The Kurdish Question and the National Question: Nation-State or Citizenship State?

Between Nationalism and Citizenship: A Leftist Vision for Alternatives to Liberation


1. Introduction
The Middle East has witnessed for decades bloody nationalist conflicts that have left millions of victims and displaced persons and enormous destruction on various levels. The Kurdish question represents one of the most important of these complex nationalist conflicts, as the Kurds are distributed across four main countries: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, and their circumstances and political, economic, and cultural conditions differ in each country. The fundamental question here is: What is the real possible solution now for the Kurdish question and the national question in the region? Is it in building separate nation-states, or in struggling for a citizenship state with equal rights?
Yes, there has been and continues to be blatant national oppression against the Kurds in most countries of the region, and this is an undeniable historical reality, as it is impossible to address the national question and the Kurdish question without clear and explicit recognition of the truth of this oppression that the Kurds and other national minorities have historically faced in authoritarian states, whether of a nationalist or religious nature. This oppression was a systematic policy practiced by centralized states through forced denial of identity, language prohibition, forced displacement, up to genocide, and we have in this bloody and prominent examples:
• In Iraq, brutality reached its peak during Saddam Hussein s era through the brutal Anfal campaigns that disappeared tens of thousands in mass graves, and the crime of bombing Halabja with chemical weapons in which they exterminated thousands of civilians in moments, in parallel with policies of "Arabization" and forced demographic change.
• In Syria, the two regimes during the eras of Hafez and Bashar al-Assad imposed a national siege represented in the Arab Belt to isolate Kurdish areas, and the unjust 1962 census that stripped hundreds of thousands of their citizenship and their right to citizenship, with a comprehensive ban on language, culture, and political activity. And today, in January 2026, this path is being renewed through the military attack launched by the Syrian army and militias allied with it on areas controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces - SDF -, in a clear continuation of policies of repression and militarization, and pushing civilians once again to be victims of power and dominance struggles, far from any just democratic solution to the national question.
• As for Turkey, the state has practiced for decades policies aimed at erasing the Kurdish national existence, and classified the Kurds under a humiliating designation which is "Mountain Turks," and launched military campaigns that destroyed thousands of villages and displaced millions, with widespread criminalization of everything related to Kurdish identity.
• In Iran, Kurds face compound repression under the yoke of the authoritarian religious-theocratic regime, manifested in national repression and field and political executions, complete militarization of Kurdish cities, and economic marginalization of border areas to push their residents toward poverty and subjugation.

These facts constitute a fundamental part of the region s modern history and cannot be ignored by any serious leftist approach. However, they essentially represent one face of a comprehensive authoritarian policy pursued by those regimes, as they did not target Kurds alone, but directed their repressive machine against all citizens of those countries of all nationalities, for the dictatorship that crushes Kurdish identity is the same one that silences the overwhelming majority, and throws opponents regardless of nationality, religion, and belief into prisons, and confiscates their freedoms and drains their human dignity without exception, which makes the struggle against national oppression an integral part of the general struggle against class and political authoritarianism.
At the same time, acknowledging the justice of the Kurdish cause and the right of Kurds to equality and dignity does not necessarily mean adopting all nationalist projects proposed in the name of this oppression. Confronting real national oppression is not achieved by replacing one dominant nationality with another, but rather by dismantling the foundations of the exclusionary nation-state itself, and building a democratic state based on equal citizenship, guaranteeing full national, cultural, and linguistic rights for all components, and putting a permanent end to cycles of mutual national injustice.

