PA Images. All rights reserved. During
the Syrian revolution in 2011, the PYD (Democratic Union Party)
party– which has strong support among the Kurds– took the third
way. This meant supporting neither the Assad regime nor the
opposition, for both have had the same mentality by denying the
Kurdish right to self- determination.

The
ideological project of the PYD is Democratic Confederalism –a
project that was advanced
by Abdullah Ocalan, a political theorist and ideological leader of the PKK–
which aims to empower
people socially and politically at the grassroots level in popular
communes, assemblies, and councils. In this project, feminism,
ecology, and radical democracy are celebrated. This project proposes
itself as an alternative to the nation-state.

Busy
with suppressing the armed groups– under the name of the Free Syrian
Army– the Assad
regime withdrew its forces from the Kurdish cities in 2012. The
Kurdish cities, in north Syria, were run by the Kurdish freedom
movement.

The
formation of the commune

“The
Canton system does not entirely follow my vision. Communes must be built,” a PYD member read Abdullah Ocalan's letter from Imrali
among a few other members of PYD in the Kobane canton in 2014. The
member paused for a bit after closing Ocalan's letter and addressed
his friends, “We have a new task to do, friends.”

This
story was narrated by Ferhad Hemmi, a journalist and one of the
participants who took part in establishing the first commune in
Kobani, during an interview. Hemmi was one of the attendees when
Ocalan's letter was read in the center of PYD.

Ocalan
proposed that demand in order to empower people at the grassroots
level by making decisions through direct democracy institutionalized
first in communes and then assemblies, council and a confederation of
councils at a higher level.
In
democratic confederlism, commune is the smallest organizational and
decision- making base.
Ocalan's dissatisfaction with the Canton System comes from its
hierarchal nature which resembles the State in its structure.

After
Ocalan's call for establishing communes in Rojava, some members of
PYD and other civil people came to gather to initiate the first
commune in Kobane. The group was comprised of 10 people — 4 women
and 6 men– varying in terms of age and social status.

The
group knew each other since the beginning of the Rojava Revolution in
2012. The members of the group had a strong connection with each
other socially and politically. However, there were disagreements in
regards to the notion of establishing of a commune among the members
from the very beginning. The members were swinging between the State
and market mentality on the one hand, and ethical and political
society and friendship on the other. This disagreement involved a
long discussion in order for all members to agree to establish
communes along free, rational and ethical lines. Then the members
took the decision to start the commune and met twice a week to talk
about it.

The
formation of a commune started with a study group to discuss how the
commune should be formulated philosophically and politically.
According to Hemmi, the members commonly formed a framework. This
means that the framework was not already prepared, but rather, was
formed through a long process of discussion and consultation. The
framework was based around political and ethical society, using the
books of Ocalan as a reference.

In
the first commune, as some participants told me, the mechanism of
criticism and self-criticism was highly developed through continuous
discussion. The mechanism functioned in the framework of political
and ethical society.

The
members of the commune started to make criticisms against the State,
capitalism, and market mentality that negatively affected the
communal fabric of society. Therefore, the members primarily aimed at
redefining and recreating communal and social concepts and terms that
have been statified–absorbed and defined by the State and the
epistemology of rule based on command and obedience (Bookchin, The
Ecology of Freedom) or what Michel Foucault called a “regime of the
truth”.

While
the epistemology of rule dominates the way people think and act, it
cannot entirely erase free and libertarian traditions that people
created through long histories of resistance and struggle under the
name of Amargi”, meaning “freedom” in Sumerian. The legacy of freedom dialectally stands at
odd with the epistemology of rule and hierarchy’s legacy of
domination (Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom). However, the legacy of
freedom is hidden– due to the domination of the official history—and
needs to be recovered. Thus, Ocalan sees in his book In Defense of
the People, that unwritten history is more meaningful and valuable
than the written one. In this sense, Herbert Marcuse asked his
readers to search for “authentic language” the language of
negation as the Great Refusal of rules. He continues, “The absent
must be made present because the greater of the truth is in that
which is absent.”, (The Essential Marcuse, A Note on Dialectic, pp.
67). Based on that, it is an urgent task for any revolutionary
movements to revolutionize the language that is close to local and
libertarian traditions and away from the State.

