Abdullah Öcalan's "Call for Peace and a Democratic Society" sparked curiosity about how thousands of imprisoned members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) received it, what they felt, and how they interpreted it.

 Zeki Bayhan is the author of several works, including "Democratic Ecological Gender-Liberationist Paradigm," "The Freedom Ideology of the 21st Century: Democratic Socialism," "Exit from the Genocidal Nation-State Paradigm: Democratic Nation," and most recently, the two-volume "Why a New Social Science Paradigm?" which examines Öcalan’s concept of "The Sociology of Freedom."  We spoke with Bayhan, a writer who has been imprisoned for 27 years, about how the call was received in prison and what comes next.

The Kurdish dawn is breaking

The peace process is being intensely debated outside, while thousands of Kurdish political prisoners remain incarcerated. We are curious about how this process is being received and interpreted in prisons. We also know that you have been working on Mr. Öcalan’s ideological framework. You have been in prison for many years, which is why we wanted to speak with you. What do you think about Devlet Bahçeli’s remarks and their aftermath? A critical juncture has been reached. Do you believe this process can lead to peace?

I will not say much about the current phase. How was this process received in prison? Bahçeli’s initial statement caused surprise. The first reaction was, “A new special warfare game is being staged.” However, since Bahçeli was the one making such a strong statement, the question “Is something actually happening?” also accompanied this initial reflex. Our eyes turned to İmralı. With the first message from there and the statements made, we were able to interpret what was happening more clearly.

Will the process succeed? Considering the current stage, the chances of a resolution seem higher this time. Of course, such processes always have a fragile side. And I still feel that there is no full consensus within the state on this matter. I hope I am wrong. Based on an analysis of global and regional political conditions, I see the chances of success as high. Sometimes, whether you want it or not, circumstances force you to change. This is not the place to discuss the current political conjuncture at length.

In summary, I can say this in the context of the issue: the crisis of the neoliberal capitalist system is deepening. This has created a state of confusion and a search for solutions. Connected to this, as the Middle East is being redesigned, the Kurds are emerging as a key actor. The Kurdish issue is inherently a regional one, as it directly concerns four Middle Eastern countries. In short, there is a reality that all regional and global powers are aware of: the Middle East cannot be redesigned without the Kurds. Anyone who wants to have a say in the Middle East sees engaging with the Kurds as a necessity. In this sense, the Kurds now have different options for alliances. One could say that the Kurdish dawn is breaking. There are significant advantages and opportunities. Of course, there are also risks!

The Kurdish issue demands a solution

For Turkey, the accelerating developments in the region have served as a wake-up call. It has long been evident that the current Kurdish policy is unsustainable and that weapons and coercion have failed to resolve the issue. Despite this, Turkey has launched an unprecedented war of destruction in recent years. That, too, failed. As regional developments gained momentum, it became clear that what started as a small snowball from the top was inevitably turning into an avalanche. The state mentality represented by Bahçeli recognized this and attempted to take preemptive action. After Mr. Öcalan’s call, Bahçeli made another critically important statement, and it is highly likely that he will maintain this consistent stance.

In the Turkish media, this process is being linked to recent developments in Syria. However, that is not the case; the process began earlier. Events in Gaza and Syria may have played an accelerating role, but they were not the catalyst. Additionally, the prevailing narrative in the Turkish press that "Turkey has grown stronger while the Kurds have weakened" does not reflect the reality on the ground. In short, the circumstances now demand a resolution to the Kurdish issue.

Are you saying the parties were forced to seek peace?

To a large extent, yes. Of course, the Kurds have other options as well. There are powers in the region that seek influence, such as the United States, Israel, and Iran. The fact that the Kurds have such alternatives also exerts pressure on the Turkish state, in my view. However, given the current global and regional power dynamics, a Kurdish-Turkish alliance stands out as one of the most ideal solutions for various reasons.

What are some of these reasons?

A significant portion of the Kurdish population and their geography lies within the borders of the Republic of Turkey. The populations have become intertwined to a considerable extent. A Kurdish-Turkish conflict involving regional and global powers would be devastating for both the Kurdish and Turkish people. The ruling powers might remain unaffected, but we are a people’s movement. We do not want the peoples to clash. Moreover, despite its ups and downs, the Kurdish-Turkish relationship is historical; there is cultural communication and familiarity between the peoples. All the Kurds in the region live in territories bordering Turkey. It is often said that Turkey is surrounded by the sea on three sides, but the rest of its borders are surrounded by Kurds.

From Turkey’s perspective, the Kurdish issue could not be suppressed through force. Yesterday, it was the Kurds of Iraq; today, it is the Kurds of Syria; tomorrow, it will be the Kurds of Iran gaining status. This policy of denial and suppression is no longer sustainable. It is irrational. Furthermore, if the Kurdish issue is resolved in Turkey, it will open the door to new relations with all Kurdish communities, strengthening Turkey’s position in regional politics and on international platforms like the European Union. It would also ease the economic burden that has been devastated by war. For all these reasons, and many more, the Kurdish-Turkish alliance stands out as an ideal solution.

Let’s talk about the latest call. How did you follow it? What did you feel?

I sat alone in my cell, in front of the TV, and watched it live. I think I felt the same way as the people gathered at Sheikh Said Square in Diyarbakır (Amed). They arrived with great enthusiasm, and after the announcement, they dispersed in silence. Some media circles interpreted this as "dissatisfaction" or "demoralization," but that is not the case. When the statement touched on the dissolution of the PKK, I felt something break inside me. I was so immersed in the speech that I only realized afterward that my eyes had welled up with tears.