2. From "Oppressed Nationalism" to the Experience of Ruling Authority

As we see in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, which constitutes a complete quasi-state situation, the "oppressed nationalism" has transformed into a ruling authority facing widespread accusations of repressive practices and organized financial corruption. The two main parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, have contributed to establishing a family-tribal governance structure, in which they share power, wealth, and influence. A bloody Kurdish civil war erupted between the two parties that lasted from 1994 to 1998, claiming thousands of Kurdish lives, and its cause was the struggle for influence and control over resources and not national liberation. Even after the end of the civil war, the conflict between them continued in other forms, and they transformed into a clear model of authoritarian hereditary family rule.
According to reports by international human rights organizations, authorities in the Region have committed widespread violations of human rights. Financial corruption in the Region is rampant, as Region employees do not receive their salaries for months. The Region also witnessed widespread popular demonstrations against unemployment, corruption, authoritarianism, and salary interruptions, and they were suppressed in many cases, while the two ruling parties continued to entrench the monopolization of the Region s wealth and strengthen security and military tools to protect their narrow interests.
In Syria also, the Syrian Democratic Forces "SDF," which has ruled vast areas in northern and eastern Syria with American support since 2015, has transformed into an authority that concentrates political and military decisions in its hands, and adopts policies of a clearly centralized nature, with limited margin for political and intellectual pluralism. Despite implementing a set of important reforms of a progressive and civil nature, especially in some social and administrative aspects, and expanding women s participation, these reforms remained governed by a certain class and political ceiling, and did not touch the core of the power structure based on political monopoly and the dominance of a closed party apparatus. According to international reports, widespread human rights violations have been recorded against SDF, including the continuation of child recruitment, and the adoption of strict security policies that included detention, suppression, and torture of opponents. In my estimation, the experience of Kurdish nationalist left, no matter how developed, is difficult to transcend the level of reforms of a leftist and civil nature, similar to the experiences of nationalist elites that ruled the region in the last century, which began with broad social and leftist promises, but their closed centralized structure eventually led them to slide toward dictatorship and authoritarianism and marginalization of popular will.
Through these experiences, in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and in northern and eastern Syria, it becomes clear that the conflict that was marketed as a national liberation struggle has practically transformed into a struggle for power, influence, and wealth between bourgeois-natured nationalist political forces, ruling or aspiring to rule. The nationalist discourse here has emerged from being a tool of liberation, and transformed into an ideological cover to justify authoritarianism and suppress opponents, and reproduce the same relations of domination that the masses previously revolted against under oppressive nationalist regimes, but this time with a local character.
Historical national victimization, no matter how bitter it may be, does not grant a pardon certificate to any national authority to practice repression and oppression. The transformation of "oppressed nationalism" into "a tool of repression and authoritarianism" represents the great moral defeat of the liberation project, which proves that the defect is not in the ruling elites, but rather in the structure of the exclusionary nation-state itself.
3. Marginalizing Class Struggle and the Danger of National Civil Wars
National conflicts in the region carry a real danger represented in pushing societies toward national fanaticism and bloody national civil wars, in which the working masses are fuel for conflicts that do not serve their interests. The exclusionary nationalist discourse from some parties does not only work to feed hatred and division, but performs a clear political function represented in transforming the conflict from a class social conflict between the working masses on one hand, and the ruling classes and controlling bourgeoisies on the other hand, into a false national and identity conflict. In this sense, national conflicts do not constitute an incidental deviation, but rather an effective tool for weakening class struggle and dismantling the social consciousness of the masses, and distracting them from their daily issues related to rights, work, salaries, services, and social justice.
Under the cover of defending nationality or identity, class struggle is marginalized, exploitation is justified, and existing authorities or those aspiring to rule are immunized from any social accountability. Economic crises, corruption, and authoritarianism are transformed from the product of policies of a concrete class into secondary results of a fabricated national conflict, and the masses are pushed to line up behind ruling national elites that do not differ in essence from the rest of the ruling classes in the region. Thus national conflicts lead to escalation of war rhetoric, mobilization and hatred, and emptying social struggle of its content, and cutting the road before any possibility of building a unified leftist class movement across nationalities and sects.
The task of leftist and liberation forces in this context is to base themselves on human and internationalist identity, and solidarity with the suffering of all civilian victims of dictatorship, wars, and armed conflict, regardless of race, religion, sect, or political orientation. Selective solidarity, which limits sympathy to a specific race, sect, or political direction, and turns a blind eye to crimes committed against civilians of other components, is false inhuman thinking, and directly contributes to entrenching national and religious fanaticism, deepening social division, and weakening any real liberation project based on social justice and equality.
4. Is the Nation-State Possible Now?

Objective conditions are not suitable for the Kurdish nation-state project, as areas with a Kurdish majority are surrounded by hostile regional powers (Turkey, Iran, and the influence of Arab states), and Kurdish nationalist movements do not possess any serious real international support. American or Western support is circumstantial and linked to immediate interests.
Even if a Kurdish state were achieved, what would guarantee its survival given its encirclement by several authoritarian states, or guarantee it would not transform into a new dictatorial model? The experience in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and in Syria is evident before us: tribal-party rule, authoritarian practices, widespread financial corruption, and widespread human rights violations.
It is necessary to speak clearly about a demographic reality in many areas where national projects are proposed: these areas are not all of a single national majority. How can a new national project be built on lands where part of their population is from other nationalities? This demographic problem creates acute national tensions, and opens the door to accusations of practicing policies whether it be "Arabization," "Kurdification," and "Turkification" against other residents. It is difficult to build a nation-state or quasi-state on a national basis in multi-national areas without creating new national injustice.