In
a phone call with, Nuri Mahmud, who was a participant in the first
commune and now works as a spokesman of the YPG, Mahmud stated:

“since
the State, capitalism, and market mentality, have invaded all spheres
of society, we started to educate ourselves on redefining terms and
concepts in a more societal way.”

Terms
like politics, power, administration, law, ethics, democracy,
language, civilization, and culture were discussed in the study group
of the first commune. For example, under the influence of Arendtian
politics, Mahmud distinguished between the organic societal and State meaning of the word “politics”:

“For
us, politics is radical education, protection of ethics and creative
self-realization in order for society to manage its affairs. It means
the good life and action to live well. While politics in the State is
the art of deception and manipulation and means to an end.”

For
Hannah Arendt, a philosopher
and political
theorist,

politics
is conceived as free action that is oriented towards the common world
and the public sphere of life. Drawing on Aristotle's definition of
politics as " the work of man", Arendt sees that “work” is not a means to an end but rather an end in itself. In other words,
politics is what happens during action. It is actuality. As she put
it in her book The Human Condition:

“… the
'work of man' is no end because the means to achieve it—the
virtues, or aretai—are not qualities which may or may not be
actualized, but are themselves 'actualities'.” (pp. 207)

Reviving
and democratizing of libertarian traditions

The social and cultural structure of Kobane is represented by a mixture of the tribal system and libertarian Sufi Islam; an Islamic tradition which is societal and against the State in its nature. Historically, both these structures –tribalism
and libertarian Sufi Islam– were mostly in constant resistance to
the State-Civilization and authoritarian Islam. In Kobane, these
structures have administrated society without going back to the
State. Each tribe and village has an Ode “a public room” which
was mostly run by the wise and experienced men. In some cases, women
also could take part in it.

The
function of the Ode was to resolve social and political problems
within the tribe and with other tribes through consultation and
discussion among their members.
The tribes were mostly dominated by patriarchy. The role of tribes in management and solving affairs communally took place away from the central State's institutions. The Ode itself was a place preserving Kurdish history
through stories, poetry, songs, and epics which were sung by Dengbêj
(singers). In this sense, Ode was a place of local education. This
was how life was administered in Kobane city. In this context, Ocalan
explains, “The life of tribes is very close to communalism. The
tribe is a societal unit in which political and ethical society
strongly thrives.” ( Sociology of Freedom, pp. 312)

In
dealing with this, the first commune worked to revive and democratize
the structure of tribes. As Sherin Ahmed, a teacher and female
participant, put it, “In our commune, we knew that Kobane has
communal traditions and we delved deeply into the mechanism of
democratization, gender equality, and the role of the youth in the
communal life of tribes.”

After
educating themselves for 6 months on the system of the commune, the
members went to visit some villages to educate villagers on how the
commune system should function. The members explained the meaning of
the commune in empowering villagers at the grassroots level in a
local language. Unfortunately, in 2014, ISIS attacked Kobane and the
commune was dissolved.

Challenges

In
analyzing democratic confederalism in Rojava-North Syria, one should
take the historical and geographical context into consideration. By
doing so, it is clear that democratic confederalism faces objective
and subjective challenges.

The
objective factors lie, obviously, in war and an embargo imposed on
Rojava by the surrounding nation-states and the undemocratic forces
that impede democratic confederalism to reach its potentiality and
realization. Furthermore, there remains a strong influence of the State
and legacy of hierarchy on the mentality and sensibility of society.

“It
is hard for a society which was under the Baathist regime for
decades, to activate communes in its original sense in a short time.
Because of the state mentality, the communes have not reached a stage
to do collective consultation, free discussion and decisions,” says
Nuri Mohammed reflecting on the difficulties facing the communes.

