Soydan Akay, who was released from prison after 32 years of incarceration, continues his struggle on the outside. He received Abdullah Öcalan’s 27 February call while still in prison but witnessed the subsequent steps of the new phase and Öcalan’s first video message in 27 years, after his release.
Akay described what he has encountered outside and said: “The most common concern raised by the people is a lack of trust in the developments. It seems that the meetings held by the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) have been limited. As I mentioned earlier, the manifesto is not being shared with society, and no meaningful discussions are being developed around it. The manifesto must absolutely be opened up to the people.”
In the second part of our interview with Soydan Akay, we discussed his observations during the two months since his release and the impact of Öcalan’s call on the public.
Why are Öcalan’s ideas not being shared with the people?
Soydan Akay, who noted that he is still trying to understand the outside world since his release from prison, shared some of his observations as follows:
“It has been nearly two months since I was released from prison. I am still trying to make sense of the outside. There is immense effort here, by the people, and by thousands of comrades whose names are unknown. There is also intense pressure on social forces. It would be unjust to ignore all of this and make judgments without understanding the context. However, prisons are spaces of resistance. They play a role in the developments we are witnessing today. There is a perspective shaped from within. That perspective may not always be accurate, but I would still like to share a few limited observations:
First, I have not seen a language or discourse that aligns with Öcalan’s new era manifesto. Why are Öcalan’s ideas not being conveyed to the people? Even I had difficulty accessing the democratic society manifesto—I was only able to obtain it through so-called ‘illegal’ methods. It is unacceptable to monopolize Öcalan’s ideas or to justify withholding them on the grounds of ‘security.’
Second, we are all trying to understand this new phase. Understanding is a matter of process. But one thing stood out to me: among all those working in the field, a narrow organizational language dominates. There must be efforts to develop a democratic political language.
Third, a problem I witnessed directly in prison and which continues to concern me is the issue of governance, specifically, the tendency to turn responsibility into power. This is one of the most dangerous illnesses. It may have spread from municipalities to the DEM Party and to other institutions. In my opinion, this lies at the root of several structural issues.
Other complaints I’ve encountered stem from different problems as well. Bureaucratism is a serious issue. Local structures suffer from an inability to exercise initiative. These problems and their causes must be discussed openly with the people and with the relevant bodies. We speak of democratic society, but in practice and in relationships, there is no trace of democracy. I see this as a major obstacle to the process that Öcalan has laid out.
The most common concern voiced by the people is a lack of trust in the current developments. It seems the meetings held by the DEM Party have been quite limited. As I said earlier, the manifesto is not being shared with society, and no public discussion is being developed. The manifesto must absolutely be opened to the people.”
Criticism must transcend work
Soydan Akay explained that the process is shaped by Abdullah Öcalan and carried forward through negotiations conducted via the DEM Party. He also responded to the criticism directed at Öcalan’s remarks on real socialism and Marxism:
“While studying Russian literature, I came across a phrase that stayed with me: ‘Criticism must transcend work.’ There is no point in responding to those who insult under the guise of criticism, it is a waste of time and meaning.
To those who claim to be socialists, I would ask this: does your criticism surpass the work itself, the manifesto, or the paradigm laid out by Öcalan? No, it does not.
But Abdullah Öcalan surpasses the Marxist paradigm; his critiques are grounded in historical and social truths, in scientific and philosophical perspective. Behind him stands a powerful political society, with a mindset and praxis that has the capacity to challenge and transform hegemonic systems in the Middle East, Turkey, and globally.
If I were in the place of these so-called fifty-year-old socialist movements, I would not even see myself fit to say a word, let alone offer criticism.
Where does this sense of entitlement come from? After so much sacrifice, why has your movement failed to become a significant force in social struggle? You should answer that. And what does it mean to say, ‘Should the Kurds now lead socialism?’
Can such a condescending and belittling attitude have anything to do with socialism or genuine critique?
I have personally received writings from certain individuals and circles that slander the Movement and Öcalan. And these same people dare to address others with terms like ‘comrade’ and ‘heval.’
It seems that some of these individuals have made it their mission not to fight capitalism, but to fight Öcalan. They should never be confused with those who offer criticism in good faith and engage in principled discussion.
Those who resort to slander are no different from racist and fascist circles. Some may even be deliberately deployed to sow confusion. That is why we must distinguish true friends from these types and confront slanderers with the right language and approach.”
We need a language that is responsible, attentive, and understanding
Soydan Akay emphasized that democratic politics will become the new strategic method of struggle while discussing Abdullah Öcalan’s video message released after 27 years. He shared the following:
“Once again, with great care and emphasis, it was stated that democratic politics will serve as the new strategic method of struggle, and that weapons will be laid down step by step. After the decision to end armed struggle and dissolve the organization, the next step on a technical level is the actual process of disarmament. This is also a period of struggle and negotiation. The role of the Parliament will become more prominent.
Many circles will portray the images of disarmament as ‘surrender.’ The government will also try to distort the process, both openly and covertly. Things may not proceed as smoothly as expected. Preparations have already been made with this in mind. For months now, Abdullah Öcalan has been preparing society for this new strategic era. He has clearly emphasized that this process cannot tolerate uncertainty or gaps.
Just today, during a funeral I attended in a neighboring village, I heard people’s thoughts on the latest statement. Our people are still affected by the psychological aftermath of what happened in 2015. The conversation often comes down to whether or not to trust the state, the government, or Erdoğan. I have witnessed this in every city and village I have visited. The matter is being approached on a very technical level.
What must be emphasized is how gains will be legally secured and what kind of program will be followed. We must be discussing the strategy of awakening Middle Eastern society through democratic politics. We must be explaining how we will build communes.
However, none of this can be done by ignoring the heavy psychological and political impact created by the spiral of violence. To discuss the achievements of armed resistance is one thing; to end armed struggle as a principle and to lay down arms as a technical act is another. The people, who have long viewed the mountains and the guerrilla as a guarantee against all forms of state violence, also need to go through a transformation. This is an extremely delicate matter.
What is needed is a careful, responsible language, one that listens and understands. Our people also possess a deep wisdom.
The story of this fifty-year struggle is, in fact, the story of the people themselves. Öcalan’s manifesto embodies the transformation of this story; it includes the voice and perspective of the people, of women, of children, of freedom, and of nature. What we need is a holistic perspective but also a profound love for democracy.”
We must explain everywhere that we can build a democratic society and trust ourselves
Soydan Akay concluded by emphasizing the need to build a democratic society through democratic politics:
“We must shout with great honor and pride that we have affirmed and eternalized our existence through fifty years of resistance. In this struggle for freedom, we have witnessed legendary acts of heroism. We will live the novel, the cinema, the music, and the art of this resistance even more meaningfully. And through democratic politics, we must explain everywhere that we can build a democratic society and trust in ourselves.
Especially in response to President Öcalan’s rejection of the nation-state, some people exclaim, ‘Did we fight all these years for nothing?’ There are those who genuinely ask this in an effort to understand and we should have that discussion. But there are also those who aim to sow confusion.
We can live freely and re-establish our relationship with the existing state on a legal basis. We can achieve this sociologically, politically, economically, and culturally. What is needed is time, understanding, patience, and struggle. But never a void.”
Source: ANF News
