By: Dr. Adnan Buzan

Whenever the Kurdish cause returns to the forefront of events, it brings with it a question that has remained without a definitive answer for decades: Why does a cause with such profound historical, political, and social roots continue to search for a path toward a just and stable solution? And why do some authorities still approach it through a security-oriented mindset, or attempt to reduce it to an internal problem that can be contained through force, when political and historical realities have demonstrated that denying the existence of a cause does not make it disappear, and that ignoring rights does not erase those who possess them?

Yet the more pressing question must also be directed toward the Kurds themselves: Is the problem solely rooted in the refusal of some authorities to recognize Kurdish rights, or does part of it also lie in the inability of the forces claiming to represent the Kurds to build a clear, independent, and viable political project? And have these forces always possessed enough courage, integrity, and vision to assume responsibility for a cause of such magnitude?

The Kurdish cause no longer needs more speeches that merely reproduce suffering, nor slogans raised on occasions and then abandoned at the first political test. Above all, it needs a bold political will that understands that denying reality does not create stability, and that treating the political and social demands of the Kurds merely as a security issue may postpone the problem, but cannot address its roots. It also needs authorities with the courage to move from a logic of denying the other toward one of mutual recognition, and from managing disputes through force toward seeking fair political and legal settlements that protect rights and preserve the unity of the state, so that unity becomes a consequence of justice and partnership rather than a pretext for excluding one of its components.

Recognition of Kurdish rights should not be presented as a grant bestowed by an authority or as a concession made by a majority. Rather, it should be understood as part of the principle of equal citizenship, non-discrimination, and the protection of identity and cultural, linguistic, and political rights, within the constitutional and legal frameworks applicable in each state. At the same time, speaking of Kurdish rights does not mean assuming that a single political model is suitable for all states and societies in which Kurds live. The nature of any solution varies according to the constitutional system, political history, social structure, geographical realities, and balance of power in each country. Solutions may take different forms, beginning with guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, and cultural and linguistic rights, and extending, where appropriate, to various forms of decentralization, power-sharing, or self-government, depending on the particular circumstances of each case and the will of its parties.

Yet speaking only about the other side is not enough. There is also a responsibility that falls upon the Kurds themselves and upon the political forces that claim to represent them—a responsibility that cannot be evaded under any pretext. The cause does not merely need those who speak in its name; it needs those who are prepared to assume responsibility for it. Parties, organizations, and leaders may be numerous, but the multiplication of names does not necessarily amount to a coherent political project. In many cases, partisan calculations, personal interests, and narrow loyalties become stronger than the public interest, transforming the cause from a project aimed at defending rights, dignity, and political existence into a means of securing influence and protecting vested interests.

Here lies one of the most serious problems facing Kurdish political action: when some politicians cease to be servants of the cause and become beneficiaries of it. Corruption does not become less dangerous when practiced in the name of the cause; dependency does not become patriotic merely because it is wrapped in nationalist slogans; and submission does not become political wisdom simply because it is called pragmatism. A national cause used as a means of obtaining money, power, or privileges loses part of its moral and political strength. And a politician who makes personal interest the standard by which positions are determined gradually loses the moral and political legitimacy to speak on behalf of the people.

Political realism itself, however, should not be understood as surrender or abandonment of rights. Realism means that political forces understand the actual balance of power, define their objectives consciously, build alliances on the basis of clearly identified interests, know when to negotiate and when to refuse, and transform limited capabilities into political leverage rather than wasting them in internal conflicts or becoming dependent on external agendas. Successful politics does not consist of raising demands to their absolute maximum, nor of lowering them to the point of relinquishing rights. It consists of possessing the ability to transform legitimate demands into political, constitutional, and institutional outcomes that can be protected and sustained.

For this reason, the Kurdish cause needs genuine commitment to the cause, not people with vested interests who merely cloak themselves in its language. It needs political elites who place integrity before influence, vision before rhetoric, and independence in decision-making before an abundance of allies, and who understand that building relations with others does not mean becoming dependent upon them. Political alliances are a necessity in a world governed by competing interests, but they become dangerous when they replace independent decision-making or when the cause is turned into a bargaining chip in conflicts that do not serve the interests of the Kurdish people.

At the same time, moving beyond the mentality of denying the other does not mean asking the Kurds to abandon their identity or rights. Nor should the pursuit of Kurdish rights mean negating the rights of other components of society. This is the principle from which any serious political approach should begin: lasting stability cannot be built upon one side denying the existence or rights of the other. The modern state cannot be built on the assumption that one component possesses an exclusive right to define the homeland, while others are expected merely to remain silent or accept a secondary role.

In this context, recognition of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity does not necessarily threaten the state. On the contrary, it can be one of the foundations of its stability when translated into equal citizenship, fair institutions, and clear constitutional and legal guarantees. By contrast, turning difference into a permanent threat and using security instruments to manage every political or cultural demand ultimately produces greater distrust and leaves the state imprisoned by fear of its own citizens, rather than allowing it to serve as a shared framework for protecting them and organizing their differences.

History has demonstrated that possessing a legitimate right alone is not enough to achieve it. Peoples may have a just cause, yet lose historic opportunities because of division, weak organization, poor management of conflict, the absence of strategic vision, or leaderships that turn internal disagreements into a means of excluding one another. Therefore, self-criticism is not an attack on the Kurdish cause; it is one of the conditions for protecting it. A Kurd who criticizes corruption among some representatives of the cause, or their subservience, is not criticizing the rights of their people. Rather, they are refusing to allow those rights to become a cover for practices that harm them and undermine their image and political project.

Today, the Kurdish cause needs two sides that possess courage: an authority willing to move beyond the mentality of denial, and Kurdish political forces willing to move beyond the mentality of exploiting the cause. Authorities must understand that addressing the Kurdish question cannot be achieved by erasing identity or restricting the political sphere. Kurdish political forces, in turn, must recognize that defending rights does not grant any leadership immunity from criticism, accountability, or scrutiny.

Rights cannot be protected through corruption, built through dependency, or transformed into political reality merely by raising slogans. Rights require institutions, responsible political representation, a long-term strategy, leaderships capable of making independent decisions, and a society capable of holding accountable those who speak in its name. They also require an authority that understands that genuine stability does not arise from silencing demands, but from addressing their political, social, and legal causes within a framework that preserves human dignity and rights, safeguards social peace, and gives all components a genuine sense of partnership and belonging.

Perhaps the real beginning of a solution comes when everyone stops asking: Who will prevail over the other? And begins asking a more rational and far-sighted question: How can we build a state in which no one needs to deny the other in order to affirm their own existence, and in which no one needs to abandon their identity in order to obtain their rights?

Only then can the Kurdish cause move from a cycle of open conflict toward the horizon of a political solution, and from being merely a memory of grievances toward becoming a project of rights, institutions, and guarantees. Historical questions are not resolved through wishes or slogans. They are resolved when the courage of authority meets the integrity of those committed to the cause; when political will meets the law; when recognition of the other meets equality; and when political realism is reconciled with the preservation of rights.

This is the equation the Kurdish cause deserves: an authority that is not afraid of recognition, a Kurdish leadership that does not bargain away the dignity of its people, a politics that does not turn the cause into a commodity, and a legal framework that transforms recognition from a passing political statement into rights and guarantees capable of being protected and sustained.

Add comment