For
Nuri Mohammed, the main obstacle facing the commune lies in what he
calls a "save and implement mentality" which means the
State and bureaucratic mentality of getting orders from above and
applying them without question. Because of this mentality, Nuri says,
“one cannot be brave enough to freely think and be creative in
doing politics in a free way and this deprives communes of playing
their free, ethical, and political role.”

Since
the State is ingrained in society, many people, who work in the
institutions of Rojava- North Syria are plagued with parasitism and
opportunism. Such people seek authority and position rather than
building a democratic project. According to Nuri, these people
represent the vast majority.

Revolution
does not only mean to destroy or replace the State with another form
of institutions but also to destroy the mentality that the State
generates in society and instead reclaim ethics and politics to
people to run themselves and make their own decisions.

The
revolutionary vanguards or the cadres of the Kurdish movement are to
be criticized for the subjective factors. The cadres are well-
trained and dedicated politically in order to supposedly bring about
democratic confederalism in practice.

Though
the Kurdish movement adopts democratic confederalism and stands for
freedom and democracy, it still retains hierarchy and some leftist
authoritarian traditions within its structures, namely the
centralization of the party in making decisions. Moreover, the party
is structured around the system of command and obedience. This
contradiction is the outcome of the old paradigm of the Kurdish
movement that was structured in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist
principles and a vanguard political party, and the new model of
democratic confederalism developed later by Ocalan.

Ocalan,
while in prison, went through deep self-criticism and criticism,
criticizing orthodox Marxism and the State, thereby abandoning the
nation-state as the answer for the Kurdish question and embracing the
model of democratic confederalism based on direct democracy, social
ecology, and radical feminism.

In
this sense, the cadres who work in these structures, do not enjoy
full freedom. For they are, also, relatively disempowered in the face
of top-down decisions made up from the peak of the party.

In
the commune system of Rojava, the cadre who initiates building
communes, is confined between two choices: democratic confederalism
as a communal and horizontal system on the one hand and the party–
in which the cadre functions– as a vertical and centralized
structure. In fact, the cadre chooses the party line over the new
model democratic confederalism in practice.

In
the same vein, Ocalan explains the tendency of the cadres and
activists in the party of seizing power for themselves rather than
working to democratically empower the people on the grassroots level:

“Activists
of any such party tend to orient themselves by superiors rather than
by the society, or as the case may aspire to such positions
themselves.”(War and Peace in Kurdistan, pp.29)

Hemmi,
who was active in building the commune, shares his experience about
these challenges:

“While
the role of cadre is important in educating people about managing
themselves, the cadre, sometimes, tires to partify and centralize
communes.”

On
this subject, Murray Bookchin in his article “Listen, Marxist!”
elucidates how the party drifts toward dominating structures by
strengthening centralization, “The party becomes less efficient
from a revolutionary point of view the more it seeks efficiency by
means of hierarchy, cadres and centralization.”

Ocalan
defines revolution, in his volume IV of Manifesto
for a Democratic Civilization,
as a reclamation of politics and ethics back to society from the paws
of the State's institutions. In other words, revolution reaches its
fullest realization when people freely activate their rich
potentiality
and have full control of their lives. Thus, any attempt to disempower
people is anti-revolutionary.

While
the role of vanguard and the cadres is important in organizing people
at the time of revolutions, they can easily slide to the
centralization and authoritarianism of the party over society. The vanguard and the cadre system is only useful when it is accountable,
answerable and recallable, functioning in a confederal leadership and
challenging the hierarchical and statist institutions.

Despite
the challenges and shortcomings of the commune system in Rojava-
North Syria, it still remains the best model in Syria that relatively
offers the only space for peace, feminism, coexistence and democracy.
It is a seed of democracy that should be supported to grow in the
middle of the fascism of nation-states.