5. Betting on Major Powers and Especially America
Some of the current Kurdish nationalist movements in the region, at certain stages, have built and continue to build much of their projects on American support and its allies. America, as the largest capitalist power in the world, supports most reactionary and racist regimes, and has never been on the side of oppressed peoples or humanitarian and liberationist values. America s presence in the region primarily aims to ensure its strategic interests and enhance its hegemony. I believe that the United States alliance with Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq came primarily to fill a vacuum resulting from the absence of large American ground forces, whether through regular forces or security companies, and therefore it relied and continues to rely on Kurdish human military forces in implementing its agenda and enhancing its influence.
Recently, this alliance in Syria has witnessed a clear shift toward Ahmed al-Sharaa and the central government. The paradox is that America allied with a person who was not democratically elected, and until recently was on the global terrorism list, which clearly reveals that America cares only about its strategic interests, and has nothing to do with democracy or the humanitarian values it claims. This alliance is very similar to the alliance of some Iraqi opposition parties with the United States before the overthrow of the Baathist regime. It is, in my opinion, a temporary and fragile alliance governed by American interests, and lends legitimacy to American intervention and its practices. We see the repercussions of this clearly in Syria, and it is not unlikely that the same scenario will be repeated in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq according to American interests and the arrangement of its priorities.
History proves that American policy stems from its strategic interests, not from a moral commitment to peoples, as demonstrated by numerous experiences in the region. America is known for abandoning its allies when their role ends or when their interests conflict with its agenda. We have many examples of this, including what happened to the Kurds in Iraq in 1975, and what happened to the Afghans after the Soviet withdrawal. America s strategic interests and relations with Turkey, Arab states, and other countries in the region remain the most important and fundamental. Betting on major capitalist powers, foremost among them the United States, is betting on a "political mirage." These powers do not see nationalist movements as "allies," but merely "pawns" on a geopolitical chessboard, bought and sold in backroom deals as soon as corporate and oil interests require it.

6. Citizenship and Rights State with Human Identity
A clear distinction must be made between demanding cultural, linguistic, and administrative rights for Kurds and other national minorities, and demanding a separate nation-state. These rights are legitimate and just demands that should be supported by all leftist and progressive forces, from constitutional recognition of pluralism to administrative decentralization, but the struggle for them under existing geopolitical balances is more appropriate to be within the framework of an equal citizenship state across nationalities and religions. The possible alternative today is not in building new nation-states that reproduce divisions, but in a citizenship state that neutralizes nationality and religion from power, and restricts the formation of parties on national or religious bases, so that the focus of struggle is the rule of law, equality, and social justice, instead of mobilizing the working masses in national-religious conflicts that serve only the interests of bourgeoisies.
This transition is not a leap into the void, but rather a gradual path that requires clear constitutional mechanisms to ensure the non-return of detestable centralization, and from here emerges the model of geographic (administrative) federalism as a rational alternative to national federalism; so that regions are granted broad powers in managing their developmental and service affairs, which empties the conflict of its ethnic charge and transforms it into competition for welfare. This must be coupled with "comprehensive constitutionalization of identities" to guarantee the cultural rights of all components as inalienable rights, and building oversight institutions and an independent judiciary, which paves the way for the emergence of political currents competing over social, economic, political, and environmental programs.
International experiences, despite their different contexts, prove the possibility of building this model; Switzerland succeeded through decentralization in accommodating four official languages, and South Africa chose citizenship instead of revenge, and even in India, Bolivia, and Spain, we find serious attempts to manage diversity through self-governance and recognition of pluralism without dismantling the state. These examples are not perfect, but they confirm that the alternative to the exclusionary nation-state is not a utopian dream, and is a project achievable through political will and continuous popular struggle that places human dignity and rights above every narrow national or sectarian consideration.
A question may be raised here that the citizenship state is merely a utopian dream given the current reality of the region s countries, where authoritarianism is deeply rooted and national divisions are deep. But this objection ignores a fundamental fact: the project of a separate nation-state is the most utopian under current circumstances. Talk of establishing an independent and stable Kurdish state surrounded by hostile states, without real international support, and in multi-national areas, is what resembles a far-fetched dream. As for the citizenship state, it is a realistic gradual project that begins with concrete steps: constitutionalization of national rights, building democratic institutions, implementing administrative decentralization, and strengthening the rule of law. These are steps achievable through continuous popular struggle, not a leap into the unknown. Recent history proves that democratic transformation is possible even in the most difficult circumstances. The issue is not in the "utopianism" of the project, but in the political will and organized struggle to achieve it.
This does not mean diminishing the importance of national identity or opposing legitimate national rights. This is not a call to abolish national identity or deny its specificity, but rather a call not to transform national identity into a basis for building power and the state and into a tool for discrimination and exclusion. National identity is a cultural, linguistic, and human right that must be protected, but the state must be built on the basis of equal citizenship not on the basis of ethnic belonging. The issue is in opposition to using national identity as a cover to justify authoritarianism or to transform social conflict into a national conflict that serves the interests of ruling elites. The essence of national rights must be defended by guaranteeing them constitutionally and institutionally for all components, instead of linking them to exclusionary nation-state projects that reproduce injustice in reverse. Kurdish national identity, like other identities, must be respected and preserved, but not as a tool for building national authority.