The PKK is not just an organization in our world of meaning; it is a universe of resistance where we found ourselves, redefined our existence, and shook off the dust of oblivion. It is the ancient mountains of Kurdistan, where we found our backbone, the consciousness of freedom, hope, and an identity. We have a concept called "the spirit of the PKK." It carries profound meaning. Given this, even if political and conjunctural necessities are understandable, the word "dissolution" stirs deep emotions. One cannot help but think, "What do you mean? Will the PKK no longer exist?" As I said, I was watching the statement alone in my cell. When I saw the people of Amed quietly dispersing afterward, I thought to myself, "I feel just like you, Diyarbakır."

How did you perceive the language of the call? What did you understand from it? There are ongoing debates in the public sphere. The statement made important observations in a concise manner. For instance, the remarks on real socialism are being widely discussed.

It was a language of peace and resolution. Those familiar with Mr. Öcalan’s style would not be surprising. He has always had an extremely flexible approach in both language and politics. As you know, being able to adapt language and politics when necessary is a matter of confidence. If you trust yourself and your strength, you can develop more flexible political stances.

I have also been following the discussions, and unfortunately, there are many superficial and distorted interpretations. Some even claim that socialism has been denounced or abandoned. If not out of bad intentions, such claims stem from ignorance. You might ask, “How can commentators who analyze Öcalan and the Kurds every day be unfamiliar with the subject?” But in Turkey, this happens. Let me put it this way: critiques of real socialism existed even during the early years of the Soviet Union. Look at the Frankfurt School—one of the most well-known examples dates back to 1929.

Mr. Öcalan has not only critiqued real socialism but has also analyzed socialist theory as a whole with a critical approach, developing a new understanding of socialism. I am not speaking in abstract terms. This is a comprehensive socialist theory shaped by parameters such as system analysis, social transformation strategy, state/power analysis, individual-society relations, economy, gender, and freedom of belief. His emphasis on real socialism is a product of this ideological framework, and when interpreted in this context, it can be correctly understood. However, there is no departure from socialist ideology. As I said, socialism as an ideology has been redefined and further developed. Mr. Öcalan’s ideology is socialist.

Another widely debated issue is the absence of a demand for a nation-state or a federal model. How should this be understood?

Mr. Öcalan’s rejection of the nation-state model is not new. The nation-state is a model of power, it instrumentalizes identity for the purpose of governance and has led to crises and massacres since its inception through the imposition of a singular identity. Rather than a societal model, the nation-state is fundamentally a model of domination. In opposition to this authoritarian structure, Öcalan developed the concept of the democratic nation, based on equality of identities. This is both an ideological preference and a solution-oriented perspective.

Moreover, today’s nation-states are no longer the same as those of the 20th century. Neoliberal global economic policies have hollowed out the nation-state. Today, nation-state governments operate as subcontractors of global capital. Who hands over their country’s underground and surface resources, as well as its labor potential, to global corporations? It is the governments of nation-states.

Models such as federation, autonomy, or regional governance are designed to pacify, rather than resolve, identity crises created by the nation-state system. To a large extent, they function as extensions of the state structure. These models have an advantage in that power is decentralized and less concentrated, which creates opportunities for self-governance. However, federative structures remain tied to the central state and constitution. This is their guarantee, but it also means they can always be dissolved. Today, one of the most recognized and institutionally strong autonomy models in the world is Catalonia. The Catalan language is officially recognized as one of the European Union’s languages, yet Catalonia itself has no permanent international guarantees.

Öcalan’s ideological and political perspective is self-governing socialism. For this reason, he prioritizes political solutions that strengthen grassroots organization and local initiatives. Rather than being fixated on specific terms or models, his approach focuses on the essence of the issue, creating an economic, political, and cultural framework that reconstructs society as political actors from the local level. In the call statement, phrases such as 'economic and political structures that each group considers fundamental to itself,' 'democratization,' and 'law' should be interpreted in this context.

Do you also think the process is moving too fast? Could this pose a risk?

This is not a process that starts from scratch; the parties know each other well and have prior dialogue experiences. The process we are discussing now actually began before it became public. Considering the pace of developments in the region, As long as it is carefully assessed and well-calculated, I believe the faster it progresses, the better.

How do you foresee the Kurds organizing and structuring themselves moving forward?

I could list many concrete possibilities, but it is still too early. However, I will say two things on this matter: First, no people can exist without organization and self-defense. Since the removal of weapons is being discussed, let me clarify—by defense, I do not mean arms. The Kurds will not remain unorganized or defenseless. Second, consider the conditions under which the Kurdish Freedom Movement was founded. There were virtually no resources. Yet despite this, it grew into an organizational force not only in Turkey and the Middle East but across the world.

Today, the Kurds possess immense opportunities, both materially and morally, in terms of ideological perspective, organizational culture and capacity, and social consciousness. That is why our people should remain confident. I say this with certainty: we come from a tradition that has overcome the impossible. If your compass is strong, you will not lose your way, even in the darkest depths.

Do you want to add something else?

First and foremost, I thank you for providing us with the opportunity to reach our people. From our prison cells, we send our warmest greetings and heartfelt solidarity to all our people, especially to our brothers and sisters in Rojava who are currently in resistance. Just as in the past, today, too, we draw our strength from our people.

Our people are politically conscious and vigilant. In such challenging times, they know that the path to success lies in unity. In moments like these, many will try to distort, defame, and spread discouragement. There will also be those—whether intentionally or unwittingly—who engage in destructive actions. Such efforts will not be allowed to succeed. This is not a time for fear or hesitation. We are on the verge of a new era, a new beginning. The true owner and subject of this process is our people. With strong political consciousness and determined action, the path to success will be fully opened. We believe that our people will carry this process into the future with unity and victory. Greetings and love to all.