A century of Kurdish setbacks offers wisdom to Syrians

Their political leaders are often symbols of authority, influence, and significance, more so typically than religious or tribal figures, businesspeople or academics. Even small groups can enter political folklore. Despite occasional misjudgements and shortcomings, Kurdish representative parties have consistently played crucial roles in mobilising their communities and advocating for legitimate Kurdish aspirations. These parties could have achieved even more without the extraordinary challenges confronting the Kurdish cause.

Syrian political struggles

In Syria, the opposition faces a political order that is framed, moulded, and infused by the dominance of the ruling al-Assad family, which has been in power for more than half a century. Moreover, the Syrian political elite, if one can be identified, shows a complete disregard and disdain for any semblance of political order. Influential cultural and economic figures feel entitled and qualified for positions of authority and responsibility that traditionally go to those affiliated with political parties.

Additionally, there are self-proclaimed independent politicians who, with arrogance, see and channel the world (and Syria) through their personalities, interests, and decisions. Their sense of superiority is suffused with mythical narratives of personal triumph. Alongside them, organisations emerge that serve as PR platforms for their founders. Yet they lack political substance or ideological significance and quickly become embroiled in their originator's personal conflicts, splintering shortly after formation.

On the flipside, historical political groups have lost their vitality and diminished in size, influence, and capacity to act. A far cry from their heyday, they are now barely noticeable, offering nothing but legacies that today resemble burdens.

Adaption and evolution

The Kurds' political history has also been one of continuous experimentation and adaptation after an era of extensive and radical uprisings in the 1930s. Kurds, and especially their political leaders, saw that the nation-states set up around them had solidified into real entities backed by militaries and diplomatic alliances. In response, they began to manoeuvre around these states.

This meant exploring alternatives to conventional conflict resolution frameworks and looking for vulnerabilities in the structures imposed upon them to undermine the denial of Kurdish rights and aspirations. To help their cause, they used concepts such as self-governance, cultural recognition, the brotherhood of peoples, and federalism.

The Kurds also redefined their relationship with some of the founding principles of modern Turkey (Ataturkism), seeking unity within the nation and relinquishing claims for territorial sovereignty in return for autonomous governance in certain regions.

In Iraq, Kurds struck a deal with military leader turned Prime Minister Abdul Karim Qasim after he toppled the monarchy in 1958. His new government called Kurdistan "one of the two nations of Iraq". Yet when autonomy did not transpire, relations soured. By 1961, Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani delivered Qasim an ultimatum. For nine years thereafter, Kurds and Iraqis fought, with up to 105,000 killed. It ended in 1970 with an agreement granting Iraqi Kurdistan autonomy.

Shifting alliances to suit

The Kurds have had to be politically flight of foot, first collaborating with the Ba'athists to overthrow the rule of the Arif brothers, then aligning with the Shah of Iran to oppose the Ba'athists, then working with the Americans to dismantle the Ba'athist regime. Iranian Kurds have also navigated various political complexities, and their experimentation in Syria has left a lasting impact. This approach offers a lesson for Syria's defeated parties, who now confine themselves to a handful of rigid and simplistic slogans lacking relevance or meaning.

If anything, the slogans echo the approach of the ruling Ba'ath Party and the establishment mentality, albeit expressed by those who were once its victims. There is a distinct lack of authentic political Syrian leaders capable of taking their people forward and safeguarding their fundamental interests, negotiating on their behalf, or even convincing them that change and compromise are advantageous.

Forging a way forward

An elder Kurdish statesman may ask questions to defeated Syrian groups to help them forge a way forward and develop the resilience needed to solve the trickiest problems. How is it that a people who endured such bitter defeats have no unifying symbols? How can such resilient people allow their cause to be exploited by cross-border terrorists without objection? Why refuse to talk to fellow Syrians with differing perspectives who also oppose the regime? And why make political activism a lifestyle?

For a people who have sacrificed so much blood yet who lack a coherent political or intellectual framework to address their issues, beyond simply blaming the regime, there surely must be a cannier way than this. Learning from the Kurds would help.