7. The Right to Self-Determination and Realistic Rationality
While fully supporting the complete and legitimate right of the Kurdish people and all peoples to self-determination including secession, I do not see that global and regional conditions are now suitable for secession, independence, and declaration of new nation-states. We must reject forced unity among peoples and support coexistence and voluntary unity on the basis of equal citizenship, and at the same time support and endorse the right to self-determination including secession, if this will provide more rights and equality and better life and better security and fewer conflicts in the region.
This position does not mean hostility to Kurdish national liberation or diminishing the justice of its historical cause, on the contrary, it is a defense of the essence of liberation itself from the distortion inflicted upon it by bourgeois nationalist projects when they transform the liberation struggle into power, authoritarianism, and corruption. Under current circumstances, I believe that the working masses are dragged into wars and national conflicts, and will be exposed to deeper economic and political crises for the sake of national entities, even if formed now, current circumstances and previous experiences suggest they may face the danger of transforming into another authoritarian model in the region, and will not change anything in their lives.
We must deal with realistic and scientific rationality and study local, regional, and international conditions, and class power balances and our capabilities from all aspects and the capabilities and strength of "our enemies," and the realistic possibilities for achieving the solutions and policies we propose and their mechanisms. We must avoid participating directly or indirectly in dragging the masses into losing and destructive national wars, and avoid promoting or supporting them, as they will create nothing but great tragedies for civilians and especially manual and intellectual workers, and great human, economic, political, and military losses for all parties. Relying on rationality and realism is very necessary, not on "national heroics" and "national pride" and "confronting the national enemy by all means and to the last bullet." This discourse does not achieve victory in military and political battles, but rather drags the masses into more wars and destruction.

8. Tasks of the Left and Building the Alternative within the Citizenship State
Our task as leftists today in countries witnessing national problems is to separate our line from all parties to the national conflict, and struggle for a state based on citizenship, equal rights, social justice, and respect for human rights, not on a national or sectarian basis. The road is long and difficult, but it is the only road capable of reaching a real and sustainable solution to the national question, away from wars and conflicts that produce nothing but tragedies for the masses.
The left can organize itself practically within the citizenship state project by building political, trade union, and mass organizations across nationalities and sects, based on the common material interests of manual and intellectual workers, and linking the struggle for national rights with the social battle against exploitation, corruption, authoritarianism, and achieving the socialist alternative. This path requires complete political and organizational independence of the left from all forms of bourgeois forces with nationalist discourse, and daily work within society to unite the working masses around a concrete program for equality and the greatest possible degree of social justice, democratic decentralization, and freedoms, as the realistic entry point for building this alternative.
The peoples in our region are not in a state of innate conflict, and were not born governed by hatred and division, but rather are victims of organized nationalist mobilization and recruitment operations, where the working masses of various nationalities are pushed into bloody national conflicts, so that popular sacrifices are transformed into fuel for consolidating the seats of bourgeois tyrannies that take nationalist discourse as a cover to protect their class interests. Our main battle is not to change national symbols, nor the color of the flag, nor the language of the ruler, but rather to dismantle the chains of authoritarianism, exploitation, and fanaticism from their roots, and build a democratic socialist humanist space that accommodates everyone. The road to Kurdish rights and freedom necessarily passes through the rights and freedoms of his Arab, Turkish, Syriac, and Iranian neighbor, under a state that does not ask the citizen about his origin, and guarantees him his bread and freedom, and respects his human dignity.

Source:
https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/the-kurdish-question-and-the-national-question-nation-state-or-citizenship-state/

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1