By Dr. Adnan Bouzan

Certainly, no one reads what I write, and no one wants to read; because we are facing a socially paralyzed reality, politically immobilized, still captive to tribal and clan structures. In this context, the Kurdish issue in Syria is often reduced to narrow loyalties, personal interests, and figures who master appearance more than action. What is called “political awareness” among a wide segment is merely an echo of a traditional inherited discourse, incapable of producing a genuine project or even raising serious questions about destiny.

We are not merely experiencing a crisis of parties; rather, we are witnessing a pathological inflation in their number, to the point that the Kurdish condition has become an example of absurd fragmentation. Politics has turned into an open marketplace, where anyone seeking a role, money, or media presence establishes a party and claims to represent the people. These “cesarean births” of parties are not an expression of political vitality, but rather a reflection of structural failure and the absence of any real national or organizational standards.

As for the experience of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which was promoted as a project of “brotherhood of peoples,” it quickly revealed its limitations. It collided with the reality of national contradictions and failed to present a unifying model that makes Kurds feel their cause is truly represented, rather than postponed or dissolved within vague universalist slogans. Likewise, the other seasonal, family-based parties that raised slogans of federalism or cultural rights have been unable to move from rhetoric to achievement; their demands remain confined to statements, while reality remains unchanged.

In the midst of this vacuum, existential risks are growing, especially with the rise of extremist and racist forces that see Kurds merely as a target for eradication. Yet there appears to be no genuine collective awareness of the magnitude of the threat, as attention remains fixated on minor conflicts and the reproduction of the same faces and discourses.

The problem is no longer limited to leadership; it extends to a state of silent complicity between a society that reproduces the same elites and elites that reproduce the same failure. Instead of raising serious questions about the future, the scene turns into blind support for traditional figures, whose value is measured by their proximity to power rather than their ability to act.

We stand at a decisive moment: either to continue this decline, in which the Kurd becomes merely a margin within others’ equations, gradually dissolving into the surrounding environment—language, identity, and cause—or to engage in a frank confrontation with the self, redefining priorities and breaking this deadly stagnation.

What comes after this failure cannot be a continuation of it, and what follows this fragmentation cannot be further division. This moment demands a harsh clarity: there is no future for a cause without awareness, no awareness without shock, and no shock without the courage to speak the truth as it is—not as we wish it to be.